Confessions of a Shiftless Mind

Mr. Martin:

Canadians DON’T WANT GOVERNMENT RAISING THEIR KIDS! Can you get the message please? We want tax relief so we can afford to raise our own kids! Preserve the family! Support the family! Let kids be kids instead of wards of the state! Let parents love them and raise them!

Universal child care will bankrupt the system and destroy our children. You can’t make a system work that pays people to look after kids. It will bankrupt the system. Society can’t afford to pay parents to raise their children - how can it afford to collect taxes, calculate and process taxes, reallocate taxes to child care, then pay for buildings and salaries for workers for child care, then pay for regulation of the industry? It won’t work.

It sounds lovely - ah, no more daycare bills. But how much lovelier if one income in a home was enough to support the whole family! Is that so unrealistic? It work for all of time… up until the last 20 years. Now, suddenly, somehow, Canadians have got it into their head that the nannies and minding that only the rich could afford is their right and privelege. It is not a right to be rich, or to act rich! You have to EARN such things, and for a government to promise such things FOR FREE knowing that we will have to pay for them by watching the government suck every penny out of our wallets, is just wrong.

Wake up, Canada.

Funny… I add a couple of links to western Canadian separatist movements, and suddenly the whole blog world is talking about Canada’s impending implosion.

Not that I think they are wrong either. As a Western Canadian, I have been sick and tired of this confederation for some time now. I mean, how ridiculous is it that of the last 30 years, 28 of them have featured a Quebec-based PM, while 1 year was split between two Ontarians (Turner and Campbell), and another part of a year was led by Joe Clark, from Alberta. During that time, probably the biggest issue facing the country has been Quebec leaving, and during that period, the Feds have been basically extending one big bribe to Quebec to get them to stay. Now, with the sponsorship scandal, we see one more example of Federal bribery to get Quebec to stay, and it is backfiring, causing the fires of separation to be stoked again.

Appeasement doesn’t work, folks. Bribery doesn’t work folks. It is time for some tough love, and a PM from Quebec is not capable of dishing it out. We need a hard-liner PM, someone who doesn’t have any interests in la Belle Province. We need someone to lay it out for Quebeckers: you want to leave? Then you are leaving! Take your portion of the Canadian national debt with you, you AREN’T using our dollar, and you AREN’T going to be a part of any “special relationship” with Canada. You ARE going to return all our military bases to us, you are not getting any more transfer payments, handouts, or capital or infrastructure grants and offices. Then, when you realize you are in debt up to your eyeballs and you can’t support one tenth of the infrastructure you are so proud of, and you come grovelling back to Canada begging us to take you back, you can drop your discriminatory “French language and culture” laws and come back an equal partner in Canada, not the favoured son.

If the Feds want to continue to pander to Quebec, then they can fully expect, sooner or later, the rest of the country to demand similar special treatment. It is already happening. That is the point of all the decentralization talk - of giving more power and money back to the Provinces. We all want a piece of the pie that Quebec has been gorging on for half a century. And if we can’t have it, then we truly are better off on our own.

This morning I spent a bit of time looking for someone - anyone talking in blogs about the BC election May 17. I did manage to find a few. Unsurprisingly, they are almost all leftist. I found a nice article by “The Tyee”, a relatively new online news journal (not a blog?). Of course, though, “The Tyee” is reputed to be leftist in orientation, and a cursory search of the links to blogs in the article failed to reveal any that dared to not be of a lefty variety.

I almost feel like I am in a clever disguise, with my “Left-Handed” title… like I am using it as a “cover” to keep from getting mauled by the NDP/Union bears that overrun this province. “No! Really! I AM a Leftist! I am just ‘pretending’ to be right wing… please don’t send me back to Alberta! Whatever happened to diversity in this province? Only in appearance, not in thought? Ohh… I didn’t catch that on the ‘Welcome to BC’ sign in Yoho National Park…”

At any rate, I think this could be a not NDP supporting BC blog. Of course, it is pretty narrowly focused, but I’ll take it. This one may be cleverly disguised, but it looks suspiciously like a person who isn’t out to throttle Campbell. However, the remainder of links in the first paragraph are pretty staunchly left.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t much like Campbell either. I mean look at this picture for crying out loud! It is horrendous! I stopped liking him when he tried privatizing the Coquihalla Highway (a money-making venture for the government - why sell off something that MAKES you money?) and privatizing BC Hydro. I am sorry, but taking a resource that was bought and paid for by British Columbians, for British Columbians, and letting a private corporation ship all its production to American corporations is just horrendous. The dams that have been built in this province have changed the geography of BC, moved communities, and provided us with a massive amount of clean, cheap energy. One of the perks of living and working in BC SHOULD BE cheap power. As it is, BC Hydro has been raising rates and slowly losing control of itself as it is integrated into the power grid of North America - that is bad enough. But to just let it go, allow British Columbians to be visited by the same kinds of power rates that are found elsewhere where power sources are scarce, is to take away a big part of what makes this province great.

Whew. I think I could talk about BC Hydro all day. At any rate, back to Campbell’s Liberals. I don’t like Federal Liberals, and I don’t believe that BC Liberals are really any different at heart. However, to get themselves elected, they are masquerading as the “right” in this province. Should it ever be politically expedient, I have NO DOUBT they would morph into a leftist party in every sense of the word. I await the rising of a REAL right wing party in this province - once that stands for something, one that listens to the people, and one that wants to engage in meaningful reform of the way government is done here. Until then, the quest continues for more BC right wing blogs… they must exist… somewhere….

So, Harper and Duceppe have stepped up and said the budget is unacceptable. They have said they will not support it as it stands. Is this the beginning of the end for this parliament? Other blogs have clearly demonstrated that the BQ, CPC and the sitting independents have enough votes to stop the budget, which would qualify as a non-confidence vote.

Excuse me, while I write an email to my MP, Chuck Cadman, to encourage him to vote against the budget…. you can too: click on his name and send one!

The Other Shoe Drops

So, I have returned from MC’ing and moderating the Surrey-Green Timbers All-Candidates Meeting, hosted by a local elementary school (whose name escapes me, despite having received a mug full of chocolates for my wife).

It was a grand experience for me, participating for the first time in my life (outside of forced attendance to gym meetings back in my high school days) in a political process outside of actually casting my ballot. I met the Liberal Minister of Health and Addicition Services, Brenda Locke (a shorter portly lady with a nice attitude but a bit abrupt when not the center of attention), Sue Hammell, the former Minister for Women’s Services under the NDP (slightly taller, slightly older, much more catty and suspicious), and Sebastien Sijda, the Green Party candidate (a Kwantlen Poli-Sci student, at his first speaking engagement as a politician, barely dressed for the occasion).

I wound up doing a lot more than I thought I would, from welcoming everyone, to explaining the rules (which we kind of made up on the fly), to passing around a mike to the audience (kind of felt a bit like a talk show host), to dicatating who is responding to what, to closing up and thanking everyone. Surprisingly, I wasn’t as nervous as I thought I would be - mostly because I knew it was going to be the candidates raked over the coals, not me!

But on to the actual discussion. Topics ranged from education funding to health care, to privatization, and even touched on the controversial STV - the new system of balloting being voted on in the upcoming referendum. In my initial conversation with Sue, she spoke of being able to “tell” that most people in the audience were liberals and/or plants. Ok… never knew you could tell them by looking. I couldn’t tell by listening either as many questions seemed to be just as critical of Liberal policies and actions as NDP.

At first, things seemed to be going against Locke as the other two both seemed to be on the offensive, attacking her government’s policies and records (to be expected for an incumbent I would expect). I tried to give her a chance to answer last a few times to make it fair, and she seemed to make a little more sense from there. There were several instances though where it was obvious that Hammell was going to launch into a tirade against the Liberals no matter what the subject was - in one case she never really answered the question, and just launched into a list of jobs the Liberals had cut. Of course the odd thing was that Locke had just finished saying that they had maintained funding in that area. Lost teachers’ jobs, but same money. Why? It seems to me there are two possible answers: either the local municipalities re-allocated resources away from the teacher’s wages or the unions demanded so much in wage increases that layoffs had to ensue to balance the budget. In either case, the decision to sack teachers was not made by the Liberals.

Another strange case was the question of the “right to strike” by teachers. Locke came out as saying that education is an essential service, while Hammell and Sijda both said no, they should be able to strike. Of course, the question to them was do they have any creative ideas on how to avoid a strike or a situation where they are forced to force teachers back to work? The answer to that, by all three’s silence, was “no”.

We broke for snacks, graciously provided by Tim Horton’s. After the break Chuck Walker, a rather good political cartoonist if I do say so myself, spoke on the new electoral system being voted on. It didn’t go well for him. Everyone wanted to like the new system, but nobody could understand it. About 6 people tood up and said, “Is it like this?”, to which his reply was invariably, “No, it is like this.” I observed the disconnect here to be a system that is easy to explain to people how to use it, but very hard to explain how it works. His main pitch seemed to be, “Do you know how to fix your car? No. But you still use it and you trust it right? So vote yes.” Not a good sales pitch. People want to at least have some grasp, and I don’t think anyone was able to make more sense of it after he was done.

I was going to take a few more questions from the floor, and I opened it up but after about 5 seconds of silence, Sue Hammell grabbed the mike and thanked everyone for coming, thus effectively ending the session. I was disappointed because I had come up with a question for the candidates, but there was no graceful way to challenge them on it at that point. Ah well. Maybe I will try to go out as a spectator to my own riding’s meeting and ask the question.

Final summary: the STV is too complicated - if it is passed, it will only be because people really hate the current system, not because this one is better. Hammell and Locke are both seasoned veterans, but it seems Hammell is better at politicking and controlling the meeting better - not necessarily good because I don’t like anything her party stands for. Then again, I don’t like anything any of their parties stand for. Good thing I am voting in Elayne Brenzinger’s riding!

I said I would write this as an ongoing blather about my opinions and observations, irrespective of current events. In fact, this is relevant to current events as we head into a provincial election.

Why woe? Not because they have done anything wrong, but because it is a woeful lot to be a conservative in provincial politics here. Since the Social Credit Party imploded (which by many accounts was centrist anyway, not truly right wing, but definitely right wing compared to their opposition, the NDP), a number of upstarts have tried to become the new right wing. Their names have varied from the Progressive Conservatives, to the Reform Party, to the BC Party, to the BC Reform Party, the Unity Party and on and on. Various things inevitably bring them down. The media has told wonderful yarns about their intercene bickerings, their inability to “unite the right” and fom a coherent opposition, and so on.

Whatever the cause, whether they are simply unable to get along or get organized, the media have now seemingly given up on reporting their existence. Now, as far as the media is concerned, there are only three parties running in this election: the Left, the REALLY far Left and the One-Issue Left.

The truth is they still do exist. In my riding, Surrey-Whalley, I have discovered a plethora of signage for Elayne Brenzinger, running on a “Democratic Reform” Party ticket. I had never heard of the DR Party before… a quick google on the party revealed to me www.drbc.ca. Turns out she is the incumbent (I thought I had heard of her before), and the only representative of this party currently in the house.

Not a peep about this party, with 50% as many seats in the Legislature as the NDP who seem to be front and center everywhere in the media. They have an uphill battle ahead of them, as it seems from their website they haven’t even been invited to the “Leader’s Debate” while the likes of the Green Party with their zero sitting MLAs are already in. Strange…

But I digress. What I am trying to say is that as a conservative campaigning in BC’s provincial election, you are in a really uphill battle, even to be taken seriously, let alone voted for. It’s too bad too… because there are a LOT of conservatives in this province just dying for someone to vote for without gritting their teeth.

My MP has come out and said he will vote to bring down government should a non-confidence motion be called. Churck Cadman, an elected independent formerly an Alliance member said publicly in the Globe and Mail. Right on, man. Now, get out there and sell that to more of your fellow parliamentarians please.

In other news, what is up with this new poll that indicates Canadians don’t want an election? That is definitely frustrating news, because the Liberals would be sure to use this as a club to beat Harper with should he manage to bring them down before the fall. “The people don’t want it, Steven! Why are you making them vote us out?”

I guess I’ll just have to salve the wound with others’ opinions that in fact this is a blessing, because the more Canadians hear from the Gomery inquiry, the more likely the Conservatives will be to pull off a majority when Canadians finally get to speak on the issue. I hope this is the case, but for 8 years now, Ontarian voters have shown themselves to be remarkably dense… I just keep thinking they’ll buy the Liberal fear machine one more time despite evidence that they are, to a man, being screwed and taken by these amoral millionaire dictators masquerading as Liberal representatives.

In an astonishing turn of events, yours truly has been asked to moderate an all-candidates meeting in the Surrey-Green Timbers riding, for the upcoming provincial election. I have zero experience in these affairs but hey, I am up for personal involvement in the political process.

I have been told there are three candidates who have committed to attend - the incumbent, Brenda Locke, a Liberal cabinet minister, whose portfolio was Minister of State for Health and Addiction Services; NDP returning candidate Sue Hammell, who was defeated after sitting for 2 terms as MLA for this riding; and a Green Party candidate, who isn’t listed on the party website yet.

Wow… just looking at the history, I may be in for a ride tonight. Hammell is a seasoned veteran of politics, but may still be tarnished from her involvement under Glen Clark’s scandal-ridden NDP government. She held the portfolio of Women’s Equality Minister, and some view her as a poor candidate for this working class riding, living in a posh residence in Victoria most of the time. Her opponent, the incumbent Brenda Locke has a strong background in addiction issues, a major interest of this riding with its proximity to the King George corridor and its historic “Little Downtown Eastside” stereotype. She fits the riding, but my memory fails to recollect anything signficant she has brought to the riding during her term.

She doesn’t seem to be afraid of making noise in the media either. The Globe and Mail mentioned an announcement of hers today,

“But Liberal Brenda Locke crashed the announcement to accuse the NDP of
promising to spend less than the Liberals already do on mental health and drug
addiction.

She also claimed the former NDP government ignored and
short-changed mental health for a decade.”

I am waiting to hear if I will be given a list of questions for the candidates or if I will be merely facilitating questions from the floor. Look for an update tomorrow morning!

So much to talk about these days…

In Beautiful BC it is hard to be a conservative. It is even harder to be a conservative in the GVRD (Greater Vancouver Regional District). However, many people manage to pull it off. Coincidentally, the farther you live from Vancouver the easier it seems to be. As you get further away from the urban core of Vancouver, you seem to regain control of your mental faculties and start being able to think for yourself instead of becoming overwhelmed with groupthink. It is almost like there is a massive antenna downtown, broadcasting leftist thought, and the farther you get away from it the weaker it becomes. There must also be a repeater on Vancouver Island for this signal (though it may just be a proximity to the provincial seat of power - more government employees, more union members, more ex-hippies supplementing their welfare incomes with grow-ops and mellowing out with their “product”).

I am just on the fringe of sanity here in Surrey. Surrey has grown into the second largest city in BC but unlike Vancouver, is populated by mostly working stiffs and brand new immigrants, both of which prefer to earn their livings as opposed to having them handed out. Hence, most of the time, this city does vote towards the right wing. It gets even better just a few short minutes up the valley, which is affectionately by some, derogatorily by others called “The BC Bible Belt”. But here, it is a strange battleground.

My constituency elected Chuck Cadman federally, the only MP to be elected as an independent in the last election. He ran under the Reform banner, then the Alliance banner and served admirably, but when the PCs and the Alliance merged, he was squeezed out in favour of a new candidate. He was begged by constituents to run as an independent and won handily over a hand-picked CPC candidate. This has somewhat soured me on the CPC - I would love to support them, but it seems that the PCs have infected the old Reform/Alliance tradition with something that vaguely resembles the full-blown case of traditional politics in Canada, and that makes me wary of identifying too closely with them. I mean, the Alliance would have never allowed a hand picked candidate to run without the clear permission of the riding’s party members. This new one will.

I keep hoping against hope that the Alliance grassroots will drive the new CPC, but the most frustrating thing is the opposite is wished out in Ontario - if only the CPC would abandon its unreasonable Alliance roots, then they would vote for them. Hopefully this Sponsorship scandal will finally undermine this ridiculous fear of anything western and give the ideals that the Reform Party began with a chance to actually do some good with this nation. Hopefully.

I have tried several times to get a blog going, but it always seems to peter out. Here I go again, this time with the stated aim of keeping myself unedited regardless of who reads this (meaning I don’t care if my family, or co-workers, or friends, or the ruling elite things I am a whackjob for my ramblings). What am I going to be talking about? Well, I think it is going to be mostly political, with some faith related stuff mixing in more and more frequently as faith becomes a target of control by the political structures of this nation. I may throw in the odd post about hobbies and stuff, but I think I’ll keep my family out of it mostly. Eh… I don’t know. We shall see.

One other thing I am going to try to do though is integrate into the larger community of blogs in Canada. See what becoming part of the cacophony does.

What is with the title? In my bashings around my favorite message boards, I have come to the conclusion that I am a disturbingly inconsistent political entity. While most I think would label me as a member of the religious right, I don’t think I fall that easily into either category. I have libertarian interests in some regards, green interests in others, socialist even (!) at certain points. I do believe firmly in letting my evangelical Christian faith inform my politics, but I think in many ways that leftists would be surprised at if they actually were interested in what I have to say, rather than pidgeonholing me (and all others like me) so they can wash their hands and pretend we don’t exist.

That and I am left-handed.