W.W.T.D.?
(What Would Tommy Do?)

Last week, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein announced that his government will soon be initiating a "third-way" health care system. Under this series of health care reforms, Albertans will be able to buy private insurance for certain procedures, and doctors will be allowed to practice in both the public and private-health systems. Klein seemed to suggest that these and other non-specified reforms may contravene the Canada Health Act. This of course set off a whole slew of rapid-fire editorializing in the media. We Canadians have an extreme emotional attachment to our public health care.

While I consider myself a naturally leftward leaner, some of you may be surprised to find out that I absolutely support the introduction of a Canadian parallel private health care system- with certain caveats, of course. Look- it's clear that our current health care system is not working well. Waiting times for cancer treatments, diagnostics and joint replacements are beyond reasonable limits. Our population is aging and this situation is not going to get better by itself.

Why not amend the Canada Health Act to allow doctors to develop a private system, while at the same time create a quota of hours that doctors must commit to the public system? For example, all doctors would be required to limit private service to 5 0r 10% of total practice time. It's not like we don't already apply limits to doctors; in the province of Ontario there have been many instances of salary caps and even claw-backs for doctors. The people who can afford these services will not exactly be "jumping the queue", but entering another line entirely. Technically, once these spaces are vacated, everyone else gets bumped ahead.

What I'm proposing is not an end to private health care- rather an enhancement. It offers people the opportunity to purchase what may be a life-saving treatment. And I don't think that it's only the super-rich that would partake in the system; thousands of Canadians currently waiting for critical treatments would gladly choose to liquidate their assets rather than be forced to wait (and die) for free service. And yes- of course there are sick people with no assets to liquidate. For these people, there would still be a vibrant public system available.

You might argue that instead of abandoning the public system we should instead focus all our energies on fixing the current one. I agree that there is much that could be done to improve the public system; better federal funding, improved licensing for foreign-trained doctors, etc. These are potential solutions that could take years- even decades to put in place. In the meantime, how many Canadians have to die before we get it right?

"People have to have a sense of the need for change before it comes. I've never believed that social change is brought about by rational thinking on the part of people. They take the next step forward because they have to in order to survive. Man likes to tread the beaten path. Only a great social upheaval can force him to move into some great new uplands of human behaviour."

These wise words were spoken by none other than Tommy Douglas, the father of the Canadian public health care system. I think it's time to ask ourselves if our emotional attachment to public health care is also a rational one. For those Canadians who are currently dying while waiting for treatment, I think it's fair to say that a private health care system might very well be "the next step forward...in order to survive".

I wonder what Tommy would think?

The Sea of Green

Palestinians have voted, and Hamas has claimed a major victory- 76 seats in parliament, compared to Fatah's 43. Some might find this completely unbelievable, but I don't really think so.

Don't get me wrong- I actually doubt that the majority of Palestinians are religious extremists determined to "obliterate Israel" (the terminology used in the Hamas covenant). I prefer to believe that much like their Israeli neighbours, the majority of Palestinians would simply like to live normal lives, raise their children and make a decent living.

So why, you ask, would they vote for Hamas? Here's what I think: After 48 years, the Fatah party has become inextricably linked to the ineffectual and corrupt Yasser Arafat. While he was squirreling their money away in European banks, the Palestinian people lived like dogs. And who stepped in to provide basic services, like health care and education? That's right- Hamas. The fact Hamas is driven by a religious extremism uncharacteristic of many Palestinians pales in comparison to what they have contributed to Palestinian society.

You might wonder why, now that Arafat is dead, would the Palestinians not continue their support for Abbas, Fatah's current leader. And here's where certain people might get offended- I think that ultimately, Hamas's victory can be understood as a consequence of Israeli unilateralism. Pretty much since the start of Abbas's leadership, Israel has refused to deal with the PA. Claiming they "had no partner for peace", negotiations ceased. The pull-out from Gaza - arguably the single-most significant event since the assassination of Rabin in 1995 - was carried out by the IDF while the Palestinians - and more importantly - the PA watched from the sidelines.

What could be a clearer signal to the Palestinian people that theirs was a useless leader? By refusing to publicly engage Abbas in the turnover of Gaza, Israel emasculated the Chairman and debilitated the party.

So what does this mean? One line of argument is that, much like Fatah's own history, Hamas will be tamed by its entry into the official democratic governing structure. Over the past year we have seen evidence of much internal diversity within the organization, with some leaders quite willing to negotiate with Israel. On the other hand, this could go the other way, as evidenced by Hezbollah in Lebanon. Despite its official status as a political party, Hezbollah is clearly an extremist group that is considered a terrorist organization by many countries, including the US, UK, Canada, The Netherlands, and Australia. Where Hamas will end up, only time will tell.

After yesterday's elections, two things are clear: Israel may no longer be the only democracy in the Middle East, and if they thought Fatah was a shitty partner for peace, they've got a whole other thing coming.

It's Wednesday, and as usual, I'm in a rush...please enjoy this shot of Arthur at the Grand Canyon. Did I mention that he's really into adventure travel?

Thanks for visiting, come again.

Now that the election dust has settled...

Those of you who follow my blog will remember my father-in-law the Albertan. Defined by the politics of geography (I'm from Ontario), our relationship is often marked by dramatic debates about the way this country is run. I'm sure he's tickled pink with last night's outcome.

That being said, now that it's all over, I don't think the Canadian electoral map is all that bad. Like naughty little children, the Liberals are getting their well-deserved time out; the NDP has a stronger voice, the Conservatives are ruling with a much smaller margin than anticipated, and the Greens now have $1,093,750 to play with for next time (better make it count, Jimbo- $1.75 of that came from me). I think it will be a very exciting few years watching the Liberals fight from the other side of the House of Commons. They might actually grow some teeth.

And don't get me wrong- the country's shift to the right certainly signals no such shift in my relationship with my father-in-law. Now I'll get to complain to him about what shitty leaders the Conservatives are. And being from "the city" (his cheeky term for my Torontonian roots), I will take great pleasure in reminding him that not only did the Conservatives get shut out of my hometown, but Vancouver and Montreal as well. I will explain to him that I'm ok with the Harper government- it's time the small-town folks get some representation. We urbane sophisticates know how to handle defeat.

Sorry Olivia...I'm voting Green.

Well, here in Canada it's election day. Now for those of you who follow my blog, you will know that historically, I vote NDP. For those of you who know me personally, you've probably seen the big orange NDP sign in front of my house. Here's the thing: This year, I think I'm voting Green.

Recently I recieved an email from a friend, also an NDP-er, explaining why this year, we should vote Green. She argued that the great thing about the Green party is that their platform addresses non-environmental things like budgets, health-care, education, etc...through the lens of the environment. She ended her argument with a quote from Kermit the Frog, a timeless hero of the Green persuasion. I've been giving it a lot of thought, and I agree with her.

Look- I'm not really the granola-treehugger-type, but I recognize that the rate at which we are damaging our environment is exponentially faster than the rate that we're fixing it. This scares me. I'm thinking that the only way that we as a species will avert self-destruction through environmental damage is if we undergo an absolute paradigm shift. When you examine the other party platforms, the environement may or may not factor as an issue. What is certain is that no party other than Green will stake their name on their environmental policies.

Here's the thing: my vote is worth $1.75 to the party that I vote for. In 2004, the Greens won 582 247 votes, which meant $1,018,932.25 towards their budget. If this paradigm shift is going to happen, the Green party will need a lot more money and votes than that.

My vote is my way of making that happen.

The songs Layton's singing...

Apparently, Jack Layton has been seriously stepping up his attacks against the Liberals. He's asking Liberal voters who are disappointed in their monarchy - oops, I mean government- to "lend him their votes."

I can't help but wonder though- Jacky's campaign has been marked by a lot of lefty ideology and rhetoric. Which I don't really mind, because being a lefty, I tend to agree with it. Except for his position on private health care, which I'll save for another post. Anyhoo- here my point: If Jack is really so concerned about his lefty issues, wouldn't it make more sense for him to be trying to scare voters away from the Conservatives? The Liberal platform and policies come much closer to the NDP's worldview than does the Conservative's.

Clearly Jack realizes that he stands to gain more votes by wooing the disgruntled Liberal voter. The thing is, he knows he's not gonna win- he's 17 points behind Harper's Conservatives. Which begs the question: What does Jack think serves the public interest best- more NDP's in parliament, or fewer Conservatives?

A swimmer in the ocean does not fear the rain.

Osama bin Laden spoke these eloquent words in a new audiotape that was released yesterday. He's basically saying "we're winning and we've got nothing to lose." Here's the thing- after reading his statement (at least the portions released to the public), I think the guy is making a ton of sense.

In this recording, bin Laden describes in detail (and with several exhortations to God) how Americans and the West are losing the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. He then offers a long-term truce, and promises that if accepted, "both sides can enjoy security and stability." He asks the American public to reject George W Bush and his continuing wars.

Now don't get your shorts in a knot- I am not endorsing bin Laden, terrorism, Islamofacism or anything like that. Whether or not bin Laden even really exists, the attacks of September 11th were unjustified and evil. That being said, let's just look at the reality of the situation. Bush's increasingly shitty approval ratings and declining public support for the war indicate that most Americans realize that American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting losing battles.

When the guy in charge of the people who are clearly kicking your ass offers a truce, isn't it time to say uncle?

Clearly GWB doesn't think so. Shortly after the tape was released, the President's spokesman delivered the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" speech. Someone should tell these guys that they're not winning this war.

If a swimmer in the ocean doesn't fear rain, does a capsized ship require a lifeboat?

In the balance...

After Harper's recent statement regarding the Liberal hold on the Canadian senate and judiciary, the issue of judicial activism seems to have entered the fray of election debate.

I've always been a-ok with the idea that our Supreme Court justices make bold decisions that change the Canadian legal landscape. We have a charter that protects our rights and freedoms, and in the case of a really shitty decision, we have a Notwithstanding Clause that basically functions as an opt-out policy. Seeing as though most of the groundbreaking decisions were, let us say, of the leftward persuasion, I've never really had a problem with the fact that un-elected judges were changing Canadian law.

With the reality of a conservative government looming, I've gotta say that it's a bit scary to imagine what our judiciary might look like after a couple of terms. Let's hope that defendants of judicial activism don't have to eat their words.

Sorry people. No time today. Please instead enjoy another of Arthur's travel pics. This is from last year's trip to India, where he met the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala.

Thanks for dropping by, come again.

The Afghanistan Election Blindspot

Last Sunday, 3 soldiers were wounded and a Canadian diplomat was killed in a suicide attack in Kandahar. When I heard this news I was saddened to think that such a horrible fate had befallen our Canadian peacekeepers. What I did not realize at the time was that Canadian forces stationed in Kandahar are not performing peacekeeping operations; these 600 Canadian troops are engaged in heavy combat, and will be joined by another 1400 soldiers by next month.

Look- I'm not saying that we shouldn't be there- I'll save that discussion for another post. What I'm pissed about is that this is the last week of a very long election and the issue of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan has not registered even a blip on the radar. Canada's military is poised on the cusp of its most dangerous military operation since the Korean War, yet neither the party leaders nor the media responsible for assessing their performance have addressed this issue. How might those 600 troops in Kandahar- better yet, the 1400 troops awaiting deployment- feel knowing that their incredible sacrifice isn't important enough to factor as an issue in this election?

Our Conservative Rebound Relationship

Paul Darby is the economist from the "prestigious" (see posting for Jan. 9) Conference Board of Canada who recently gave the Conservative platform the seal of approval. Turns out that the platform he was given to assess was missing two crucial elements, and Darby now maintains that his analysis of the platform's "fiscal soundness" is inaccurate.

I doubt that this information will have any negative impact on Conservative momentum- despite our natural liberal inclinations, Canadians can't re-elect a Martin government; it's like going back to a lover who you know has cheated on you. Eventually you might take your lover back, but only after they've made amends. I hate to say it, but it will do the Liberals some good to be on the offensive for a while. It's the only way they can earn back our respect. In the meantime, look at the next four years as our rebound relationship; driven by spite into the arms of someone who, in retrospect, will make us feel dirty. Harper's already vowed to raise taxes for the LOWEST income bracket, revisit the same-sex marriage legislation, and make Stockwell Day our Foreign Minister. Egad.

The Implausibility Index

A weekly catalogue of implausible events that are completely inconsistent to the internal reality of the show and serve no purpose other than to further the plot.
* if you're not a fan of the show, this new feature is not for you.
** spoiler warning for those who tivo the show.

1. There was ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for Jack not to let the kid go with Chloe once they escaped the parking garage.

2. How is it possible that the position of President's right-hand-man is occupied by a Russian spy?

3. It seems clear that Chloe's little boyfriend is this season's CTU mole. You'd think that after 4 kicks at the can, CTU would learn how to conduct a proper background check.

Even cowboys change their minds...

So, it seems that Harper's been following my blog. Shortly after yesterday's post he announced that if elected, Mr. Zeisman will not be serving as part of the Conservative caucus. Funny though- he didn't leave a comment. I wonder what he thought of the graphic....

Harper's Evolution

My father-in-law is Albertan. Being an Ontarian myself, these geographic characteristics often provide the fuel for fantastic debates, usually about politics. When it comes to Canadian politics, the debate can be summed-up as follows: He expresses his disgust at Liberal corruption and cronyism, I say that all governments are corrupt and that if the Conservatives were in power the scandals would be theirs, he says he's not surprised by my argument, after all, I'm from Ontario, I say I don't know why I'm defending the Liberals- I vote NDP.

Well, they're not in power yet, but as the overdog in the election the Conservatives are already displaying some very Liberalesque behavior. (And by Liberalesque I mean scandalous.) Tory candidate Derek Zeisman is facing charges for attempting to smuggle 112 containers of alcohol and a Mercedes Benz across the U.S.-Canada border. Apparently, no one in the Conservative party (including the staff running his campaign) had any idea. In a move stunningly similar to McGuinty's recent Takhar decision (see posting for Jan. 6), despite the fact that Zeisman lied about the charges to secure his nomination, Harper has decided to stand by his man instead of the electorate. Notwithstanding the Conservative campaign focus on the horrors of Liberal scandal, Harper has decided NOT to ask Zeisman to resign.

The headline of The Globe today reads, "Harper says he's 'evolved'." He's evolved alright- into the kind of leader that chooses loyalty to the party over responsibility to the public. I can't wait to discuss Harper's "evolution" with my father-in-law. The debate will take the usual twists and turns, but this time I get to say "I told you so!!"

Happy Eid-al-Adha
In a rush today, so no time for a post. Instead, I will share with you another of Arthur's recent travel photos. He's just returned from the Hajj- here he is at Mecca. Can you spot him?
Happy Eid everyone!!

Owning Democracy

For several weeks now a banner ad has been appearing in the front section of The Globe. It reads, "Democracy is yours, own it! Your opinions = free music." Apparently, Canadians under the age of 25 are invited to complete a 2-minute election survey and claim a free music download. The ad has been placed by The Democracy Project, "a national non-partisan initiative of the Dominion Institute designed to engage under 25s in a dialogue on democracy."

Is it just me, or is there something a little weird about bribing young people with music in order to impart the value of civic engagement? It reminds me of those kids growing up that were rewarded for doing regular things like getting good grades. If the point of the project is to engage young people in the political process, what does it say about Canadians if in order to do this we need to offer them free stuff? The notion that one can "own" democracy is odd, no? It appears that somehow our roles as citizens have become obscured by our roles as consumers.

Anyways, someone should tell the good folks at the Dominion Institute that most people under 25 steal their music off the internet.

And about that debate...

For those of you wondering what I thought of last night's leaders debate: In the immortal words of Shakespeare's Macbeth...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. That being said, had I been offered free shit for my opinion, perhaps I'd think differently.

Election Spinning

Risking stating the obvious, I would like for a moment to discuss the relationship between media spin, punditry and polling in the current election. I'm sure I'm not the only person who's noticed the following chain of events: Election begins, is very boring, and no one cares (see blog entry for Dec. 24th). Between Christmas and New Years, things slow to a halt and the pundits have nothing to talk about. So instead of saying, "sorry Mansbridge, there's not much to say about the election right now", discussion of non-events turns to the forecasting of exciting election-antics to come. You've got the likes of Alan Gregg and Keith Boag yammering on about how in the new year Harper has a real opportunity to turn things around. And what do you know- poof! Polls today say 37% of Canadians would vote Conservative.

Look- I'm not saying that there is an absolute causal relationship between Boag's b.s. and the mood of the Canadian voter. Entire academic disciplines are dedicated to understanding the complex relationship between media, polling and voter decision-making. That being said, let's just think for a minute about what these polls really do. Polls are reports of what the public thinks. During the election, several times a day, we are bombarded by media reports of new polling results. In other words, the media is constantly reporting to us, what we the public think. Thoughts of chickens and eggs spring to mind.

And then something like this happens: This morning, The Globe and Mail reports that the Conference Board of Canada, "a prestigious economic think tank", has determined that the Tory platform will result in budget surpluses. Prestigious think tank? What kind of descriptor is that? The Conference Board is a consortium of Canadian business professionals who conduct applied research for both private and public interests. (http://www.conferenceboard.ca/who.htm) It may or may not be prestigious- what's clear is that The Globe wants its readers to think so.

So what would an election look like without spin? Hard to say. Boring for sure. But Canadian politics are so boring to begin with, I guess it's in the public interest to try and spice it up a bit.

Oy Dalton...

The federal sponsorship scandal left in its wake a Liberal reputation for corruption and cronyism. I can't imagine that Dalton isn't aware of this, so I can only guess that he doesn't intend to seek re-election in 2007. Because his Takhar decision has given the opposition more than enough fodder to drag him through the mud of the Liberal's soiled reputation.

Harinder Takhar is Ontario's Transportation Minister. Back in the summer Takhar was photographed at Chalmers Group, his family-owned transportation company. As Minister, Takhar was obligated to put his company shares in a blind trust so as to avoid a major conflict of interest. Turns out that not only was he at the building, but the trustee that was assigned to manage the blind trust was not only the chief financial officer of Chalmers Group, but the chief financial officer of Takhar's campaign as well. After a lengthy investigation by the province's Integrity Commissioner, it was determined that Takhar's actions had violated the Members' Integrity Act. In other words, what Takhar did was illegal.

Here's where Dalton comes in. Instead of giving Takhar the boot, Dalton has decided that a public reprimand from the Integrity Commissioner is punishment enough. This sends a very clear message to the public: standing behind a member of his cabinet is more important than upholding the law. In a post-Gomery world, Liberals just can't be making decisions that favour each other over their electorate. Dalton's given John Tory all he needs to take the piss out of the provincial Liberals in the next election.

A word or two on "vision"

Have you noticed how all the pundits are suddenly talking about how the Canadian political parties are all lacking vision? The Current (a news show on CBC radio) just dedicated an entire segment to the issue: party leaders are dishing out piecemeal policies that lack any over-arching system of values. The producers have pulled together a panel of pundits (Judy Rebbick, Rick Salutin, the dude who just wrote Rescuing the Right), to discuss how "vision" can be brought back into the campaign.

I'm finding this issue to be historically blind. We live in a world where "grand visions" no longer act as operating systems for how we organize ourselves. Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Wahhabism, Trickle-down Economics; these are all "politics with vision", functioning to shape policies that mirror the value-systems they embody. History has shown us that these "isms" haven't worked out too well. Because "vision" is a very fluffy way of saying IDEOLOGY. And Canadian politicians (as hapless as they may seem), understand that in 2006, people are not interested in ideology. They are interested how politicians will address practical concerns like health care, taxes, education, crime, etc.

In a bit of a rush today, so in lieu of my regular dose of wit and wisdom I am instead posting one of Arthur's recent travel photos. This is a shot of him from a recent trip to China.

Enjoy!

Top ten things that I found maddeningly stupid in 2005:

10. The re-election of George W. Bush.
I know- this happened in 2004. But the inauguration was in 2005, and anyways, this was such a stupid thing to do, it deserves to be on the list two years in a row.

9. Martha Stewart is sent to jail.
The woman pushes potpourri and potroast for a living...what ever happened to the Enron dudes? Oh I remember- Bush invaded Iraq and we forgot all about it.

8. Backlash against the "holidays".
It was quite common this past holiday season to hear Christians kvetching about having to wish people "happy holidays". Tough shit- I'm Jewish.

7. The selection of the Nazi-Pope.
Ya, ya- all the kids were doing it...but with all the highly qualified potential candidates, you'd think they'd be able to find a Pope that didn't have Hitler Youth on his CV.

6. The ever-embattled Canadian health care system.
Despite the release of the Romanow report 4 years ago, in 2005, Canadians are still dying while waiting for cancer treatment, and shortages of doctors and nurses are increasing at roughly the same rate as the number of highly trained medical professionals who immigrate here only to find work as taxi drivers.

5. The bewildering and unstoppable chain of Liberal gaffes and misjudgements.
Someone needs to remind these bozos that in a post-Gomery world, stupid things like opting out of democratic nomination processes to accommodate a star candidate (Ignatieff) and comparing an opposition candidate to a dog (Olivia Chow), just ain't the best way to win friends and influence people.

4. The same-sex marriage debate.
Even if you think they'll rot in hell for ever, what do you care if they want to get married? I don't get it. If Dave and Todd say, "I do", what does that have to do with the state of your hetero union?

3. The Creationism in schools debate.
Why is this even an issue?
Separation of church and state = teach religion in religious school.

2. Unilateral pull-out from Gaza.
Way to go. Make Abbas look like such a pussy that even the pacifists are voting for Hamas.

1. The Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
George W Bush to former Fema Director Michael Brown: "Brownie, you're doing one heck of a job!" That pretty much says it all.


These 10 moronic misdoings can in no way represent all the stupid shit that happened last year. If I forgot something, by all means- lemme know!