Intelligence Among Us

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090615_western_misconceptions_meet_iranian_reality

I wrote the following letter to the editor in response to the following article in the National Post today.  I’m interested in your feedback.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=1696087

The recent scandal relating to police running background checks on potential jurors at the behest of the Crown reaffirms my lack of faith in government.  The sad thing is, is that many of the people I speak to don’t understand what the fuss is about.

From the National Post:

Chief Gary Smith [of the Windsor Police Service] said the officers were trying to help prosecutors select “quality” juries in criminal trials.

Do you want someone who’s been convicted of domestic assault sitting in a domestic assault case?” he said in an interview with The Windsor Star.

The information gathered on the 200 people selected for the jury pool included speeding tickets, pardoned crimes and young offender records, which were secretly used by the Crown.

I honestly don’t know where to begin.

1. Fairness – if our legal system is not fair to both the prosecution and the defense then the scales of justice are out of balance.  The Crown has immense resources at its disposal and to use them in a way to pervert justice is appalling.
2. Relevance – in this scenario a run in with the law that I had as a young offender 30 years ago could potentially impact that outcome of a trial of a fellow citizen.  Think about that and tell me if you still don’t see this as a big deal.
3. Purity of Heart – because the police believed their motives were pure they argue that no wrong was done.  I’m sure people that kill abortion doctors use the same argument.
4. Privacy – the privacy of my information held by the government must be sacrosanct.  Clearly it is not, nor will it ever be.
5. Scope – does anyone believe that this practice is both longstanding and widespread?  If you do, you need to give your head a shake.

People think I’m a right wing nut when I talk about the steady intrusion of the state into our personal lives and the consistent erosion of our liberties.  Whether it’s your information being shared for nefarious purposes, your personal property being seized without trial and conviction (thank you Julian Fantino) or your tax dollars being poured down to buy votes from targeted constituencies – this is what government does.  You may want more of it.  I’d like less.

Remember – government is comprised of people > people have agendas > information is power.  Do you really trust them to do right by you?

Anyone involved with this tragedy should be fired at the least and criminally charged at best.  I wonder if they would object to the Crown using the police to run background checks on potential jurors in their own trials.

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=1351360
http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=1383404

Frontline on PBS is my favourite show by far on television. It offers a compelling and fair analysis of the big issues currently facing the US and the world. Last nights episode was a replay of a show that aired prior to the US election and was essentially a synopsis of the current dreadful state of Afghanistan and some potential ways forward. I can see how it might initiate the typical knee-jerk reaction from the thoughtless on the right but in my view it’s fair and balanced. Calling a spade a spade should be politically neutral if the argument is reasoned and well thought out.

I’m hoping the election of Barack Obama may put to rest, or at least reduce, Candian’s Eurosimilar sense of moral and cultural superiority over the USA.  The last time I looked Canada had not elected a black Prime Minister.  Obviously we have had a female Prime Minister in Kim Campbell but that was much more of an anomoly than the will of the voters.  In her party was decimated in the subsequent election and never recovered…and in fact no longer exists. 

Let’s not forget that the long, divisive battle between Hillary Clinton and Obama for the Democratic nomination.  Let us not forget the Vice Presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin – regardless of how wierd that whole thing was.  Watching Canada’s leaders debate was a picture of stuffy male whiteness + plus Elizabeth May who barely clawed her way into the debates as the leader of a fringe (but admittedly growing) party.

Being a conservative and a reasonably astute politcal observer I couldn’t help but notice the general vacuity of Obama’s soaring rhetoric…but nonetheless I still would have voted for him.  His election represents incredible progress from the days of Selma, Alabama only 40 years ago.  He also has the fortune of not being George W. Bush or in any way associated with him. 

One outcome I hope to see from the election of Barack Obama is the disappearance of the raison d’etre of the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton Victim & Guilt machine.  I just watched a video of Jesse Jackson crying while listen to Obama’s speech and can’t help but wonder he was crying because he has no clue what he’s going to do now.

Congratulations to the U.S. for showing the power of freedom (the Patriot Act notwithstanding) and progress.  Canada would be well served to use this as a catalyst for similar change.

Tim O’Reilly is interviewing her right now.  There is far too much politics interwoven in this conversation but there are some interesting insights on new media versus old media.  Thoughts about how the internet is self-correcting in the sense that if a blogger makes an error it will be pointed out in moments versus traditional media who may issue a small correction the following day.

Having said that it’s clear to me that I am in the heartland of liberalism in the U.S.  Lots of McCain, Palin and Bush bashing, Obama worshipping and global warming regurgitation.  I won’t bother with adding my commentary but I’m sure why this conference is being used as a bully pulpit.  Regardless is always interesting to hear the opinions of others

(yawn)

Parliament has been dissolved and Canadian’s are going to the polls on October 14.  This has all the earmarks of the single most politically unimportant event since Confederation.  Here’s what you need to know in a nutshell about the party leaders:

Stephen Harper:  Our current prime minister – a mannequin masquerading as a human being.  He has led a realitively successful minority government for approaching 3 years.  

Liberal’s take: far-right, libertarian whose goal is to put homosexuals back in the closet, put guns in the hand of every citizen, act as George W. Bush’s lap dog and remove a woman’s right to abortion.

Reality: wants a majority government, has increased spending and the size of government faster than the Liberal’s before him, is engaging in targeted “aid” of specific industry sectors despite railing against that in the previous election, massive reversal on Income Trusts.  Has lowered some taxes (GST) and created some targeted tax credits (see previous posts).

My take: he’s the least bad option

Stephane Dion:  The “leader” of the opposition.  Won the leadership in a come from behind victory which basically means that through circumstance the man that the least amount of people wanted to be the leader won.  He looks and talks like a nerd and his mangling of the English language is always good for a laugh (then a good cry).  His major schtick is promoting himself as the champion of the environment.

Conservatives take: he’s weak and his Green Shift will kill the Canadian economy – they are painting it as the phoenix of the National Energy Program rising from the ashes.  He’s a Quebec academic who is totally out of touch with the rest of the country.

Reality: his biggest enemy are the ambitious wanna-be’s in his own party.  If he loses this election he’s done – the knives are already out. He’s already back pedalling on his Green Shift and I’ve discussed my thoughts on Governments and “revenue neutral” ideas.  He’s probably loathed in Quebec more than anywhere else.  He has impotently sat on his hands for many votes on issues he previously deemed non-negotiable because his party is broke, their election machine is disorganized and he was afraid to go to the polls.

My take: he’s a dead man walking however honest and principled he may be.

Jack Layton: the leader of the NDP – Canada’s resident socialist, I mean truly progressive,  party.  The NDP may play kingmaker in this election more so than in previous elections by bleeding support from the left wing of the Liberal party. Ironically a recent poll indicated that Canadian’s view Layton more commited to the environment than Dion – which is a huge problem for Dion.  He’s well spoken and his ideas resonate with a relatively small number, typically younger Canadians.

My take:  The NDP, despite their protestations is a fringe party whose support is concentrated primarily in cities.  Their seat count and rises and falls within a narrow window but their level of popular support remains fairly static.  Jack is probably toast should the NDP fail to make a breakthrough.

Gilles Duceppe: Leader of the Bloc Quebecois our Quebect separatist party.  They have never won a seat outside of Quebec and nor do they run candidates outside.  Their primary raison-d’etre is a sovereign Quebec – what a dumb idea.  As a huge recipient of federal largesse in the form of transfer payments and vote buying they’d do well to stay in Canada.  Support for separation is at a low point and its hardly on the radar of the average Canadian.  What a change from 1995 when we almost lost the country.

My take: Gilles is always the most entertaining in the debates because he can say whatever he wants without fear of repercussions- his base is focused and supportive.  Gilles probably wants out and into provincial politics and the Bloc is bleeding support to the Conservatives in Quebec.  If the Conservatives want a majority they need to take a chunk out of the Bloc’s hide.

One practice that politicians have engaged in from time immemorial is bribing taxpayers with their own money.  The unfortunate reality is that it seems to work.  Instead of an across the board tax cut for everyone, or an actual reduction in the size of government, they offer us the “targeted tax credits”.  The “target” is not based on a strategic vision for the country.  The target is based on political expediency and which particular demographic or region the pollsters have concluded will benefit the government in the next election.  It’s crass and transparent yet it actually seems to work.

One of my personal favourites is the Conservative’s much lauded Child Care Benefit.  This was developed in response to the previous Liberal governments national child care program.   The Conservative’s solution was to:

1. Take my money from me in the form of taxation
2. Launder it through the bureaucracy of government with a not insignificant percentage used to feed the inefficiency of that very bureaucracy
3. Cut a cheque for 200 dollars for each child under 6 and mail it to me.
4. Which I then must declare as revenue and lose close to 50% again in taxes

My solution

1. Don’t take it from me in the first place and allow me to decide how to spend my own money

I believe strongly in the potential of the individual over the power of government.  Government obvioulsy has a role to play in our lives but I can see our freedoms eroding over time in the name of progress.

Let me close with stating my firm belief that Canada is one of the best countries in the world in which to live.