Where can I invest in a Vauxhall franchise?

At present, there is much to-and-fro –ing over the fate of the once mighty General Motors, and, of course, of the fates of those so closely aligned with it.

Every report on the proposed restructuring of GM involves major stakes being held by the United Auto Workers and the US government. While Ottawa and Queen’s Park are bound to pony up some cash, their influence in the new company will be marginal. That fact may become painfully clear when layoffs and plant closures are on the table.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to discern that a company that is controlled mostly by Washington and an American trade union will not look to north of the border to exact the necessary cuts. After all, we see how good President Obama’s assurances over the application of the “Buy American” clause in their stimulus bill were.

Yes, the demise of GM could potentially lead to the demise of the Canadian industry – or maybe its rebirth?

As we speak, there is a very good chance that Magna may end up taking over GM’s European operations – including the Opel, Vauxhall, and Saab brands.

Maybe I am a bit naïve, but if an American dominated company wants to pull manufacturing out of Canada, and a Canadian company now controls car brands that are, on the whole, more energy efficient, and technologically advanced than their North American cousins, it seems like a no brainer.

If the Yanks close a GM plant in Canada, let the federal and provincial governments do what it takes to help Magna retool the lines, and start manufacturing Opels, Vauxhalls and Saabs for the North American market.

My dad once owned a Vauxhall that he purchased used from the GM dealer in Verona, Ontario. They have sold them here before, and they could do it again.

Besides, nothing warms my heart like seeing a rebirth of a proud Commonwealth brand!

The Commonwealth, Conrad Black, and a canoe...

I must confess that I have neglected this journal for quite some time. What I have noticed about life, or at least my own specifically, is that it does not progress at a steady pace, but, like some rollercoaster from hell, it stops and starts with dramatic rapidity.

Nevertheless, there are some things that I want to share.

First, it looks like a paper I wrote some time ago is being included in an edited work. Dr. Mark Baimbridge, of the University of Bradford, in England, is editing a collection called “Britain in a Global World”. I was asked if a paper I wrote on the prospects for Canada – UK trade could be included. Naturally, I said yes, although it is hard for me to believe that my essay is worthy of this project. I hope it is a success for the sake of Dr. Baimbridge and those involved.

Second, I have had some passing interest in the elections for the European Parliament on June 4th. Because of my writing on Commonwealth trade, I have had occasion to meet with, discuss, and make friends with several British MP’s and MEP’s from the various UK parties. Although, as a Canadian, I really have no opinion on who should win, or whether Britain should define its EU status, it is a matter of some satisfaction that one of the parties has actually put the thesis of my book in their manifesto. Two gentlemen from that party, from whom I have had many communications over the past couple of years, look as though they will be elected to the European Parliament next week. While I hope they succeed, I sincerely hope it is not at the expense of sitting MEP’s from other parties who are equally enthusiastic about the idea, and for whom I have a great deal of admiration.

Lastly, I want to mention the recent news concerning the US Supreme Court’s agreement to hear the appeal of the conviction of Conrad Black. I have read a lot of to and fro concerning this development. Sadly, a lot of it devolves into a commentary on Lord Black’s persona, rather than the facts of the case. That is bad enough, in itself, but even worse when much of the opinion is based on heresay and third- and fourth-hand opinion.

Almost three weeks to the day of the Supreme Court’s decision, I was in Florida. I had taken a side trip to Coleman, and had a very interesting and pleasant visit with Conrad Black for a couple of hours. Lord Black is a keen proponent of the Commonwealth, and has written on the subject, and my association with him came from this shared interest. We have corresponded over the years on primarily this topic, and was glad to have an opportunity to sit down with him and talk about a range of topics.

Despite what the chattering classes say, I have always found him to be a very open and accessible to talk with. Personally, I have seen more arrogant and conceited behaviour on the streets of the town I work in and live near than I have ever seen from Lord Black.

He’s a smart man, well read and with a prodigious handle on the English language. Call it intimidating or impressive, but arrogant? Not on your life. This supposedly ‘elitist’ man, even before the court proceedings at Chicago, didn’t think it beneath himself to associate with the grandson of an eastern Ontario dairy farmer.

As someone who considers himself a friend of Conrad Black, I can only hope that the Supreme Court’s willingness to entertain an appeal brings him one step closer to a vindication.

Anyhow, at present, beyond the usual activities of home and hearth, work, and politics, I am about half-way through the first draft of a manuscript. It is fiction this time, which I am finding both easier and more challenging – if that makes sense. It has political overtones, and is meant to be funny, so we’ll see if it actually accomplishes that feat.

Spring is a time of new beginnings at Cole Lake, and thoughts turn to the warm days of summer – of boating and barbeques, of good friends and long sunsets.

This weekend marks the third anniversary of my grandfather’s passing. His grandfather originally settled our land, and I was honoured to become the 5th generation to carry on. What stands out for me were the times he would take me canoeing around the shores of the lake. When it gets warmer, I think I’ll dig that same canoe out and take my kids on that same trip. It seems like the best memorial I can think of.

Boy, I guess President Obama 'learned' Stephen Harper a thing or two...

During the last federal election, on October 7, 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper did an interview with CBC’s Peter Mansbridge about the unfolding economic crisis. In particular, he asked the PM about the impact that a collapsing stock market was having on Canadians – from retirees living off their RRSP investments, to virtually everyone else whose financial plans for their golden years were put in a tail spin.

Harper said many things about the situation, but what seized the ire and anger of the left was the observation that “there’s probably some great buying opportunities emerging in the stock market as a consequence of all this panic.”

Liberals and New Democrats were apoplectic over what they considered to be such an insensitive and callous remark.

Now, we learn that US President Barack Obama pretty much said the same thing yesterday:

“In comments that gave a temporary lift to battered stock prices, Mr. Obama also said there were "potentially good deals" to be found at the market's current depressed levels.”

Now, gauging how Taliban Jack, among others, will try to square the reality of words first uttered by the evil Mr. Harper now passing the lips of the sainted Mr. Obama, is already being contemplated. Kelly McParland’s blog in the National Post has already covered it better than I could, and I will not go further.

My point is that many Canadians who have an unnatural antipathy of all things Conservative, need to reconcile a lot of logical conflicts.

Case in point. When President Obama came to Ottawa, many on the left were waxing on about the possibility that he could ‘influence’ Harper. Like a messiah performing a laying of hands, our Prime Minister would be transformed and illuminated.

We may never know how much influence Obama had on Harper, but a curious thing happened after Barack returned from Ottawa. His team presented a budget to Congress that included a number of new initiatives.

On the floor of the Congress, underneath the klieg lights, and before millions of American television viewers, he delivered an address that included the following:

“To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security. Comprehensive health care reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare for years to come. And we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans.”

Excuse me? Tax Free Savings Accounts? As in TFSA’s? As in last year’s federal budget? As in the kind of account that my own wife already opened weeks ago and has a small balance? That kind of account?

Looking on the bright side, it appears to be a win-win proposition.

Those who answer in polls that they would rather have Obama as Prime Minister than Stephen Harper can rest easy that Mr. Obama is exerting all of this 'influence', while those of us who like Harper can rest assured that Mr. Obama's 'influence', in many cases, was simply a rehash of the PM's playbook.

3 1/2 Weeks

Today marks the first day in three weeks that I feel somewhat human. An innocent case of the sniffles carried into our home by my precocious daughter manifested itself into a wonderful lung infection for yours truly. After two visits to the doctor, antibiotics, sinus medication, Halls cough drops and the magical elixir called Buckley's (I won't say how many bottles), I am almost to the point which I have associated with the word 'normal' (highly subjective, of course).

The last interesting thing I did was participate in what was known as an 'Agenda Camp'. The public broadcaster in Ontario, TVO, has a current affairs program called "The Agenda With Steve Paikin". A live broadcast took place on January 19th from Queen's University on the subject of Agriculture and the Rural Economy. Leading up to the broadcast, was this event - a day-long session on the 18th - of which I had a chance to participate.

My contribution to the broadcast was a six second soundbite at the beginning of the broadcast, which I enjoyed from my sick bed.

My hope is that viewers really took some insight on the challenges that farmers and the agrifood sector face.

The one point I tried to make during one of the sessions was that, according to Pulitzer Prize winning author Jared Diamond - in his book 'Collapse', the average North American farmer has increased his / her productivity to the point where they produce enough surplus to feed 120 people.

We talk about productivity losses in various sectors of the economy, but we actually have not experienced one with farmers - yet.

My question was what if farmers in Canada and the US can't feed 120 non-farmers a piece? What if their productivity dropped by 5 or 10 per cent?

The modern urban economy and lifestyle only functions because people can buy food rather than have to grow it themselves. Civilizations, in the Western sense, only took off because some people were freed from having to scrounge for nourishment, and could do other things, like build roads, bridges, etc.

If farmers are unable, for any number of reasons, to maintain, or even preserve their ability to feed more than themselves, a lot of doctors, lawyers, mechanics, engineers, and the like will have to grow it themselves.

Where will we be then?

Tell them that Michael Ignatieff says "Bob Rae sleeps with the fishes"

Leadership conventions.

There have been many of them in our nation’s history. Each party has renewed itself through these events which are, in essence, a celebration of grassroots democracy. Many have provided some of the more dramatic moments in our nation’s political history. Party members drawn from every corner of the country, whether it be from downtown Toronto, fishing outposts in Newfoundland, or small towns on the prairies, decend upon a central location to meet and discuss the impending succession. Canadians from all walks of life, bound only by their party ties and commitment to democracy, put prospects to the test, and prepare themselves for yet another generation.

It never used to be this way. Parties, similar to the British model, would simply hole up their MP’s and Senators in a room, and pick one from among them to be their champion.
It was the Liberal Party of Canada that broke from this practice, and invited its rank-and-file members to be part of the process. In 1919, they elected Mackenzie King as their new leader, and, over time, every major political party in every province has adopted the same means of selection.

Some have delegated conventions, with a dozen or so people from each riding. Some have an open popular vote, while some apply some equal weighting to constituencies. The point is that for almost 90 years, the expectation of card-carrying members of Canadian political parties is that they personally, or a dozen of their friends and neighbours, will vote to select a person who could very well be Prime Minister, or Premier.

Now, ironically, the same party that first subjected national leadership to a grassroots vote, has decided that a conference call among some MP’s and Senators will suffice in the ratification of Pierre Trudeau…I mean, Michael Ignatieff, as Leader of the Liberal Party.

Sure, it wasn’t going to be much of a race with only one candidate in the running. Mind you, we had three eager beavers last week, and one of them, Bobby Rae, was talking tough as recently as the weekend. How do you go from criss-crossing the nation, doing the rubber chicken circuit and pressing the flesh, to saying “on second thought, no thanks.”?

Rae, ever the team player, isn’t saying much, but what he has been saying gives me the impression that the problem wasn’t one of desire or motivation.

I get the impression that the people on Iggy’s team are fans of the Godfather movie trilogy, because I see in Bobby Rae someone who was politely told that pushing things any further would result in the political equivalent of waking up with a horse head in your bed, or getting a shot like Moe Green when his rubdown was so rudely interrupted.

So, it appears that there is happiness in the land as the Grit-erati all line up to kiss the ring of Michael ‘Corleone’ Ignatieff, and declare and end to the truce between the three families…Oops, I mean, parties.

There are doubtless many in Liberal Land who are ready to uncork the sparkling cider and celebrate the beginning of their triumphant return to 24 Sussex. While such scenarios are not outside the statistical possibility, let’s be a bit more pragmatic.

First, your party is flat broke. Pledge drives for PBS stations bring in more cash, and what you do get is largely due to the stipends you receive from Elections Canada.

Second, you screwed up big time with the amateur hour putsch, and the PR damage will take more than a couple of months to repair.

Third, you burned your grassroots by making the leadership convention a moot point. You made your peace with Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc, but I can’t imagine their supporters don’t feel like they just got screwed over.

Fourth, you have vacated the high ground, because you can’t wax philosophical about democracy when you rear-end your own rank-and-file to obtain power.

Fifth, you are twenty points back, and will probably have to contend with all of the above – less money, fewer foot soldiers, and diminished status – while at the same time answering why your leader, in his writings, identified himself as ‘American’, not Canadian. Of course, don’t get me started on his published views of Ukrainians (read ‘Blood and Belonging’) and how that will bump up the Grit vote in the West.

A new name on the doorplate, or a new logo, or an new PR stunt will not save the Liberal Party. An commitment to old ideas like democracy and accountability might, in the long run.

Ah, the most wonderful time of the year!

This past Sunday afternoon, as I was shopping with my son at the Cataraqui Town Centre in Kingston, some enterprising individual, or group of individuals, decided to do a little window shopping of their own.

I am not going to rant about my feelings regarding this. I think that anyone reading this would be able to figure out what my emotional state would be. I will not even dignify with an answer the person who commented on the Kingston Whig-Standard website on my posting with something akin to me “asking for it.” My feelings toward them, too, can be easily divined.

Compared to other vile acts on people, my experience pales in comparison. Neither my son, or I, were injured (except the trauma on our Christmas spirit). In the scheme of things, when so many families lose loved ones, their homes and their livelihoods, this is admittedly pretty petty in comparison.

Nevertheless, I do want to say some things.

First, I want to thank the couple who immediately reported the vandalism and theft to the Cat Centre Security Office. Too many people watch these things happen and resolve to do nothing. They set an example that others in our society would do well to emulate.

Second, I want to thank Kyle, the Security Officer, who dealt with the situation. Although I am not certain what his duties are, I am sure he went up and beyond them. He scrounged up plastic and tape to podge the hole shut, he calmed my son, who just experienced his first taste of crime one week before his 8th birthday, and he calmed me as well. He took down the information, was eager to handle any request, and stood out as a good ambassador for the mall.

If I ever set foot in that place again, it will be for people like Kyle who work there.

Now, I said I would not address the individuals responsible for this, but that’s not entirely true. In fact, I wish to offer them some hospitality.

Make your way out to the country. Stop in, and help yourself to more things that I worked hard to afford – be my guest.

Before you get too eager, however, I want to introduce you to a member of my family:

He is over 130 pounds, and is a breed of dog called a Great Pyrenees. You may not be familiar with them, so let me provide some detail from the American Kennel Club:

http://clubs.akc.org/gpca/gpcabreed.html

“The Great Pyrenees is a territorial guard by nature, which means that he works to keep his territory free from predatory danger. Because of this, there may be times when the shepherd does not see the dog for long periods of time. He knows that the job is being done because the losses decrease. If the dog is working effectively, the stockman may never see a predator, and the flock will never be disturbed.

“A good working dog has been selected for hostility toward all possible predators. This is why Great Pyrenees, although bred to work on bears and wolves, are equally effective on wild and feral dogs which are an increasing problem to stockman.

By nature, the Great Pyrenees is nocturnal. It has no tolerance for other dogs except the herding dogs that it works with, and very small dogs. It can be trusted with small, young and helpless animals of any kind, but it has to be watched as a young pup with some supervision as it usually takes a pup 18 months to become a livestock guardian dog. It is one of the most interesting qualities of a Great Pyrenees-the absolute intolerance of all predators, coupled with extraordinary patience and kindness to stock. "


So, here’s my generous offer.

You can keep whatever you grab, so long as you can get away from him in time.

Remember – one of his breed can single-handedly kill a mountain lion, and two can kill a bear. Also bear in mind he has a very, very long chain (which he has snapped on occasion), and likes to spend more time outside than in the house.

If you can hang on to whatever you steal before he pounces on you and mistakes you for a wolf or a coyote, I’ll gladly accept the loss with humility and a tip of the hat to you for your survival skills.

Oh yeah, and Merry Christmas to you. Enjoy my camera.

Come to the Liberal BBQ, and bring plenty of gasoline!

Former British Prime Minister Ted Heath coined the observation that “a week is a lifetime in politics.” Nothing that has occurred in Ottawa this past week served to refute this bold statement.

At the beginning of last week, it was the call that “the Conservative government is dead. Long live the coalition.” Today, that sort of statement is supported by those who were out of the country for the last seven days, and those who - well, we won’t go there.

Stephane Dion’s YouTube moment, which easily would have gotten any Grade 9 student an ‘F’ in computer class, only served to reinforce the view that the gap between his ambition and ability is greater than the chasm between Liberals and Tories.

This weekend, of course, we had the display of support for both sides.

The pro-coalition forces turned out about 3000 people to Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto, while at least 3500 came to Ottawa to oppose the deal. In other words, public support is overwhelmingly anti-coalition.

Think of it, you have people like Mary Walsh, of 22 Minutes fame, rock bands like Broken Social Scene – who appeal heavily to a particular demographic – and all organized with money and material from the Canadian Labour Congress, as well as Liberal and NDP riding associations. What’s more, you hold it in the middle of Canada’s largest city, where coalition partnered parties hold virtually every riding. They get 3000 brave souls.

The anti-coalition people, devoid of the backing of CanCon celebs, trade union coffers, and enjoying the support of only one party – not three – hold an event in an urban area less than a fifth the size of the GTA, and they turn out 500 more people.

So, now that the cracks in the Thousand-Year Coalition are starting to form and widen, what comes next, you may ask? Actually, plenty more, and far more interesting than what we’ve seen so far.

Now, we hear that Dion’s retirement is being fast-tracked. The “Natural Governing Party” seems so eager on this point, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Ignatieff and Rae backers heading over to Stornoway and throwing Stephane’s suits out onto the snow-covered front lawn, just like the wronged spouse in some bad Hollywood romatic comedy.

Unfortunately, haste makes waste. Get rid of Dion today, and you better have someone in place ASAP.

Grit flunkies think that Iggy should get the job, and they argue that the caucus and the party’s inner sanctum can rubber stamp that move. Apparently Dominic LeBlanc has already fallen on his sword for the erstwhile MP for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, which is just as well. His bid for the Liberal leadership had the lief expectancy of one of those no-named red shirted crew members on the original ‘Star Trek’ series – the ones that got vapourized before the first commercial break.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Party had already set in motion a leadership convention, slated it for May in Vancouver, and got people like Bobby Rae all excited about the prospect of becoming the Defender of Confederation.

Saving money on renting a convention centre, subsidizing delegates, and using up all that political donation tax room for a love-in when it would be better used for an election battle is, under the circumstances, pretty smart – except for the fact that hundreds of Liberal party members signed on for a convention, not a coronation.

Thus, Iggy has his own version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Accept the crown, and you can no longer be the defender of democracy. The champion of the 28%+17%+10%+6% coalition will have become leader on the support of less than 1% of the party membership.

Beyond that, I am not sure that the people who signed on to back that Champion of Democracy, Bobby Rae, are going to want to join hands and sing kum-by-yah any time soon – including before the next election.

Burning Liberal voters is bad enough. It makes the difference between winning, or losing, a competitive election. Burning Liberal party members is fatal. They are the folks that man your phone banks, put up signs, and give you money. Tick them off and you are “Dead Man Campaigning.”

Dion made several egregious mistakes, and the consequences will play out for quite some time. That is done, and cannot be undone. What comes next, however, could be a good dose of kerosene on an already large campfire.

Luckily for Tories like me, we are close enough to get warm, but not enough to get sent to the emergency room…

Canada's biggest set of 'huevos' belong to Bobby Rae

On Thursday night, people watching Mike Duffy’s programme on CTV NewsNet were treated to a great deal of righteous indignation from one Bob Rae.

At the best of times, I have a great deal of difficulty choking back the bile that builds at the back of my throat when this man speaks, but this man really does have quite the set of huevos to presume some moral high ground on the current situation.

When Duffy asked him whether or not he would back the government if elements of the Coalition’s manifesto were reflected in the budget, he displayed his typical open-mindedness and said no. Duffy gave the example of cutting the two week waiting period for those needing to claim Employment Insurance. Of course, Mike made the innocent mistake of saying that many would view this as a ‘gift’.

Rae, clearly in a feisty mood, switches his anger from the Prime Minister to Duffy, hectoring him on the insensitivity of labelling such a thing as a gift. Did Duffy not understand that these are real people who are suffering?

Nice display, Bob, but I entered the work force about the same time you became Premier of Ontario. I know what kind of highly indebted soup-kitchen economy you created, and I know how many once-thriving businesses ended up going underwater. Indeed, my father-in-law’s business was a victim of your useless half-backed schemes, and I am sure that you would not want to be going door-to-door canvassing on his street – especially during Christmas dinner when he is wielding the carving knife.

I lost 3 to 4 years of my working career, but I was the rule, not the exception – which is sad to say.

Personally, Mr. Rae, I think your grubby little paws are all over this Coalition scheme, and that Monsieur Dion was gullible enough to front it for you.

Consider the evidence.

The last time a federal Conservative government was brought down in this manner was the Clark government in 1980. Does anyone remember the name of the NDP Member of Parliament that moved the Non-Confidence motion? Yep, Bob Rae.

And what did we get? A return of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the dreaded NEP, and deficit spending that was so profligate that it took all of the Mulroney, Campbell, and Chretien governments time in office to get it under control.

Then, in 1985, Ontario Premier Frank Miller, just after having won a minority government, gets taken out by Liberal leader David Peterson, under an agreement signed with Ontario NDP Leader….wait for it….Bob Rae.

And what did we get from that arrangement? The incompetence of the Peterson government was followed by the even more pathetic Rae administration that, in one budget, increased Ontario’s debt load by more than all previous governments since 1867 combined – a government that gave young people the kind of Depression-era economy that at least they had something to talk to their grandparents about.

Such a dire situation required medicine so bitter, that today, it is not Bob Rae who gets vilified by many memory-deficient Ontarians, but his predecessor, Mike Harris – the guy who swept up all the beer bottles and declared ‘last call’ after Rae’s gang trashed the joint.

So, now – today – it seems that Bob Rae is trying for a Hat Trick, but in what, is the real question.

Is it a Hat Trick in brining down Conservative governments? Maybe, and if that is the case, then he suffers from some pathological neurosis that I am not familiar with. I suppose that he may just simply move to a province with a Tory government, establish himself long enough to get elected to their legislature, then try to bring the Premier down. Twice in Ottawa, and once in Ontario – maybe Ed Stelmach should be wary.

Then again, maybe he wants to destroy the free market capitalist system. Well, he opened the door for Trudeau to ramp up the debt between 1980 and 1984, and he put it on life support in Ontario between 1990 and 1994 – who knows?

Maybe he’s a New Democrat in Liberal clothing. I know he quit his old party, but he seems pretty wedded to this pact with Jack Layton, so maybe Liberals should be looking a little more closely.

In any event, Bob Rae is the last human being in Canada that can claim the moral high ground, whether it be democracy, or the economy.

Taking lessons on either one from him would be akin to taking sobriety lessons from a raging alcoholic.

Sounds harsh, but you see, I’m not the gentleman that Mike Duffy is.

I see your Johnson, and raise you a Dickens...

The 3 Stooges, and their surrogates, throw out the oft-used quotation by the learned Samuel Johnson, that "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels."

They argue that due to 26% plus 18% plus 10% plus 6% of Canadians who scattered their vote among the 4 platforms, the law allows them the right to conveniently gloss over the internal distinctions, and rule as a unified front.

Indeed, it does, and not withstanding the prorogation, they may still legally get their chance at the end of January.

To this end, might I offer another quote - this from the character Mr. Bumble from Charles Dickens' "Oliver Twist" :

"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass- a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience- by experience."

We can only hope so much...

And the winner is...

Robert Fife of CTV News!

"Huh?", you ask?

Well, like many Canadians, the boob tube in Cole Lake was turned on to see the sales pitches from the various leaders over the current crisis.

Even if I am biased, Harper looked professional and poised. He even indicated that he was open to input from the opposition parties. I see Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail characterized it as mean-spirited. I guess unless Harper is willing to lay down on the centre line of Rideau Street and let all manner of traffic run over him, he's not showing enough contrition for them.

Anyhoo, great move by Dion - air a grainy YouTube styled video that looks like it was produced by a Grade 9 student in their parents basement (my apologies, they would have had better production values) and have it sent to the networks at least 10-15 minutes late - lots of time for the various anchors and reporters to ad-lib until somebody finally mentions that this doesn't look very good on Dion.

They all said that, and it was painfully obvious to anyone exposed to it.

The award goes to Robert Fife because he was the first journalist to point out the thing that made my wife and I laugh...The spine of a book on the shelf to the upper left of Dion's head that read in bold letters "HOT AIR".

I wondered who would mention it, and indicate that it wasn't very smart to have that sitting within the gaze of the cameras.

Hat's off to you Bob. You said it loud, and you said it first!

A Moment of Truth for some...

I am not a particularly religious man, but I am often struck by the simple philosophy that many religions offer. In particular, the events in Ottawa over the last couple of days reminded me of an oft-cited verse that asks “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

Democracy is a messy business, and the design of our institutions does allow for the kind of arrangement that the Liberal and New Democratic Parties, in conjunction, have conceived. That is not the question that Canadians must ask themselves, unless they wish to adopt another form of government that prohibits this possibility.Whether or not such an arrangement should take place is the real question that Canadians must grapple with.

The idea to alter the public funding arrangement for political parties may, admittedly, have been hamfisted and lacking in a cooperative spirit, but the sheer opportunitstic and cravenly self-aggrandizing response by Messrs. Dion, Layton, and Duceppe appear to be both conveniently rapid and massively over-reactive.

The coalition partners, to be sure, cannot sell a government led by Monsieur Dion, and backstopped by separatists solely on the grounds that their parties cannot survive on the voluntary political contributions of Canadians, and that they need government money to exist. Unfortunately, that appears to be the excuse, even if the ‘cri de coeur’ is economic salvation.

The fall of a Conservative government is a transitory event. Governments rise and fall numerous times in a democracy, and at some point in the future, those who sit in opposition eventually get their chance to demonstrate leadership. As disappointing as it may be for many, it will pass, and they will take stock. What may not be so temporary, or fleeting, is the damage done to those parties that have assented to this scheme.

Those who count themselves as Liberals, either as card-carrying members, or as voting supporters, must now ask themselves just what that means. What distinguishes a Liberal from a New Democrat when that party will possess Cabinet Ministers within a Dion government, and have the right, by signed agreement, to determine policies that you voted against just two months ago? What does national unity mean to you, as a Liberal, when your party has struck a faustian bargain with those who seek to vivisect the country? What is the definition of leadership in the Liberal Party when a man who has lost the confidence of the Canadian people a mere two months ago, and the confidence of his own colleagues even more recently, can still become Prime Minister?

People join parties for a myriad of reasons – for personal profit, or personal beliefs. Depending upon what rationale led some of you to become Liberals, you may not be bothered in the least. On the other hand, you may wonder whether or not the Liberal Party you see today is the one you have supported in good faith in the past.

Although I continue to be a Conservative partisan myself, it would be a lie for me to deny that I have considered what the limits to my loyalty are. Long ago, I decided the conditions under which I would willingly tear up my membership card, and declare to my colleagues that being a party member was no longer compatible with my core beliefs or my conscience.

Whether or not Liberal supporters agree, I would argue that such is the moment of truth for them. Each supporter of that party needs to ask themselves whether or not this is the kind of leadership that they can accept in good conscience. They need to ask themselves whether or not the accommodations to the NDP and to the Bloc Quebecois are a reasonable compromise under the circumstances, or do they reflect a base desire to hold power whatever the moral cost.

The bottom line is that if the Liberal Party of Canada represents nothing more than a cadre of political insiders keen on wresting power for its own sake, is that a party you can be proud of? Is that a party that you can vote for, campaign for, and – more importantly – defend over the course of the coming months?

If not, there is no disloyalty in walking away from a party that abandoned you first.

Lord help us all...

Roughly six weeks ago, Canadians were asked to choose a direction for Canada, and they did so.

It was, admittedly, a vague response, but if the numbers were any guide, they said that they wished for Stephen Harper to continue to lead a government, but one that stressed cooperation with other parties.

Okay, and even though I am a partisan, I will readily admit that the vote subsidy plan, as well as the moratorium on the ability of public sector unions to strike was not good sandbox etiquette. Consequently, I agree that the decision to rescind those decisions was the right one.

Nevertheless, those suggestions were floated this week, while the scheme to deep-six the Harper government, if Jack Layton is to be believed, has a much longer pedigree. Clearly, it was the excuse de jour they were looking for.

So, what will we get?

Apparently, we will have the Liberals dominating a government after receiving their lowest share of the popular vote since 1867. We will also have a Prime Minister who has already tendered his resignation as party leader, and has no less than three people attempting to replace him before the snow melts.

We are told that 4 wise men will lead us through the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, but as none of them will come from the House or the Senate, they will be obstensibly outside the control of Parliament.

All of this is apparently being backstopped by a party whose sole purpose is the geographical and political vivisection of Canada.

The fiction that feeds this plot is that more people voted against the Conservatives than for them.

This is true, but that vote was split among different parties and platforms. The Liberal platform was not the NDP platform, was not the BQ platform, was not the Green platform.

Exactly what will be the platform that this cabal runs on? Will it be the Green Shift, or the NDP scheme, or do we just break up the country? What view prevails?

It is clear that the only economic security that the Opposition is looking for is the rise in pay that befits a member of the Cabinet.

Canadians want a leaders, not simply those who value their Liberal and NDP membership cards above their own citizenship.

Another day to remember

Modern life is so fixated on historical and cultural milestones. Where were you when Kennedy was shot? Where were you when Elvis died? What were you doing on 9-11?

Today, we are on the verge of another such day, but with a notable exception. Unlike the other aforementioned events, which took us all by surprise, the import of this day has already been grasped - even if it has not been fully understood.

By the end of the day, and possibly into the wee hours, America shall have its first black President, or its first female Vice-President. Rarely is an election cast in such a way as to represent a breakthrough regardless of the winner.

Partisans in the US will argue the suitability of either party and their team, but for a nation that has been forever coming to terms with the question of race, and for a broader Western society that is still attempting to balance itself fairly on the question of gender, Barack Obama and Sarah Palin are in the right place at the right time.

America needs Obama in that it needs to have a visceral fulfilment of the promises made during the Civil Rights movement of the late 1950's and throughout the 1960's. There are many - including myself - that are uncomfortable with the almost 'messianic' characterizations of Sen. Obama. Nevertheless, it is the role he seems destined to play, if only to vindicate Rev. King's own status as a secular 'John the Baptist.'

Sarah Palin, whether or not you agree with her, represents a way forward for women. Not only does she come from a part of the political spectrum that has been seen as lagging on this front, but she represents a brand of 'feminism' that challenges the old orthodoxy. She is a threat to the notion that women are only empowered if their independent choices fit a proscribed narrative.

Regardless of the result, however, one ticket will win and the other will lose. Over the next four years, as the US faces major challenges at home and abroad, the winners will be criticized as poor stewards of power, either lacking a plan to move forward, or the resolve to see it through. The team that loses tonight will also write the narrative that casts the decision in a negative light, that the result was one-part tokenism based on race or gender, and one-part hatred based, again, either on race or gender.

That is why this is a day to remember, because this may very well be as good as it gets.

The Stephen Harper "Hidden Agenda" Challenge

Now that the dust has settled, we are left to contemplate the results of this recent federal election – the third in four years. Surely there will be a great deal of discussion on the fates of the respective leaders, as well as the wisdom of the strategies they employed for various effects. Some will speculate on the future direction of the government, and, by extension, the relative congeniality among the assorted parties during this mandate.

These are not questions I would dwell upon as they will be answered for us in the fullness of time – whether it be a year, or two or three.

As a partisan, I am more concerned about what, despite being a theme of the last three elections, remains stubbornly unanswered. That is, the ‘secret agenda’ of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.

This ‘secret agenda’ is so secret that neither I, as a Tory constituency board member, nor any of my colleagues have ever been privy to it. Surprisingly, though, it is public enough that every Liberal and NDP candidate knows it intimately.

In frustration, I have attempted to ask these people for details of this sinister subtext, but am left with a string of anecdotes and observations united not by any coherent narrative, but simply by the sympathies of those who broadcast them.

As a rhetorical tactic, the allegation of a ‘secret’ or ‘hidden’ agenda is absolutely superb. Denying you have one is even more deadly that fessing up to it. Of course you would deny a ‘hidden agenda’ – after all, it’s hidden, silly. Denials are as much an admission of guilt as a confession.

In the Middle Ages, enterprising prosecutors had an ingenious device for identifying witches known as the dunking chair. You simply strapped the accused sorceror to the chair and submerged them in a pond for a period of time. If they survived, they were guilty, because how could you stay alive under water for so long without the benefit of the Dark Arts? On the other hand, if they hoisted your lifeless body from the depths, your next of kin could rest assured in the knowledge that you were innocent of the charge and your soul could pass through St. Peter’s pearly gates.

No one can accurately predict the future. I know not when the next election will be, or who will be leading the fight for what party. I don’t even know what defining issue will grab the imagination of the Canadian public. I am, however, pretty confident that the Conservative ‘hidden agenda’ will once again be resurrected to the light of day.

That is why I, for my own piece of mind, as much as for anyone else, would like to seek closure on this vexing issue. Just as rewards are offered for undisputable proof of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster, I wish to offer $100 of my own money to the individual who offers clear and unassailable proof of the Tory ‘hidden agenda.’

My terms are simple. The evidence must be substantive, and well documented, and reach the same burden of proof that one would find in a court of law. Anyone wishing to make quick money by simply copying Liberal and New Democratic blogs and passing innuendo and suggestion for fact need not apply. Dates, times, references to individuals and actions must be both documented and support the broader narrative of a conspiracy for me to open my wallet.

So here it is, Canada. The challenge has been set, and the prize is there to be won.

If a winner is found, I will award the money in however public a fashion the recipient chooses.

If the challenge has not been met before the next election, however, I trust that the Tory ‘hidden agenda’ be filed with the Protocols of Zion and every other scurrilous conspiracy that serves only to slander without proof.

The new and improved Cold War

In the West, we are fond of saying "the best defence is an offence". In China, 2000 years ago, Sun Tzu talked of looking strong when you are weak. In the capital of North Korea, Pyongyang, you see immaculate boulevards and street scapes only miles away from starvation and human rights violations without equal. Indeed, every civilization has its own peculiar way of masking their Achilles Heel.


The Russians, of course, are no different. They were the ones who invented the "Potemkin Village". This refers back to the actions of Field Marshall Potemkin to show Catherine the Great that Russia's modernization was on track. Along her route of travel, he had fake towns and villages (simply the 18th century equivalent of Hollywood backlots) constructed, complete with shiny happy peasants portraying more prosperous people. She appeared to be placated and the ruse was complete.

The Russians have always been skilled at showing strength at a time of weakness, and one could argue that all of the 'sturm und drang' belching out of the Kremlin is just that. Despite their bombast, Russia's leaders know they need to make friends, and get some support - somewhere.

This week, Russian President Dimitri Medvedev meets with Chinese Premier Hu Jintao to seek approval over their actions in Georgia. The Chinese have been clever enough to avoid taking sides, and instead, have issued statements urging all parties to seek a peaceful resolution.


As stated above, there are compelling reasons for Russia to want Chinese support. Unfortunately, there are equally compelling reasons for Beijing not to give it.

Beijing knows that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are international templates for Tibet and the heavily Muslim and Turkmen-dominated province of Uighur. They know that the divisibility argument can come back to haunt them big time. Despite China's growth, they are vulnerable - both politically and economically. Indeed, one main reason for the Communist Party not giving up power easily is a fear of replicating what happened with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

If Russia is an example for China, it is one in what not to do.

The other issue, and more likely the real reason, is Siberia.

China, despite its declining birth rate, still has over 1 billion people, and they have appetites for the modern trappings of life that are approximating our own. Russia, in contrast, does not have either a dynamic economy or a dynamic population. Russia's population is in clear decline, and is shrinking. Moreover, when one takes out the oil and gas sector, their economy is no more advanced than in Soviet times.

We must remember that in the 1950's and 1960's, the Russia - China border was not a safe place. Indeed Stalin and Mao -Communist comrades - did take their countries to war over it.
Today, border Russians are learning Mandarin, and Chinese entrepreneurs are opening businesses and doing trade on the Russian side.

Hu Jintao is a clever enough leader not to box himself into a corner over the 'divisibility' of states as much over the future status of this part of Russia that is becoming increasingly like China.

The Chinese think in much longer strategic terms than any of us, and it would not surprise me if the future of that region was not discussed in some form in a PRC government brief.

Then again, so does the Kremlin. Maybe that is the real reason for Russia's courting of China's support.

What's your game?

When the former Soviet Union collapsed, and Russia began making moves to becoming a free-market economy, much of the world let out a sigh of relief. Alas, as the current situation in Georgia illustrates, history did not end with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

As I have been following the news reports on the crisis, one question creeped into my mind – do you play Chess or Poker?

I have attempted to teach my 7 year-old the rudiments of both games. I play both, and not very well, I might add. On occasion, he has beaten me, which really comes as no surprise.

My reason for doing this is not to turn him into Garry Kasparov, or supplement our family income with some online gambling winnings. These games, I contend, teach lessons that extend beyond the play itself. Both are admittedly games of skill and strategy, where the victor is often the one who can outsmart and outmanoever their opponent.

In Chess, players match each other, move for move, until one finds a weakness to exploit, and eventually ‘checkmate’ is declared. In Poker, however, the deal of the cards determines your strategy, as well as the undisclosed deal of your opponents. Unlike chess, the weakness is found not in the position of pieces on a board, but in the look of confidence, or lack thereof, in your opponents eyes.

So what does this have to do with the ongoing crisis in Georgia? Plenty, I would argue.

The Russians are, admittedly, the best chess players in the world. The game is widely popularized there, and most of its world champions from that country. On the other hand, Americans have done similarly with poker. You are as likely to find a group of Americans playing a game of poker as you will a group of Muscovites playing chess in a park. Poker sites inundate the Internet, while poker tournaments are now covered on US television as sport.

If you really take the time to look deeply into international relations, you can see that Russians play geopolitics like a game of Chess, and Americans approach it like a high stakes game of Texas Hold ‘Em. Their current, respective actions in Georgia seem to bear this out.

Russia, sensing a weakness in the opponent’s strategy, moved a pawn into a neighbouring square – in the guise of ‘peacekeepers’. The calculation, of course, is that with pieces tied up on the squares near Afghanistan and Iraq, their opponent cannot move a piece to block, lest they leave their King exposed.

Today, George Bush has announced that he was directing US forces to provide a ‘vigorous and sustained humanitarian effort’ to Georgia – one that involved air and naval forces. This is the equivalent of moving a stack of $100 chips into the centre of the table and declaring “I’ll see your ‘peacekeepers,’ and I’ll raise ya some ‘relief workers’…”

Each side is now playing a game according to rules that suit their demeanour and sensibilities. They are, in effect, playing to both their strengths, and the other's weaknesses.

This means that the future of Georgia, and possibly the broader international community, will hinge on whether the US is better at poker than the Russians are at chess.

Maybe we'd all be better off betting on the ponies...

A simple question...

Yesterday, the strangely named Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, took a drubbing. Although they somewhat recovered, they still appear anemic.

Freddie Mac, for example, at one point was trading at US$4.90 - a drop of over two dollars from the previous close.

President Bush categorically stated that neither firm would be nationalized, and that they would remain shareholder companies.

Okay, that's fine, but if a stock is considered risky, and it's decline in a 3 hour period is equal to half it's trading price, how likely is it that it could get beaten down to zero?

More importantly, when the value of debt on the books of these two companies exceeds the entire combined GDP's of Canada, Britain, and Australia, and if their shares are zero, AND the US Government has no intention of taking them over, what happens next?

Sh*t, I'm tempted to waste $100 on Freddie and Fannie stock just to avoid the answer...

A Rural Requiem

The rural way of life has always been defined as one of struggle and of sacrifice. Often lacking in the trappings of a cosmopolitan existence, and being at the mercy of the capricious nature of the elements, rural folk have assumed a requisite level of adversity in their quest for survival.

Through it all, through equal measures of ingenuity and industry, successive generations were able to meet, and exceed, the challenges often fatal to their forebearers.

As they became more prosperous, and their survival less tenuous, they could devote more of their energies and intellect to collective pursuits – the building of communities and societies. Indeed, the birth of the United States - and modern concepts of liberty and democracy - owes a great debt to ‘gentlemen farmers’ such as Washington and Jefferson who saw no inconsistency between toil in the fields, and grounding in the liberal arts – Greek, Latin, and Philosophy. Even the very nature of the Common Law that regulates our lives, in the creation of the Magna Charta and the principles of habeas corpus, emanated from the power struggles between the Crown and those who owned the land.

It was at this time when the urban age saw its genesis. The great metropolises of our day were the modest civic outposts of the previous era, just as vulnerable to the vagaries of nature and fate – perhaps more so.

All that urban society needed for its very survival lay beyond its grasp – food to nourish, raw materials to fashion into the products of a new age, and the money to construct the roads, public utilities and other assets that form the very sinew and muscle of the city state.

Rural society produced the food that fed the body, mined and harvested the raw resources that fed the factories, and, being the majority, produced the capital, taxation, and political leadership that fed the civic soul.

It was an equitable exchange, for, in return, rural people were able to obtain the modern implements of the new industrial age to improve their harvests, the education to improve their prospects, and the expanded markets to improve their condition of life.

Therein formed an unwritten social compact – strong cities benefitted the countryside, and that prosperous rural communities were vital to the sustenance of a growing urban populace.

Even in the first half of the twentieth century, when political and economic power shifted to the cities, the compact was honoured and preserved. Many urbanites were either from rural communities, or were the sons and daughters of rural folk. It was through them that the legacy of rural life was kept alive – through stories passed down, or the frequent pilgrimages to visit rural cousins who elected to stay.

These stories and shared experiences of a rural heritage were treasured, for these people did not necessarily forsake their rural homes out of spite or disdain, but in the quest of opportunity and more lucrative prospects.

In the past generation or so, however, something has changed. As time moved on, so, too have the urbanites whose connection to the land and rural life was strongest. Each new successive generation has moved one step further from the land that sustained their ancestors and their communities.

For them, rural Canada is but a part of history, a backdrop to past recollections. If it has any modern relevance, it is only as the scenic interlude that divides cities – gaps of wilderness that separate the outposts of what they deem as ‘civilization.’

It has been an enduring fact of this human condition that hostility and prejudice are borne of ignorance – of peoples and their condition. When indulged, it transforms into an ungrounded anger, leading to an indifference that denigrates and dehumanizes.

The first casualty has been the compact between urban and rural peoples. The partnership that built and sustained one of the world’s truly great nations has been neglected by most, and repudiated by some. The idea that strengthening one another was an achievable end, and a worthy goal, has been replaced by the notion of a ‘zero-sum game’, whereby the project of creating an ‘urban renaissance’ is wholly incompatible with strong, vibrant, and sustainable rural communities. Cooperation and mutual respect have been supplanted by policies that, while never articulating the words, have taken a stance for rural communities to ‘conform or die.’

One should only look to authorities who impose harsh rules on small communities and their economic progress in order to ameliorate conditions caused by neighbouring metropolises who have failed in their ability to regulate their own growth and sprawl in a responsible manner.

More incidious has been what this attitude has metastasized into. It has evolved into an arrogance that places a moral superiority of urban ‘modernism’ over a rural culture perceived as backward and degenerate.

To vocally defend the old compact, and assert one’s inalienable rights and interests as rural citizens is to be mocked and ridiculed as a ‘hick’ or a ‘redneck.’ These tactics are purposeful in the sense that the debate shifts away from the legitimate grievances of the rural people, and rests on whether those people possess the mental acuity to understand either the world, or their true welfare. Without having a single grievance answered, the rural citizen must defend either their intellectual capacities, or the charge that they are not simply embracing the dying relics of a bygone era.

They also belie an attitude that is anathema to the rural ethos. ‘Redneck’ is used as a slur, and yet it pertains to the reddened neck of farm workers, and other labourers, whose skinned was tanned as they performed their toil. While a badge of hard, honest work is held as a badge of ridicule, those who work in towers moving papers, money, and other contracts from one place to another are hailed as modern heroes of industry. While the common man and woman do their duty in anonimity, we celebrate the exploits of those who sing, but cannot write the song, those who pretend to be someone else based on the stories of wordsmiths, and those who receive fame for no other reason that they are willing to be the court jester for the masses.

The distances of time and priorities of thought permeate mass culture, economics, and every human pursuit, and make us alien to one another.

Today, the policies of government and industry that so affect rural life – agriculture, and natural resources – are devised by men and women who, in theory, may never have set foot in a rural community, much less lived there. Their ideas are approved for adoption by politicians who, for the most part, may not have a single rural citizen as a constituent. Many times, these policies are presented by a Minister of Agriculture whose riding lacks farms, or a Minister of Natural Resources whose very own home community possesses none of the attributes that fall within their remit.

The final stroke of indignation, however, rests within the attitudes of those who come to rural communities in the name of openness and fraternity, while seeking to alter and reconstitute the very nature of those towns, villages, and burghs. Rather than educating themselves about the enduring truths and legacies of these special places, they see something that is in need of fixing, or correcting to a standard they have imported from the city – that of an urban community with fewer people.

Like the zealous missionaries of centuries past, who destroyed local customs and wisdom in order to ‘save the heathens,’ many urbanites come to urban communities and, with equal passion, use the power of government and other modes of influence brokering much as Jesuit priests used the Cross and the Holy Book.

In the name of the environment, the economy, and of cultural standards that are continually revised and refined, rural people are told that they are somehow deficient of standards and a morality that befits today’s world. The economic and cultural practices of generations are an abomination to modernity and civilized comportment.

The neglect of rural issues, the breaking of the compact, the indignity that comes from the debasing of one’s intellect, culture, and traditions – all of these have contributed to a quiet discontent that has become less quiet of late.

We are the people of the countryside. We mine and drill for the materials that feed your factories. We grow the food that nourishes your bodies. From rough wilderness, we laid the foundations for your governments, your laws, and your towers of glass and steel.

If you choose to come here to lecture us on the preservation our natural heritage, it is simply because you have squandered your own. While our communities are as old as yours, we may yet still breathe the fresh air, and drink the fresh water from where we live. We are not a land of brownfields, polluted streams, and chemical poisons. Save your own soul before you attempt to save ours.

If you come to correct perceived defects in our philosophy of life, it is because you are woefully ill-informed of its merits and its purpose. If you bemoan what rural communities receive by their own right, it is because you are ignorant of a past where you were dependent and vulnerable upon us, a present where waste and malappropriation exist in your own home, and a future where ‘civilization’ can give you everything but the very thing you need to live.

The trust that assured our mutual survival has been broken. Our compact has been betrayed. Sadly, while your progress has imbued you with a sense of invincibility and inevitability, deep in your heart, you must confess that we are an inseparable part of your past, and without us, there will be no future.

The time has come for us to reconcile our relationship, to come to terms with what divides us, and not simply to assimilate us into a mere image of oneself. It is time to place a true and equitable value to what has, and continues to be contributed. It is time to end the intolerance and indifference in the plight of the countryside, and her people.

The failure to meet this challenge – to assure a place for rural people, their communities, and their way of life in the context of a broader society, and under terms that are respectful and tolerant of our uniqueness – will mark no less than the eventual decline of all we have assumed for our future, its hope, promise and prosperity.

Thoughts on the "Green Shift"

So, Stephane Dion has released what he hopes will be, to borrow a computing term, the 'killer app' that delivers the Liberals back to power in Ottawa.

There are, of course, three approaches I could take:

1. To say "Hey, way to go with the copyright infringement!";
2. Say "What global warming? It's all sunspots, or farting cows"; or,
3. Argue some major concerns about the plan

Since there is a tendency to dumb down rhetoric as it is, I really think I should attempt to follow #3 as closely as my pea-sized brain allows.

The main thrust of the plan seems to be to tax people for the production of CO2, and then offset the tax with cuts to income tax. Sounds reasonable. You punish bad behaviour (pollution) and reward good behaviour (hard work) with one stroke of the pen. Heck, on that level, there's something attractive about it to an old Tory soul like me.

Unfortunately, as Newton discovered in Physics, in politics and economics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

The questions are these - Who pollutes? Who pays? What are the unintended consequences? Last, but certainly not least, will it make a difference?

First, who pollutes? Well, cities do. They have all of the factories, manufacturing plants, and over 80 percent of Canada's population. Sure, we rural people 'pollute' as we grow the food that other eat, but according to author Jared Diamond in his book "Collapse", the typical US farmer grows enough to feed 125 people (I am sure the Canadian number is similar). If people are going to divide the 'carbon footprint' of a charter flight that takes rich boomers to deep glaze their torsos in the Dominican Republic among the passengers, I am sure that we can divvy up the carbon that the 'dirty' farmer produces among all those who fill their faces without ever having to drive a tractor or pull a weed.

Unfortunately, while the urban dweller can hop on a bus or subway, the farmer cannot. While the urban dweller's employer - depending on the industry - may have the option of reducing their use of fossil fuel, the farmer does not (although if sweat and tears had some octane content, those who feed us would have enough fuel to be self-sufficient).

So, while the 80 percent of Canadians who live in the world of concrete and glass could do a little 'substitution strategy' to reduce their carbon tax hit, those who live in the rural areas, where incomes are generally lower, and where transportation costs are higher, will not be so lucky.

As with anything in economics, higher production costs will get passed on, and even the burghers of Toronto will end up paying more for their burgers. With oil at nearly $140, they are already.

But I'll get my income tax cut, and that will make up for it, you will say. Well, according to the Liberal "Green Shift" site, my rural family will save about $130 a month in income tax, and a comparable urban family would get about $110 per month extra.

Okay, so the good folks that ragged out Harper about the Child Care Benefit, saying "$100 a month won't cover the cost of a sitter or daycare" now argue that $10 more than that will cover higher fuel prices for your car, higher prices for everything that has to be shipped by a truck, or grown in a field, as well as the very stuff that warms your house prevents you and your family from suffering hypothermia during those wonderful Canadian winters of ours.

Of course, that's if you even file income tax, otherwise you are doubly screwed.

Well, at least we'll get our CO2 emissions under control...But wait, according to the experts, the impact will be negligible...If we fully implemented Kyoto, we would only delay, and not stop, the trend, and it would only be a 5 year stall.

The Green Shift is really nothing more than bad economics and bad policy wrapped up in good intentions, making it all the more worse as it assumes a "holier-than-thou" mantle.

Want an alternative? Well, Statistics Canada says that 55 percent of commuters in Toronto drive to work. Well, how about you leave the Land Rover in the driveway and ride the Red Rocket / GO Train / TTC bus to work every day, and quit expecting others to pick up the tab for your environmentally unsustainable lifestyle. Expand that to every Canadian city with a population over 200,000 and a good public transit infrastructure, and see how quickly the CO2 drops.

That is the only shift that we need. Anything else is a shaft.

Will someone please deal with that psycho despot Mugabe?

Despite the ‘red meat’ in my comments, I am not a man who readily believes that violence is an answer to anything. This may be due, in part, to years of Sunday School (often taught by my own mother), but it also lends to a degree of pragmatism. Just as Newton’s Third Law of Physics dictates “an equal and opposing reaction” in nature, acts of violence usually result in retaliation.

The tit-for-tat that began in Sarajevo in 1914, egged on by the labyrinth of alliances, produced the ‘War to end all wars.’ The overly punative terms against Germany relating to that conflict sowed the seeds for the next one.

These caveats aside, and bearing in mind the full import of my view, I will say it nonetheless. Somebody should help the opposition in Zimbabwe arm to the teeth and deal with Robert Mugabe’s genocidal regime once and for all.

People are dying of starvation because they do not possess the whellbarrows of worthless currency needed to buy a loaf of bread, where price inflation is running in excess of 200,000 percent. Once the breadbasket of sub-Saharan Africa, exporting food to the world, it now depends upon the charity of the international community.

Anyone who dares speak out against the regime risks torture or death, the methods of which are often reported in gruesome detail. We know that journalists, both Zimbabwean and foreign, risk much in bring details to light. This week, we hear that the US Ambassador, James McKee, along with American and British diplomats, were detained and risked summary execution.

Add to all of this the mass exodus of refugees across the Limpopo River into South Africa, which has caused such a societal strain on that country, that once now sees television footage of gunfights on the streets of Johannesburg reminicent of an old re-run of “Gunsmoke.”

Still more disturbing was the attempt of a Chinese ship attempting to offload weapons for the Zimbabwean regime. The insult to injury, however, are the reports that Chinese soldiers are in that country right now, and are participating in the repression.

And so, I say again, as the regime will not recognize a legitimately transparent democratic process, and because it has engaged in activities worthy of Nazi Germany, and because this behaviour has created a destabilizing influence beyond its borders, and since the Chinese have picked a side, can someone please give massive amounts of firepower and military training to any group of people willing to take back their country from Bob the lunatic?

Overthrowing the regime gives Zimbabweans an opportunity to take back their land and destiny. And as an aside, if Beijing wishes to be taken seriously as a reponsible power on the world stage, they may want to study the lessons learned by the Americans in Vietnam, and the Soviets in Afghanistan - that backstopping immoral regimes will give you no dividend but one of grief.