Or can it?

Besides the massively publicized celebrity laced Haiti telethon and the large donations by well to do private individuals and businesses, the generally detached middle class risen to the occasion as well.

In my small town alone I have encountered boxes for coin collection for Haiti at my daughter’s daycare, my University, my Doctor’s office, and my place of employment just to name a few. We have bake sales for Haiti, fitness boot camp for Haiti,  fundraisers for Haiti, limited edition iPod covers with proceeds going to Haiti..you get the idea.

I am not trying to downplay the generosity or act like the money and items collected aren’t desperately needed. But what I don’t understand, is where was all this help for Haiti three weeks ago?

Long know to be the poorest country in the western hemisphere, with one of the highest rates of  HIV per capita in the world,  sadly devastation and heartbreak are nothing new to the people of Haiti.

And equally as sad, much of the aid that is now finally being sent to Haiti is ultimately not ending up in the hands of people who need it the most.

What I want to know, is why it takes a natural disaster on such a massive scale to get people’s attention. And why we’ll now have Joe and Jane Doe patting themselves on the back as humanitarians because they donated 20$ to the Haiti telethon during Madonna’s live or not so live performance.

It seems that  many people in our society can successfully blind themselves to other people’s problems until it becomes trendy to no longer do so.

If we had helped Haiti before, it’s quite possible that there wouldn’t be quite  so much  of a mess to clean up now.

Thoughts?

How can we allow one family to control all the media access across the province?

And more importantly, who is going to watch the watchers?

Last week a story was printed, front page of the Telegraph-Journal examining controversy that surrounding the granting of an honourary degree to Premier Shawn Graham by the University of NB.

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/front/article/664138

A story so important that it was picked up a day later by the Globe and Mail, a paper not known for it’s coverage of anything Atlantic.

Then next day, the Telegraph Journal followed up with what amounted to a retraction of their first position, with another front page story about how the degree was deserved.

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/search/article/665395

I’m not here to debate the issue of whther the degre should or should not have been granted. What most people would be surprised to know, and what you will never see printed in an Irving paper, is that the reporter who wrote the first story is no longer employed by Brunswick News.

I’m sure that everyone is aware that we live in a province where  dissenting opinions within the media will not be tolerated. But did you also think that  any attempt to objectively inform people about controversy or negative opinions of the government would also not be allowed?

Up until this point, I felt that Irving did a pretty good job of trying not to appear too biased. While many of their stories have an obvious slant, they at least usually report on factual events.When will people decide that enough is enough? Cancel your subscriptions, don’t pick up a BNI paper. Get your news online. Refuse to buy into the propaghanda that is NB print media.

What happened last week is a disgrace to our province. NB journalists be warned…if your editor doesn’t have the balls to tell you what the Irvings don’t want the public to  see, how are you going to know when to censor yourselves?

While I think it’s admirable that some people might have this generous idea of helping our fellow citizens in their time of need, I disagree with the concept of a bailout- any bailout..whether it’s helping the poor or the rich.

It’s true that Harper’s plan for the economy is mainly designed to help the rich, the greedy and the corporate. And it’s also very true that they are underserving of financial assistance. But I hesitate to say that Joe blue collar worker is any more entitled to assistance.

Yes, the economy has dealt the working/middle class a somewhat shitty hand. But is simple redistribution of wealth the answer to our economic problems? For one thing, it’s not like this is the first recession in history. As long as our economy has existed, there have been booms and busts. If you fail to put away money for a rainy day, I fail to see how that’s my-or the government’s- problem.

How is wealth generated in the first place? It’s created, it doesn’t just appear out of thin air- it’s the product of hard work and effort, and yes, some luck. But it can’t be arbitrarily distributed, or there will be no incentive for anyone to create any wealth anywhere.

Yes, there are people who are less fortunate, who through birth or circumstance haven’t been given the same opportunities that others have. There are also people who lack the ambition, intelligence and determination to take advantage of opportunities that were given to them.

How do we tell the difference between those who need help and those who need to help themselves? And more importantly should we pay the way for both if faced with the inability to differentiate the two?

Poor decisions were made, companies took advantage of public goodwill. But Canadians should remember, that Harper was the only leader at the G20 summit to speak out against a bail out- and was ridiculed for it. And had he not been threatened to have his government brought down, he probably wouldn’t have signed off on the bail out that he did. If we are going to have a free market capitalist economy, then we have to stick by those principles even in hard times- and that means sink or swim. For the businesses, and for the workers.

That’s just the way she goes.

It’s what we’ve always consoled ourselves with when facing the idea that we will spend the next four or five months working merely to pay what our government feels we owe. But it’s getting harder and harder to swallow.

Looking around, it doesn’t seem like we’re really getting all that much benefit for our financial sacrifices. A failing health care system with wait times that the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional..social programs that are scaled back each year to be replaced by similar but less effective ones.

If it weren’t for the blatant waste we see in federal and provincial departments, it might be a little easier to believe that our money is being spent with our best interests at heart.

Governments are not designed to run efficiently. If a department fails to spend their budget, they have to fear that that budget will be reduced the following year. So it’s in their best interests to spend spend spend. As well, individual departments are given far too much autonomy over how they spend their money. Too many different people are responsible for too many different amounts…it makes it hard to hold them accountable for their spending.

Wouldn’t it be nice to feel like we’re getting what we pay for?

Luckily, only conservative patronage and not political knowledge or experience is required in order to function as a successful member of the senate.

I find it extremely hypocritical and dishonest, that after championing senate reform and refusing to appoint senators until changes were made, Harper chooses such a politically unstable time to try to gain ground in the senate.

As usual, the Canadian people are the ones who will pay. They will pay these people $134,000 a year plus a pension to hold up legislation, and make decisions they are neither qualified or democratically mandated to make.

While I disagreed with Stephen Harper’s hardball approach to senate reform, and some of his specific ideas on how that reform should be accomplished, I feel that before we make any more lifetime appointments to friends of the PMOs office changes must be made.

This is just another example of the kind of Conservative arrogance that got us into this coalition mess in the first place. It is obvious that Harper hasn’t learned his lesson, and that the prorogation of parliament has given him an even more misguided sense of what his current  political position is.

My only hope is that the continued electoral dysfunction is finally getting to the Canadian people, and that electoral and senate reform can’t be far away.

But I find myself feeling frustrated with her all the same.

I think it’s great when people start to become enlightened about what is happening the world, and start to  question our pampered selfish consumer lifestyles.

But the hard part isn’t when you start to become awakened. It’s what happens after, and how you choose to live your life after you realize what a fallacy it is.

Most people change very little. Cognitive dissonance kicks in, and it gets easier everyday to justify why we have so much when others have so little.

I’m not saying that I don’t think she’s capable of living an ethical life…but I think that maybe she should wait a little before proclaiming it publicly. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone… It’s not an easy life, and not many can handle it.

I guess only time will tell. And I can hope.

We live in a society that revolves around stuff. The more stuff you can buy, the more expensive stuff you can afford, the greater your value as a part of our society. I won’t rip into our capitalist consumer way of life too much today, because I want to focus instead on the rampant spending that is done in honour of Christmas.

Christmas is the one time of year where everyone feels the need to participate in the joy of unbridled spending.

As a broke student who typically used to work minimum wage  retail during the busy pre-Christmas season (only to be laid off during the January slump) I have witnessed first hand just how bad Christmas consumerism has become.

Although many people are ridiculous consumers for the rest of the year, the months leading up to Christmas are by far the worst.

I don’t think there is anything more disgusting then to watch family after family putting hundreds of dollars on their credit cards so they can buy all the latest Wal-mart must haves. And then spend months playing catch up when the new year arrives. My head would be screaming “YOU DON’T NEED THIS SHIT!!” but my mouth would be asking if you found everything you were looking for today…and did you see the Christmas socks on sale for $0.99.

We are about to enter the greatest economic crisis that we have seen in a long time. Whether or not the doomsday prophets are right, people are going to feel it one way or another.

You would think that in light of the current economic uncertainty that people would be scaling back their spending. While this may be true for some in small ways, in general the trend is the same as it has been for years.

Spend now, think about it later- or maybe never.

Why do we think that we need all these possessions to be happy? And what is it about Christmas that makes people so spend crazy?

Marketing goes a long way to explain the phenomenon, but I like to think people are a little smarter then that. I mean, if you can’t afford a flat screen in August, why would you buy one in December  just because you see a few more commercials advertising the amazing new features?

Don’t get me wrong, I am all about giving  to people, and it’s great to celebrate that. But I think that in many cases, this doesn’t have to mean going out and buying the latest gadget. Making something, sharing your time, donating to a worthy cause in a friend’s name are all ways to participate in the spirit of Christmas without having to break the bank – or perpetuate the capitalist myth that more stuff = more happiness.

This year, if you haven’t already, you should try it.

The earth and your friends will thank you.

Quebec never has, and never will want a true seccession from Canada. When I say true secession, I mean “see you later, have fun making it on your own” not “you can piggyback on our success as a united nation, but do your own thing”.

What Quebec really wants, what separatists really want, is to have complete control over their own affairs, as well as the benefits of belonging to Canada. Alleged pro-separatist politicians in Quebec have long used Quebec’s large share of potential voters as a way to get Ottawa to yield to their demands. The fact is that Ottawa’s decisions to bow to Quebec over and over again at the expense of the well being of other smaller provinces has more to do with this large vote share then with the empty threats of secession.

Quebec could never make it completely on their own, and the separatists know it. When they talk about separation from Canada, they describe a pipe dream of taking what they like about Canada- like our negotiated trade agreements and dollar -and leaving what they don’t- a Canadian identity and a dominant non-francophone culture.

No Canadian in their right mind would support this type of separation. And most separatists know it’s never going to happen. Quebec currently has control over almost every aspect of society which they have wanted, with the exception of immigration. As we have seen with their xenophobic attitude towards non-francophone immigrants, echoing the assimilation policies of France, this is one issue where the province of Quebec is currently forced to back off.

I challenge the future leader of Canada, whoever that may be, if he finds himself (as many are predicting) being backed into a corner by an overzealous BQ, to call Quebec’s bluff.

He won’t be disappointed. It’s time to put the balance of power back where it belongs, in the hands of all Canadian provinces and not just those that carry more electoral weight.

Minority, majority what does it all mean anyway. Since most people don’t understand how our present electoral system works anyway, how can they be expected to engage in an intelligent debate on the subject of coalition governments? The Canadian electoral system allows governing by plurality, not majority. I know it sounds confusing but bear with me while I explain. In order to form a government, a party needs to have only a plurality of seats, meaning more then any other party individually, but not more then other parties put together. Thanks to the increasing vote splitting on the left, this has led to a conservative minority government after the last two elections.

But here’s the rub folks…In almost any other modern democracy in the world, a minority government is not considered to have the right to govern, since it means that more people voted for a party other than the one in power. Forming a coalition government is considered to be the best and most democratic option, with a minority government in power found at the bottom of the list of best possible outcomes.

So why has a coalition never been an option for Canada?  Why does something so natural for other countries shock and upset so many Canadians? While it’s true that we picked a terribly weak opposition to attempt this for the first time in almost 100 years, Canadians should be happy that our politicians are even talking about it. At the very least, it may take Harper down a couple of notches and make him realize that working with the parties who received 54% of the vote share compared to his parties 37% is the fair and democratic route to go.

Electoral reform is a whole other issue, and I won’t go there today. But messes like this one make proportional representation look even more appealing.

It involves transferring genes from one species to another, in order to give traits that wouldn’t naturally occur on their own. The alleged benefits of this technology are that we could someday create high yield rice or other foods that could help feed the starving people of the world.

Unfortunately, the companies that hold the patents to most of the GMO technology are only interested in herbicide resistant crops (to be used hand in hand with their herbicides of course), and self destructing seeds that cannot be saved but must be bought each year, not in finding a way to feed the world’s hungry.

What people don’t realize is that there has been no debate- there has been no public approval sought. Most of the processed food you buy contains some type of GMO, and you have no way of knowing which products contain them, or what organisms the genes were taken from. And has for upwards of TEN YEARS now.

The truth is that, with biotechnology science has crossed a line that some people think wasn’t meant to be crossed. We’re messing with the building blocks of life, swapping genes bewtween species as if they aren’t in a particular order (or organism) for a reason.

I’m not hear to argue about the ethics behind GMOs. But shouldn’t this food be labelled? Don’t people have a right to know if they’re eating genetically modified food? Shouldn’t it be the consumer’s choice?

The companies behind these products claim that labels are unnecessary because
1) They are no more harmful than unmodified food
2) The cost of labeling the products is far too high.

A recent study in the Montreal Gazette (March 2007) found that the expected costs for labeling genetically modified food are in actuality much lower than these corporations claim.

If these products are really so safe and harmless, than why shouldn’t they be labeled?

The sad thing is that soon it won’t matter, because if the corporations have their way, pretty soon you won’t be able to tell the GMOs from the natural food, because natural food as we know it will no longer exist, instead giving way to herbicide resistant chemically laced hybrid frankenfood.