Democracy is Dead

The Muller report was the last gasp of democracy in the United States. It laid out the evidence for corruption, self-dealing, and general criminality that should have been enough to remove the President of the United States from office. But Congress failed to act.

Since then, the rotting corpse has only become stinkier. Even the allegation that Trump tried to recruit the president of Ukraine to help him to slander a political opponent has not been sufficient to move Speaker Pelosi.

The fact that Democratic leaders are content to wait until the election only testifies to the impossibility of impeachment. If not Trump, who? To what level of criminality and incompetence does a President have to rise to be impeached.

Democracy is dead and partisanship killed it.

While it's true that impeachment may fail to be successful, as the Republicans hold a majority in the Senate, which must vote to remove the President after articles of impeachment are passed by the House, if any Senator can vote for acquittal after a public airing of the facts, then truely the system is permanently broken.

That fewer Republicans have publicly disavowed this President astounds me. I can't imagine standing by any party leader who does the kinds of things that Trump does.

What's worse is that any future President must know that he (she) will have full reign to indulge their worst instincts when in office. There are no checks and balances as long as the President's party holds one of the chambers of Congress.

Further, the packing of the courts by ideologues can only block the possibility of progressive legislation coming from the legislative branch in the future. However, the worse possibility is that the courts will permit the erosion of rights as in Citizens United that gives money an even bigger voice in policy decisions affecting the actual human citizens.

If Republicans came out and said that what they really fear is a President Pence, then I might have some sympathy, but this continued fawning over a truly mad leader is just unbearable.

Kavanagh's Appointment to Supreme Court a Sad Day for Democracy

Picture: SAUL LOEB/AFP Via the Independent

Fifty-one senators representing a minority of US citizens have appointed a 53-year-old justice to the Supreme Court, where he may influence decisions for the rest of his life. With a solid conservative majority, the Supreme Court can now prevent progressive legislation from moving forward no matter what happens in the electoral bodies for the foreseeable future.

The legacy of Donald Trump is, as much as it is chaos, a legacy of moving forward the agendas of various factions who have supported his presidency. Trump is surrounded by sycophants and opportunists. He is enabled by those who claim to "curb his worst impulses" but permit the wholesale deconstruction of protections that represent the work of the last half century of public administration.

I wondered why any rational person would stand by and let this clown continue to operate.

It's exactly because he's a fool that that he attracts carpet-baggers who can spot an opportunity to personally enrich themselves or push some right-wing agenda. Thus, we get the ideologically-driven Betsy deVos or Scott Pruit busily dismantling the legacies of their departments while enriching themselves. In addition, there are the political rewards given to such incompetents as Ben Carson, and Rick Perry ("winning against climate scientists").

Kavanagh comes courtesy of the Federalist Society, a conservative group dedicated to infiltrating and placing like-minded individuals on the nation's highest courts. Just as the Koch network supports and promotes conservative candidates in elected capacities, so too the Federalist Society uses these allies to appoint judges.

Not since the dismantling of the Soviet Union have so few benefited so much from destroying the public assets of so many.

The last hope for Republicans is to rig the electoral system to disenfranchise minorities and young people. The Kavanagh appointment makes the Supreme Court clearly a political body that will prevent future legislative wins from being incorporated into law. Watch for regressive decisions on voting rights, healthcare, women's rights, and immigration. It's a sad day for democracy.

Trump is the leader we've been waiting for

The rise of Donald Trump has been a long time coming. His ascension in 2016 has roots going back decades, and is the perfect storm of the growth of anti-intellectualism, an economy that disproportionately rewards the upper classes, mistrust of government, and the growth of celebrity culture.

Donald Trump loves the poorly educated. His support is greatest among those with high school diplomas or less. Pundits assume this is because his incoherent policies are not critically analyzed by people not trained on New York Times rhetoric. In fact, his attacks on political correctness resonate with people who don't understand why it's inappropriate to call a 30-year-old woman a "girl." They resonate with people who are confused as our language is undergoing a series of rapid shifts away from the language that reinforced social, racial and sexist stereotypes. And they resonate with people who have vaguely racist feelings that they no longer have words to express.

It's a complex world. Politics are complex because the interests of many different groups of citizens must be negotiated. Countries around the world have different interests and goals, and (sorry U.S.A., you are only one of many) countries must compromise. What Trump promises is simple solutions to complex problems (without details). Sounds great, but on analysis not workable. However, too many people lack the skills to really understand why not.

But our culture has been catering to the poorly educated for decades. We disparage college professors as "eggheads." We mythologize successful people who "drop out" of some college and then become successful. Richard Branson dropped out of high school. Now he's a multi-billionaire. Therefore high school is not necessary. The truth is that Richard Branson dropped out because he had a successful business going already. I'm sure he's also highly intelligent and a quick learner.

Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard. Ha! Who needs Harvard? Actually Bill Gates scored 1590 out of 1600 on the SAT. Before entering Harvard he attended a prestigious prep school. At Harvard he won a prize for a computing algorithm. Maybe he didn't need Harvard, but there's no doubt this is a highly educated, intellectual man.

Our anti-intellectual bias is also shown in the growth of the anti-education sector. I'm talking about buying essays, cheating on exams and selling education as a ticket to economic success. When education is not valued for its own sake--to have a deeper understanding of the world--it becomes a commodity, no different from real estate. The decline in liberal arts education and the rise of job-oriented education--business, STEM and vocational--explain why Trump's appeal even extends into many of the college-educated population. They didn't go to college to learn how to think better; they went to get a bigger income.

Teachers are no longer respected. Teachers' unions are blamed for declining education. But without respect for teachers, classrooms are unmanageable and education is impossible.

But the path of education to wealth is a scam, too. Yes, a good education from a quality university can open the doors to better jobs, but the American class system is rigged against the concept of meritocracy. Too many people borrow too much money and end up in poorly regulated private colleges that are churning out degrees not worth the paper they are printed on. All college diplomas are not equal. The statistics that show a college diploma is worth much more than a high school diploma are inflated by the effect of the top-tier colleges.

The biggest factor that fuels the rise of the "anti-establishment" candidate in 2016 is the economy. Wages have been stagnant for the majority of people for decades, while the top earners have grown in wealth by a phenomenal factor. People are struggling. Even people who are not currently in poverty know that a turn in the economy could cost them everything. Some of these people support Bernie Saunders (42.5% of Democrats in a poll I just looked at). And some support Donald Trump (39% nationally according to Real Clear Politics). If nothing else changes after this election, the fact that so many people have been so clear about the fact that they are being shut out of the benefits of economic growth, must mean a big shift is happening.

What's happened to the economy over the last few decades is that it's become global. Despite the US having the largest economy in the world, it is subject to global forces like never before. This is not due to bad trade deals (although the deals could be much better, taking into account working conditions, environmental concerns and political freedom). It's because human labor in the US can't compete with human labor in developing countries. As long as there is an imbalance in economies, Americans are going to see job stagnation. What the US really needs is more taxes at the top to fund infrastructure, public works, public education, public health, and other projects. If this sounds a bit like socialism, well it probably is. It's not taxation for handouts, but taxation to create jobs and redistribute wealth. Oh yeah, and everybody benefits from better roads, bridges, schools and healthcare.

Since the Reagan years, there has been a growing distrust of government. The Republicans, in particular have pushed the idea that government is inefficient. Public employees are lazy and in particular, public sector unions are sucking the taxpayer dry with gold-plated contracts and pension schemes. This has fuelled a distrust of government in all areas and ultimately resulted in several government shut-downs. However, reduction in government regulation resulted in the housing crisis in which tens of thousands of middle-class families lost their life savings. Throughout the US, public schools have been underfunded, resulting in the rise of the quasi-private charter school. In many ways, the inherent racism of the economic system has caused the pain to be felt more by people of color, but throughout the country, people are suffering because government is the people's voice and the people are being silenced.

Many pundits have remarked on how this Republican tactic has come full circle to deny the Republican establishment its chosen candidate, Jeb Bush. But I worry that it's a lot deeper than that. Yes, Trump has tapped into a great vein of unrest. But when (if) he is defeated, will this mass go back under the rocks whence they came? Or will there be a new movement of rabble to contend with? An armed, pissed off, and nothing to lose rabble.

Finally, Trump's rise is, though not due to, but lubricated by, celebrity culture. What Trump has achieved masterfully is to turn the Presidential election into a reality TV show episode. I thought he would collapse at one of the early debates, lacking policy substance and fundamentally incoherent.
How wrong I was. Trump weathered all attacks. The look on his face said it all. He treated it exactly as a reality show performance. Everybody else in the Republican field was treating it like a Presidential election. Only Trump treated it like an entertainment spectacle. But because there has been a shift from real news to entertainment over the last few decades, Trump was able to pull it off. People can't tell the difference between news and entertainment anymore.

This is why I really fear what will happen in the general election. Although polls right now favor Clinton (or even Saunders) over Trump, Trump hasn't even begun to campaign for the general. Clinton has said she doesn't feel like a natural politician; how is she as a reality show contestant? She must avoid a debate at all costs. Getting on a stage with Trump would be humiliating for her. Clinton's only hope is to get on the high road and stay as far away from Trump as possible, focusing on policy. That is, if she doesn't get indicted on the way.

Is 2016 an anomaly? I think it's more like a tipping point. The path to the Presidency is no longer through the political ranks; it's through the media. Celebrity counts more than policy. Be afraid my friend, be very afraid.

Watch Christie in Tuesday's debate

In a couple of days the Republican hopefuls will again assemble on a stage to ostensibly compare policy strengths and weaknesses in a rational debate.

As if.

More likely it will be battle, the likes of which has not been seen on a debate stage this primary season. Let's see why.

First, the frontrunner, Donald Trump has seen a number of opponents creeping up on his numbers. First Carson, now Cruz.

Remember when he called Jeb "low key"? That was when conventional wisdom was that the outsiders would fade fast, as they did in past primary seasons. But as in a warming world, the seasons ain't what they used to be. Trump has had to fight to defend his position.

Lately he's been trying to claim the evangelical territory from Cruz. Now I don't know anything about real estate mogul Trump's Presbyterian credentials, but I'm sure a Bible belting Iowan can see more evangelical bona fides in Cruz, the son of a preacher man, than in Trump, who couldn't quote his favorite Bible phrase earlier in the contest. Trump may not be able to fight the Battle of Jericho with Cruz, but he will likely try to paint him as soft on Muslims.

Speaking of Muslims, if any Republican on Tuesday takes a stand to denounce the rabid Islamophobia of the last few weeks, I'll convert to Islam on Wednesday because that will be a sure sign of a miracle.

Let's take a look at the candidates on the main stage to see what each has to do.

Trump

As stated, The Donald needs to hang on to his lead. In the last debate, he was pretty low key himself. I think his advisors told him to try keep it down to avoid a major gaffe. But low key doesn't work for him. Coming out of that debate, he started to fire up the rhetoric. The Paris attacks gave him a place to aim at. Since Muslims constitute only 1% of the population of the U.S. it's not a big chunk of the electorate to alienate. It was a successful strategy. Everyone hates ISIS. Why not turn that hatred onto the innocent victims of ISIS and law abiding Americans who happened to be Muslim? Why should Freedom of Religion be sacred?

Trump is likely to face attacks by Bush, but especially by Christie. Can he respond without saying something over the top? Is it possible to go over the top in this race?
Prediction: Poll numbers hold steady.

Carson

Carson's star is falling. This is his last shot and the nice guy strategy will not last. His lack of foreign policy knowledge has weakened him despite a trip to the Middle East. His attack of Obamacare no longer resonates as this contest turns into a foreign policy war. We know where nice guys finish.
Prediction: Poll numbers drop. Carson will do so badly in Iowa, followed by a defeat in New Hampshire that he will be out of the race by Super Tuesday.

Cruz

Having been attacked by Trump as not sufficiently evangelical, Cruz might be willing to come out swinging. Not sure. Cruz's strategy to stand near Trump and wait for Trump's collapse has worked. He could weather some Trump criticism and let the others go after Trump. Or he could see Trump having a moment of weakness and seize the moment. Et tu Brute!
Prediction: Numbers rise. He's the likely winner of Iowa, but if Trump gets forced out early, Rubio will be the backroom boys' favorite in a brokered convention.

Rubio

It's crunch time for the Republican Obama. We saw him acquit himself well with attacks from Bush, but can he position himself as the candidate that can unite the non-Trump majority? The only hope for the GOP is if they can get behind a single candidate soon. Rubio has the youth, charisma and intelligence. But with too many candidates hanging on through the first several primaries or caucuses, Trump may be able to nail down quite a few delegates before he's toppled. Rubio needs to hang in without saying or doing anything that will be held against him for years to come. He may need to be looking at 2020 for his day in the sun.
Prediction: numbers improve slightly. Third place in Iowa caucuses, but first in New Hampshire.

Bush

Jeb! should be getting ready to play some golf in Florida since his campaigning days are drawing to a close. Unless he scores a knockout punch on Trump, his backroom sponsors will be pushing him to retire from politics. Bush has enough money in his war chest to continue on well into the primaries, but the pressure will be on to get out for the good of the party.
Prediction: Numbers fall. Exit mid-March.

Kasich

I had to look up how to spell this guy's name. He's hoping to be the voice of reason in a part that's abandoned all  hope of reason. May try to hang in until the primaries in the more liberal states, but likely to exit soon.
Prediction: Last appearance on the main stage. Exit after New Hampshire.

Christie

Chris Christie is the man to watch on the stage on Tuesday. Need a drinking game? Take a drink every time he makes a reference to being a former prosecutor. If you're still standing at the end of the first hour, my hat's off to you. He has just fought his way back up from the kiddie table and he's the only one with the fire in the belly to take on Trump. He's looking to pick up support from the law and order Republicans. Since his bid is still a long-shot, he needs to make a mark, and there's no doubt he's a fighter. He'll come out swinging for Trump, possibly in defense of Muslims (since the alleged "thousands cheering" on 911 were supposed to be in Jersey City), but more likely claiming ground as the only one who understands how to use legitimate law enforcement to track down and convict terrorists. Some intrepid journalist should dig up Christie's prosecutorial record and see if he actually did prosecute any real terrorists.
Prediction: numbers up, but poor showing in Iowa. Second place in New Hampshire. Out after Super Tuesday.

Fiorina

Say goodbye to Carly. Her numbers have been falling since her moment in the sun. She might come out with something outrageous again, but she has been cowed by Trump in the past. She can't compete as the business expert, nor as the outsider. Some people might like her as an alternative to Hillary, but not enough. This will be her last showing on the main stage.
Prediction: She will be out after New Hampshire.

Paul

At this point it's not sure if Rand Paul is on the main stage or the warm up event. In any case his days as a presidential candidate in this race are numbered. It's unfortunate, as he's a smart guy and he is the only Republican who is as opposed to corporate welfare for the defence industry as he is to welfare for poor people.
Prediction: Out in time to spend Christmas with his family.

Application Letter to Donald Trump

In the not too distant future, Donald Trump may be returning to business from campaigning. For you up and coming executives, here's a possible letter of application to work for him. Feel free to copy and modify as necessary.

Dear Mr. Trump,

You don't know me, but I'm a terrific candidate for any executive position in your business. I know you must have hundreds of applicants for such positions but you should choose me. I know people who are applying to you and I love these guys (and women--who can be fantastic executives, most of the time) but let me tell you, they are losers. Don't hire them; hire me. I'm a winner.

First, let me give you my qualifications. I'm really smart. I went to university and graduated. I never got caught cheating or plagiarizing. I'm just sick of hearing about losers who are getting into trouble. We never win any more. I will change that. I will show your loser competitors how great Trump is. You won't believe what a good job I'll do for you. You'll make so much money from me that you won't know what to do with it. You have gold plated toilets on your plane now? You'll have gold-foil toilet paper when I work for you. You'll have gold plates that you throw in the trash instead of washing them when I work for you. Illegal immigrants will be going through your trash and taking it home to their countries--solving both the illegal immigrant problem and the trash disposal problem--when I work for you.

I have a fabulous resume. It's so fabulous that you don't want to read it. Let me tell you the highlights. I know how to buy and sell stuff. I've bought and sold lots of stuff. I've used cash and credit cards, barter and cheques. I know that, in principle, one should buy low and sell high. But the market rules. I love the market. It's fantastic. Winners understand the market. Like you. And I'm a winner, which is why you should hire me.

I know how to use the legal system to avoid consequences. Criminal, civil, bankruptcy...you name it, I know some terrific lawyers who can fix problems. People who get convictions are losers! Nothing has ever been proven against me. I'm a winner. They say winners should stick together. That's why I should be working for you.

We both know that this Presidential thing is going to get old for you pretty soon. You are going to want to exit the campaign as a winner, but before one of the primary or caucus states supports one of your loser opponents. I can help you put together an exit strategy that maintains your position as a winner. How about this: "Politics are for losers!" That could be your exit slogan. Or "I made American great again just by campaigning for six months!" Job done! You can get back to what you do best: firing losers!

It's important to plan in advance. No one wants to hear that you were drunk in a Des Moines bar after the Iowa caucuses mumbling racial epithets at Ben Carson (How do we even know he was born in the US? Has anyone seen his birth certificate? I can't hear a freaking thing he says!). No you won't be doing that. That's what a loser would do. And you're a winner. Hire me. I'm a winner, too. I will make Trump great again!

Sincerely,

 YOUR NAME HERE

Help! My Apple Watch is making me fat!

I'm minding my own business, quietly working on something and suddenly I feel this notification on my wrist. It's my Apple Watch, reminding me to get up and move around.

Now, I wish I had a lifestyle where I could alternate active things with sedentary things, but I make my living through words (written, not spoken) and that means I sit and work on a computer. Sometimes I do like to get out for a walk or even more vigorous exercise, but I can't drop everything and go jogging every hour.

But I understand the science behind this warning. It's been demonstrated that excess sitting affects circulation. You can't cram all your movement into one great sweaty ball at one point in the day and then sit and work at your desk for the rest of the day.

But I'm a one-track mind type of guy, so I like to stick at something until it's complete. When my Apple Watch says it's time to get up and move, that's what I do, and I plan to get back to work as fast as possible. At home that means a quick walk around.

But my home isn't very big. There are no stairs. In fact, of the two places I like to work both have nowhere to walk to except the kitchen.

So I'm working without any though of food or eating and the next thing, my Apple Watch is telling me to walk to the kitchen! So naturally, I start to think of food. And even if I harness all the self-restraint I can and return to my work without eating, that little idea is working its way through my brain and I know that before the next hour is up, I'll be eating a cookie, an apple, or having a cup of tea.

So thanks Apple. Maybe the movement ring is getting me to get out and really burn some calories to get my (current) 800 calorie goal, but the standing ring is only getting me to the refrigerator.

Rubio will the the GOP nominee

OK, you heard it here first! I'm calling Marco Rubio as the winner of the GOP nomination marathon.

Yes, it's early days and gaffes, pitfalls and unexpected blowback are still to be experienced, but I think Rubio's the logical choice.

Let's look at my track record. I said the second debate would be Trump's downfall. OK, I was a little off on that. But Trump's failure to stand up to Fiorina's attack showed that he could be wounded. Fiorina has soared since then. Carson has been coming on strong since the first debate. But neither of these outsider candidates will survive the media scrutiny and organizational rigors of the next few months.

Last cycle we had a number of "front runners" over the early part of the process. Voters are trying out different things and anyone could be the flavor of the month.

Going toward Iowa, Carson is loved by evangelicals. But eventually his "nice guy" demeanor will rub off a little and people will see that his lack of experience in anything like running a large complex organization will make him unsuitable for the job. Already he's had to retract statements about Muslims. Carson makes conservatives feel good about themselves because they can support a black man.

On the other hand Fiorina, whatever her record at HP, has the leadership skills to not only run a campaign, but possibly hold elected office. Fiorina appeals to the conservatives who hate women. Of all the candidates' attacks on Planned Parenthood, hers is the most appealing to the conservative base precisely  because it is coming from a woman, who should know better. She appeals to people who see her being able to siphon support from Clinton in the general election.  Unlike Trump, she has detailed proposals. However, her proposals are not really rational or effective, and now she's going to have to spend time defending herself.

Anyway, Trump still tops the polls, but he's falling. According to the Washington Post, both Fiorina and Carson are gaining on him. So if neither of them are going to last who will?

Cruz would like to take Trump's supporters when he comes to his inevitable end. I think most of those people will crawl back under the rocks that they came from.

The party will have to appeal to people who have been alienated by the xenophobic rhetoric whipped up by Trump. That's where Rubio comes in. Now tied for third with Fiorina, he's perfectly positioned to be the party's go-to guy when the freak show comes to an end.

Trump will drop out after Iowa or New Hampshire, likely finishing below third in both. Carson may win Iowa, but can't sustain a front-runner status long. The establishment needs someone to get behind, and although that position should naturally be Bush's, he's not been able to campaign like a winner.

That's why I'm calling it for Rubio.

Debate could be Trump's Waterloo

Although the New York Times reports candidates are not looking to knock Trump out of the race, I think Trump may be heading for a fall. Conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt will be on hand to ask foreign policy questions, and he has already roused The Donald's ire over such questions.

Asked about certain leaders in the Middle East (I won't name them because I don't know them myself, but then again, I'm not running for POTUS) Trump stumbled. What is telling about this misstep is not that he didn't know the names of some long-time Middle Eastern leaders, but that he is not spending his time with advisors studying actual foreign affairs. Of course it would have been worse if he didn't know the name of the President of Mexico or the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Of course Trump responded in typical fashion with ad hominem attacks, calling Hewitt a second-rate journalist. Again, we see Trump's weakness. Although his base might lap it up for a while, sooner or later most rational people will realize that Trump has no solid policy knowledge. Or am I overestimating the intelligence of the American electorate?

What I think this tells us is that Trump is flying on ego. He makes speeches that are short on detail and the public laps it up. But veteran journalists should not be fooled by this rhetoric. That's what Hugh Hewitt shows us. Anyone running for President should have a good grasp on the state of the world and how the US political system actually works.

We saw a little of this in the first debate when Trump was asked for more details on his border wall proposal. He was asked how he "knows" that "criminals and rapists" are being sent by Mexico to the US. His answer is revealing of his typical tactic. He began by saying he visited the border and spoke to border agents. But instead of giving specifics detailing even one instance of an individual being sent by the Mexican government into the US illegally, he swerved into generalities and bombast. A good journalist would have gone back to the original question: "How do you know the Mexican government is sending people across the border?" But the Fox anchor dropped the ball. I have a sense that CNN will do a little better.

This may expose the weakness of the other candidates as well. I don't think any of the "outsiders" have the background knowledge to provide details about foreign policy, domestic policy, or any other policy. Possibly Fiorina has a team helping her getting up to speed, but I get no sense of that deep understanding of the job from Carson.

This may well be the turning point that Bush has been waiting for. No doubt, as the establishment candidate (not to mention brother and son of former Presidents), he has the deep understanding of the state of the world needed to lead the US. Rubio, also, is supposed to be strong on foreign policy.

It takes more than policy to lead a country, but leadership without knowledge is dangerous. It's about time the Republican Party separated the wheat from the chaff and moved toward the primaries with a much smaller field of candidates who are actually competent on policy.

I stand with Trump: To hell with political correctness!

You know, the one thing I like about Donald Trump is that he speaks his mind. You can see him clearly for the asshole he really is. He's not afraid to offend anyone he disagrees with.

But the point about political correctness should be examined. To my mind political correctness is a superficial way of expressing yourself designed to use language you don't agree with. But that's to take a position that the expressions you prefer are actually OK. In fact, we need to continually adapt our language to an evolving sense of humanity. We didn't stop using the N word because of political correctness; we stopped using it because of an evolving (yes, we are still working on it) sense of racial respect.

As this writer states, politically correct is really just respect.

Here are what some dictionaries say. Wikipedia defines it as "an ordinarily pejorative term used to criticize language, actions, or policies seen as being excessively calculated to not offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society." Merriam Webster calls it "agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people." Notice that Merriam Webster takes away the sense of pejorative. I have to disagree with that. I don't think anyone uses that term without a sense that it's kowtowing to someone else's standards.

Megyn Kelly's segue from challenging Trump on disrespecting women to challenging other candidates on not being strict enough abortion opponents boggles the mind. To Republicans, being politically correct means being so strongly pro-life that they would deny a woman an abortion at the cost of her life. They would force a rape victim to live that pain out through nine months of pregnancy and all of its complications afterwards. I don't have time for political correctness should mean "let's talk about the truth about what happens to unplanned, unwanted, poorly cared for children." Let's talk about how we were led into a war based on lies and propaganda that killed and maimed thousands of men and women who were unnecessarily sent into battle. Let's talk about how the country is divided along racial lines and young men and women are constantly subjected to police harassment up to and including murder!

Political correctness is not doing us any good. Calling women "women" instead of "girls" and respecting minorities, disabled people, and anyone different than we are is not political correctness. It's respect.

We need more respect.

Don't worry about robots taking your job; worry about amateurs

Increasing automation in the workplace has led to a lot of job loss. This story cites one million jobs lost due to automation. (Notice the typo in the headline--I'll get back to this.) I recently listened to a podcast series by Planet Money on how robots were taking on all kinds of jobs.

Things that require any kind of repetitive task are being automated. Farming, logging, manufacturing, all these areas are much less labor intensive than they used to be. But that's not all: ATMs, self-serve gas, self-checkout at the store are also costing jobs. When you call a big business and have to negotiate your way through a maze of telephone options, that's because receptionists who used to direct your call or actually help you are out of work. When you hear a message "We are experiencing a higher than normal volume of calls right now" while you wait for the sole human being left on the switchboard to talk to you, it's because the company let go it's normal staff.

OK, but what I've always believed is that if I had skills and creativity then I would always have work. Not true. There's a cascading effect.

I graduated from university with zero computer skills. I mean zero. My computer experience was limited to playing "Where is Carmen Sandiego" on a Commodore 64. So I took a computer course in desktop publishing. I had an English degree, background in journalism and few job prospects.

Desktop publishing, the use of desktop computers to combine typesetting, graphic design and layout into one convenient program was the thin edge of the wedge that upset huge publishing empires. Previously, a graphic designer would sketch out  a design for a magazine or newspaper page. A typesetter would prepare the type in long sheets called galleys, and a layout artist would paste the galleys and photos (which were specially prepared for printing) on big cardboard flats to be taken to a special camera that was used to produce film, which was in turn used to create plates from which the document was printed.

Today, high end publications use graphic designers. Big print runs use plates. But most of the jobs in between are gone.

In fact, even desktop publishing is obsolete because more and more publishing is simply electronic. Electronic newsletters are emailed. Print is too expensive and it uses physical resources.

But what's this got to do with amateurs? Go back to the link I posted near the beginning of the post. The typo in the headline is because in the middle of that old process was a proofreader. Someone whose job was to be the grammar Nazi and to find and fix every comma splice, every misplaced modifier, and yes, every typo. That guy is gone.

Today things go straight from the writer's head to the world without anyone looking at them. And anyone can publish. Right here on this platform every manner of thought is being pushed out onto the world.

And the problem is that what's important is lost in the sea of what's unimportant. People used to pick up a newspaper to read about what is important. Newspapers were written by people who spent their careers separating the wheat from the chaff. They were dedicated to some form of objective truth, even if they didn't all agree.

But today, it's all about advertising. When I look at the New York Times online, I also see the clickbait headlines from LOLWAT, or Taboola or some such crap telling me about a man who did something and I won't believe what happened next.

Journalists are losing ground to the army of bloggers who contribute every manner of rumor and innuendo to the racket of (mis)information.

Wanna go home? Uber will take you instead of a professional taxi driver.

Looking for a President? Donald Trump, amateur politician running on nothing more than name recognition is in the lead as I write.

What is happening to the world?

I blame it on Martin Luther.

Not Martin Luther King, Jr, pacifist leader of the civil rights movement. Martin Luther, 13th century monk who challenged the authority of the Catholic Church. Luther said everyone had the right to know God in their own way, to interpret the Bible for themselves. Thus, he unleashed an army of amateur priests in the Protestant Reformation.

That began the breakdown of authority that shakes our foundations today. Today there is no authority. Scientific authority is defied not only by climate change deniers, but by the anti-vaccine movement, the anti-GMO movement, the alternative medicine movement, the homeschool movement, and more. Everywhere, people shun any process that requires years of study and dedication for one that claims equivalency for something shallow.

We never should have stopped teaching rhetoric in school. Rhetoric is the art of argument. It is the use of logic. It teaches us to recognize false logic and incorrect conclusions.

We sure could use some of that these days.

GOP's challenge is to manage Trump

Now that the GOP mob mentality has it turning on Trump, it may find its nightmare scenario is shaping up: Trump as an independent candidate.

What the GOP needs is for Trump to remain in the race for many more months, draining his financial assets. If he were to decide to run as a third party or independent candidate next spring, he would have to build an organization state by state, wending its way through various rules to get him on the state ballots. But in the meantime, he'd be spending his millions fighting for the GOP nomination.

If he drops out of the GOP race now, he can play golf for the next six months, while his team works on the details of getting on the various state ballots. He could even wait until after the conventions, all the while taking potshots at the other candidates. The cost for Trump would be minimized.

No doubt the other candidates would say his sniping doesn't warrant a response; when in fact, they quail under his attacks. Trump's style cannot be fought with normal politics. That's the source of his teflon. You either lower yourself to his level or you have to let him throw his insults without penalty.

He's already shown that his ability to garner free media attention is greater than ever seen before. Even if Fox doesn't pump him as it has done for the last month, he can get lots of attention.

This is the legacy of the current political climate. For decades it has drifted away from policy and substance toward ideology and style. Crowing on stage about who is a real conservative, rather than presenting real concrete plans is just part of it.

Trump is absolutely right that he was attacked from the get-go at the debate. The question about loyalty to the ultimate candidate and disavowing a third party run was only designed to call out Trump. He had to hold up his hand. Not to do so would have been capitulation, which is not in Trump's vocabulary.

The current feeding frenzy, if it drives Trump out of the GOP race, is just what he needs to continue to disrupt the process without bankrupting (excuse me, using the laws of the United States) himself.

And the GOP will be left without the knuckle-dragging, uninformed rabble that it depends on to swing the vote.

Trump's rise was inevitable

No one doubts that Trump will fail to become President of the United States. The most likely trajectory is that some time between now and November 2016, Trump will begin to perceive both dwindling support and rising expenses and realize that he'd rather remain a billionaire than bet it all on a losing proposition. My guess is that this will happen sometime in February or March of 2016, but it could be much sooner, if polls change.

What Trump needs to maintain his lead is a huge field of Republican candidates. As long as the 75-80% of Americans who don't support him are divided 17 ways, then Trump can triumphantly crow about winning. But eventually some of the smaller candidates, who aren't self-funding, will begin to run out of money. Their donors will pull back and they will read the writing on the wall. Once the field narrows down to a reasonable 7 or 8 candidates, support will move to one or two who will begin to overshadow Trump.

That requires neither great insight nor knowledge. What I think this particular election cycle teaches us is that there is no longer a difference between entertainment and political leadership. When Trump was challenged on his misogynistic comments, he interrupted timed exactly as it would be on a TV game show, drawing the same laughs. Trump played his part. Despite their attempts to challenge Trump (and other candidates) on issues, the Fox media could not escape its main role as entertainment. Trump is ahead right now because he is the only candidate running who has made a career out of being in the spotlight. He is bulletproof because he understands that there is no bad publicity.

Challenged about asking a woman on Celebrity Apprentice to get down on her knees (I thought this was a reference to oral sex, but apparently it was a reference to her begging to keep her job), Trump failed to give what I thought was the obvious answer: "We do things on the TV show to play for ratings, to create a character, you can no more attach those statements to me than you can use lines that Reagan might have said in Bedtime for Bonzo." But I was wrong. There is no line between entertainment and political life any more.

As I write this, I'm still waiting for new polls to reveal how the debates have shifted the standings among GOP candidates, but I'm sure Trump has not gone down. In fact, his presence dampened all other candidates. No one dared take a shot at him. That was left to the moderators, and look how they fared. No one could say out loud, this is a contest for leadership of the United States of America, not Celebrity Apprentice.

Coming from the left, this gives me no glee. Trump, either as an independent, a GOP candidate or merely a failed candidate will help the Democrats hold the White House. But the march of style of substance continues.

How many people on the left rely (relied) on Jon Stewart for their news? What a farce! (And I mean this both literally and metaphorically.) Stewart's whole schtick was to take snippets of news stories and make fun of whoever was involved. He presented no in-depth analysis. He gave no new data. He did not provide reportage of issues ignored by mainstream media. He couldn't. He relied on people having at least a little knowledge of the issue. And then he made you laugh. And he made me laugh. But he didn't teach anything new. All he did was entertain us. And people turn off their TV sets at night believing they are knowledgeable about world affairs but without any new knowledge.

Reading the Gettysburg Address, I don't see any place where Lincoln paused for a joke. I don't see humor in Dr. King's I have a Dream speech. But politicians for the last 30 years have had to show their lighter side. Obama is great at self-deprecating jokes. But democracy has become some kind of sitcom. We need our laugh track along with our ballot boxes. And who gets the biggest laugh wins.

And that's the saddest part of all.

Trump is the candidate America has been waiting for

For years wannabe political leaders have emerged from businesses proclaiming that their business skills will be just the thing to lead the country to prosperity. After all, if they can run a business, they can run a country/state/city. Now here's Donald Trump proclaiming the same thing.

Trump's big idea for border security is to build a wall from San Diego to Texas, along the entire border. Paying for the massive structure? He will force the Mexicans to pay for it, because he believes he can negotiate by strangling their economy.

This is the kind of bully tactics that can get you to the top of the heap in business. Ignore the fact that economic relations and political relations are governed by a mutual respect. Ignore the fact that the North American Free Trade Agreement is in place. Just use brute economic force. That's what dealing with a big company is like for must of us regular folk. Even when the law is on your side, big companies have armies of lawyers to fight for their ability to do whatever the hell they want.

But that's the way America operates in the world. The US does not let its military answer to the World Court. Americans cannot be tried for war crimes. America drops bombs on anyone it perceives as an enemy when they are out of reach of other means. American's armed might is disproportionately larger than any other country. The invasion of Iraq should have been seen as a war crime in itself: justified by lies, leaving millions dead, homeless and dispossessed in its wake.

No, Donald Trump is exactly the leader America has been waiting for. It's highly unlikely he will be elected and not just because the majority of Americans are actually rational, fair-minded, intelligent individuals.

Trump's rise to the top of the polls is unlikely to last because Trump misunderstands both politics and business. His billions don't match the billions of the Kock brothers, and unlike them, he doesn't understand the power of the PAC. Trump may be prepared to spend a lot of his fortune on getting to the White House, but he's only looking at the official spending of other candidates. The real money (and in this election it's particularly important) is in the unofficial spending. When the soft money starts flowing, Trump won't be able to keep up. He doesn't see how behind-the-scenes alliances make a big difference.

I just hope Trump can stay in the race until the first debate. It's bound to be hilarious and an opportunity for him to say more outrageous things. After that, there's bound to be a coalescence around a few of the other more reasonable candidates, until Trump decides to take his marbles and go home, like the schoolyard bully he is.

Global Warming: Where's the heat? (Part 1)

Remember that old Wendy's commercial: Where's the beef? Well, lately a similar question has arisen: where's the heat? The warmest year on record was 1998, so each of the last 16 years has not been the warmest year on record. Some people love to claim the earth has been cooling since that time.

For example, this article in the Wall Street Journal, claims that the climate is less sensitive to CO2 emissions than previously believed and that's why the Earth has not warmed as much as predicted. The author, Judith Curry, says her work shows the likely impact of continuing our emissions is only about one more degree of warming over the rest of this century. How I wish it were true!

DeSmogBlog debunks this claim. They show her science is weak at best, arriving at a range of potential temperature changes that match the IPCC's. However, by looking at a smaller number of studies, she gets a lower median figure, and hence less warming to be predicted.

Now here's a prediction you can count on. This denier is not an independent thinker, but has financial reasons to hold these opinions. According to the DeSmogBlog post:

• Curry recently participated in a forum held by the discredited, fossil-fuel funded George Marshall Institute, which advocates outright climate denial and has denied the link between tobacco and cancer in the past.
• Her consulting company has received funding from the fossil fuel industry since 2007, at her own admission.
• Her work has been repeatedly criticized by reputable scientists including those at RealClimate and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

This is typical when you look deeper. Those denying climate change are from a small group. They support each other, and they benefit from the industries that are spewing carbon into the atmosphere at greater and greater rates.

Now, I'm not a scientist. I've tried to look deep into the science and although I'm convinced, the actual physics of atmospheric change are beyond my ability. What it comes down to is which climate models you trust, and I think a basic psychological attitude toward the world.

I don't much like the labels "denialist" or "warmist". They tend to shape people into narrow categories for the purpose of denying the strength of their arguments. (Mea culpa: I just did that to Judith Curry.) But this is something of a debate between two groups: one says climate change (global warming, I use the terms interchangeably) is real and present and we need to deal with it; the other says it either isn't here, isn't serious, or needs to be dealt with through a strong economy.

People in the latter camp tend to see global warming as a ploy by big government to tax more, restrict personal choice more and generally interfere with the pursuit of happiness. And all these fears may be to some extent justified. Except that it's not a ploy.

We are the government. The government is our collective will. In a truely functioning democracy individual citizens would have a lot more power. Unfortunately in a modern democracy, the need to raise money to get elected gives the rich a disproportionate voice in influencing our elected representatives. But government action is needed to change the economy to support renewable sources of energy and move away from carbon based energy sources. That may mean changes in tax regimes.

One reason that I am pessimistic about change happening is that no politician is ever going to be elected by promising less. And I really think that the only good solution will be for us to consume less, have less personal mobility (cars) and pay more for most of the things we like to do. I also believe that we in the industrialized countries have a much greater burden to make change than the poorer countries. Not just because we got rich through the tonnes of carbon we've put into the atmosphere over the last century, but because it needs to be done now and we are the ones who can afford best to do it.

Guns guns guns

There's an old Guess Who song titled "Guns, guns, guns" that is more about hunting than people killing people, which is what I want to write about. Nonetheless, Burton Cummings was as keen an observer of the US as any Canadian. In "American Woman" he sings "I don't need your war machines / I don't need your ghetto scenes..."

When I was in high school in the US, one of my friends said that Canadians had no culture, we just sang about the US. And there's no doubt that it's true to a degree. A famous Canadian politician said "Living next to the United States is a little like sleeping with an elephant. You always wonder if they will roll over on you." So we must be concerned about what happens in the US.

Canada is unique. Not only do we have a small population compared to our neighbour, but a huge majority of our population lives within 100 miles of the US border. We have US TV beamed straight into our homes. We share a language with the US. We watch US movies. We read US books (well, the declining percentage of us who read for pleasure). We are affected by the US in more ways than we can count.

And we are affected by US gun violence. Since it's very difficult in Canada to buy a handgun, most handguns are smuggled in from the US. It's a credit to the Canadian Border Services Agency that there are not more. But not only Canada, but Mexico, and many other nations suffer from the outflow of guns from the US. If any nation was responsible for exporting something to the US that killed as many citizens as its own guns, the US would declare war. Over the last 10 years, around 10,000 people per year die as a result of gun homicides in the US. That's 3 World Trade Centers terrorist attacks EVERY YEAR.

I'm not going to claim Canada is free from crazy people killing others with guns. Far from it. We have gang shootings, we have mass shootings at schools, and we have murders and suicides. Some of these are with illegal guns from the US; some are from legally owned guns; some are from illegal guns that could have been legally obtained in Canada. But they happen at a much lower rate. In Canada in 2006, there were only 8100 victims of violent crime involving a firearm. That's ALL crime, not just homicide. So that includes robbery where there were no shots fired; threatening with a firearm, etc. In Canada there were 190 homicides by gun in 2006; in the US there were 10,225!

Why is the US so gun crazy? I like to read the comments on on-line articles to get some sense of what people think. This is absolutely unscientific. There are vast differences of opinion and they tend to clump together. But there are some people who claim that they are willing to go into armed revolt if there is a move by the government to restrict weapon ownership. The constitution's second amendment gives American citizens the right to bear arms. The interpretation of this clause has been debated thoroughly, but just let me point out it includes the phrase "a well regulated militia." Were I a judge on the Supreme Court, I not would think that this allows every yahoo to own a military assault rifle. But there is something deep in the American psyche that believes in both individualism and the ultimate use of violence to resolve disputes.

Call me a left wing nutcase (I often claim that I stand slightly to the left of Fidel Castro), but to me, the key evil in this clause relates also to the growth of the corporation. I believe that gun manufacturers are the group that fuels and pushes the belief in firearms as necessary to life as food and Jesus. Gun manufacturers are profiting from the sale of every firearm, legal and illegal. Gun manufacturers are fueling and profiting from the Mexican drug war, gang wars, and crazy survivalists. Great fortunes were earned in Canada through the export of alcohol to the US during the time of Prohibition. Fortunes are being earned today through the sale of marijuana. And in the US, fortunes are being earned by exporting guns around the world. Follow the money!

I read a blog post about how the US should be up in arms over a proposed treaty to limit small arms. The author is a complete nutcase, in my humble opinion (I'm sure he would think the same about me), who also denies climate change as a leftist conspiracy. But I'm heartened by the fact that the UN is making some motion to recognize that internal US policy has a killing effect around the world despite the fact that this is not likely to go anywhere.

I think we should be treating the US as a pariah nation that allows its citizens to kill each other at genocidal rates and exports its killing tools around the world. It's about time that the world stood up and pointed at the US and cried "shame!" No doubt people will continue to kill each other over love, hate, greed, and ignorance, as they have done since the beginning of time. Perhaps the first tool use was to kill someone with a rock. But putting guns in the hands of more people is insane. It's about time for the US people to amend the second amendment to clarify and restrict gun ownership. This will involve finding a way to get guns off the street and out of the hands of citizens. And, it's about time for the US to stop exporting its killing tools to the rest of the world.

No new climate deal in sight

Oh, so the US thinks there will be no new climate deal until 2020. Methinks that's a little late.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20111122-714059.html

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--A week before international climate negotiations are scheduled to start, the U.S. has signaled it does not expect the world's economic powers to reach a legally binding agreement to cut greenhouse-gas emissions until 2020.

An ongoing stalemate between China, which has resisted agreeing to legally binding emissions cuts, and the U.S., which has said it only will agree to binding emission cuts if China does, is widely expected to continue at climate talks sponsored by the United Nations that are scheduled to start Monday in Durban, South Africa

 Nero fiddles while Rome burns. There is something seriously wrong with this scenario. By 2020 it will be too damned late! That's nine years away! Last year was the worst year ever for CO2 adding to the atmosphere. And we will get worse. How many heatwaves and droughts and needless deaths will there be in nine years? Nine years is a long time, even by geological standards.

We're screwed.

That's why they call me the Voice of Doom.

More bad news for Climate Change

There's more bad news coming on the climate front. Better get used to it.

Record-breaking temperatures, stronger winds and heavy precipitation in the form of rain and snow are becoming more frequent events in the 21st century due to climate change that evidence indicates is being caused by human activity, says a new assessment released Friday by governments from around the world.

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Report+sounds+stark+climate+warning/5736485/story.html#ixzz1eCsrJ9yZ

 The problem for most of us is that "more frequent" has to do with probability and we humans are pretty poor at understanding probability. Not every heat wave, not every heavy precipitation event, not every drought is linked to climate change. They have always occurred and always will occur. So the nay sayers have plenty of fodder.

But the reality is that they will occur more often. And they will be more severe. Just ask Rick Perry, after the terrible drought that socked Texas last summer.

And there's more.

Energy-related carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2010 were the highest in history, according to the latest estimates by the International Energy Agency (IEA) .

We haven't even begun to address the fact that carbon is continuing to be added to the atmosphere. I remember when commentators were saying the 90's were going to be the "turnaround decade." Twenty years later we haven't even begun.

Here's the way I see it. The US is still the leading global economy. Barak Obama is in deep trouble in terms of his re-election chances in a year. Will President Mitt Romney be much better? (You heard it here first!) I doubt it. As much as Obama is trying to move an agenda that makes sense against a backdrop of opposition. Romney will be trying to get his own people on board, which will be difficult, judging from the fact that there is so much opposition to the facts of climate change on the right.

So at least five more years will pass before we have another chance to address the US carbon issue. Perhaps by that time China's economy will eclipse the American economy. If the Chinese leaders perceive a threat from climate change, watch out! They will make changes in their economy faster than you can say "Gung hay fat choy!" That's one of the advantages of a fascist government.

Meanwhile in our democracies, we have to convince everyone to get on board. The truth that no politician will get elected on is that we need to consume less. We need to voluntarily become poorer in order to survive. Vote for that!

That's why I'm the voice of doom.

Limits to Carbon? I doubt it!

A soon to be released study says we must get carbon emissions below zero within 20 years to avoid excessive warming (over 2 degreees C). http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/20/us-carbon-climate-idUSTRE78J3IK20110920

If, like me, you've followed the US presidential race at all, you know this will never happen. Obama's administration is in crisis, it's worsening every day. The Republicans actually have a shot at toppling a sitting President in 2012. And who is the front runner? Climate change denying Rick Perry!

Just one of the contenders admits Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is real. One of this fossil-fueled group of walking brain-dead idiots is likely to become the next "leader of the free world." And he's not likely to want to limit carbon emissions.

Hell, even if there were a President who wanted to do something about it, I don't think he (or she) could. The system is just that messed up. The great vision of the founding fathers of the US was that the system is one of checks and balances. That way no one could hijack things and make radical changes.

But today a radical change is needed for survival. And we've got gridlock at the highest levels. Not only that, but there is a large faction of irrational people basing public policy on Biblical revelations, petroleum profits, and lobbyist pay-offs.

If we are lucky, the US economy will tank further. If the US becomes irrelevant, then perhaps the world can come to an understanding without the US. But as long as gun totin' V8 drivin' red-blooded Americans rule the world, we are doomed.

Get out your shorts. It's going to be a warm century ahead.

New Oil Pipeline, Great. Not!

Anyone out there who thinks a pipeline is going to be cancelled in this economic and political climate raise their hand.

Strange that I can't feel a cooling breeze from all the hands going up. Or not strange, if you're as pessimistic as I am.

A pipeline to Texas refineries from Alberta tar sands has passed one more step. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/plan-for-canada-to-texas-oil-pipeline-moves-forward-after-environmental-review/2011/08/26/gIQA3iaJgJ_story.html

 Not a done deal yet, but with only one Republican presidential hopeful admitting to the possibility of anthropogenic climate change, it's not surprising that there is not a hope in hell that anyone in power will take concrete steps to block it.

Canada is not going to stop the pipeline. Our Prime Minister is from Alberta and is only recently admitting to AGW. He would probably be shot by his own caucus if he tried to pull the plug on this pipeline. Not that he has any inclination to do so. Our best opposition leader just died, leaving behind a caucus mostly composed of wet-behind-the-ears rookie MPs. There is no organized political party able to mount any kind of significant challenge to the Conservatives.

Perhaps Hurricane Irene will remind Americans that oil security is not as crucial as climate security. On the other hand, because climate scientists are stuck with telling the truth, such as we can't link one storm or weather event with climate change, it's not likely that anyone is going to become willing to make the kind of changes in priority that will result in significant changes to our economics resulting in diminished human effects on the climate.

I truly believe we will suck every last drop of oil out of the ground and push the climate past every pessimistic forecast. After all, look at New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina. The rich were inconvenienced. Poor people died. Poor people are dying in Africa. Rich people around the world are able to make changes to adapt. And they want their oil. They are not going to give up their lifestyles easily.

So pump up that SUV. It's business as usual.

Raise Taxes Now!

Looking south of the border at the debt ceiling crisis in the US, I might have a feeling of smugness as a Canadian, but I don't. We tend to follow US trends closely, and with our current Conservative administration, the constant pressure to lower taxes is just as strongly felt here as in the US.

The problem is that for a balanced budget, you have two options, raise income or cut spending. We've been cutting spending for the last two decades and we are at the point where public services are suffering. In the US we've seen a bridge collapse, schools are failing, and prisoners have been let go free because of overcrowding (I'll save a piece on the stupidity of mandatory minimum sentences and three strike laws for another blog).

I know about non-balanced budgets. I had to declare personal bankruptcy once. After I got that over with, I went back to school, got a better job, and thought I was safe. I found myself in debt again. So this time I cut spending. But at some point you can't cut any more. I had no car, I spent the minimum on food, and I wore my shoes until people commented on the holes in them. I was just barely keeping my head above water. So I found a way to make some extra income. It has made all the difference. Just a few hundred dollars a month in my budget has made paying off debt a breeze. Governments need to do the same.

Last year, I earned about $59000 in my job plus a net of about $1000 for my extra income. I paid about $8200 on an income just over $60,000. That's an effective rate under 14%. And that's provincial and federal tax combined! I can hardly claim to be burdened with excessive taxation. But when I go to the passport office, twenty of thirty wickets are closed. When I visited the taxation office for a friend's audit, there wasn't even a receptionist and some poor delivery guy was trying to get our auditor to accept a package for some unknown person in the building. Come on! Raise taxes and let's hire some civil servants!

In this province there are wildlife protection officers who have thousands of miles of territory to cover. Does that protect us from poachers? Instead they put up signs in the bush asking us to "observe, and report suspicious activity."

So instead of taxing us up front, so those with higher incomes pay more, the government institutes "user fees" for public amenities. User fees are the same thing as taxes, except rich people can afford them more than poor people. So I can afford to take my kid camping at a public park for $25 a night, but someone with less money can't. Democracy is supposed to be about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Without a good progressive taxation system, we're doomed. When will some political leaders have the guts to stand up and say that they want to deliver effective government and we need to pay for it?

Look around. People are lining up to pay $5 for some fancy Starbucks coffee. When I was a kid, I remember seeing a Cadillac for the first time. Today you can barely cross the street without being run down by people driving Audis, BMWs, Infinitis, and other luxury cars. I see Rolls Royces regularly. Ferraris are a daily sight. Don't tell me we can't afford to pay more taxes!

This is a selfish, self-centred society. We want services from our government that we don't want to pay for. Suck it up Canada (and my friends in the US). Pay more taxes now!