BC Wine vs bitumen-carrying pipelines

I find it hard to fathom that political leaders are more willing to fight with each other than attempt cooperation. I'm not in the know, but what stopped Premier Horgan from going to Premier Notley in Alberta and letting her know ahead of time that the BC government was planning on opposing the Kinder Morgan pipeline that's to run through the heart of the province. Horgan could have stated the position he was in and how he needed to take a stand in order to appease the electorate and the Green Party with which they have made an agreement to that effect to keep them in power. Notley could have outlined her opposition and stated her bind if she didn't support her corporate masters who would do everything they could to ensure her loss at the next election if she didn't tow the line. (I, of course, am assuming this based on what I know about politics, however limited that might be.)
Now they could come to an agreement as to how they intended to play it out in public and then pretend, at least, to be scoring points with their backers, all the while winking and nodding to each other.
For all I know they did do that, but banning BC wine to make a point is akin to, I don't know what. It is petty, silly and child-like. I'm embarrassed to be associated with politicians like that. If they can't be civil in how they resolve differences, they surely can't expect their citizens to be able to. What poor examples they are setting. I know, Horgan, looks like the "good guy", to some extent. But, like I said earlier, what stopped him from giving his NDP counterpart the heads-up?
They didn't ask me for advice, and they never will. But, should they ask...

Those in Glass Houses

Living next to a giant means we keep a close eye on what it does and who's in charge. I'm talking about the upcoming presidential election in the US, of course, as a Canadian. I'm not expert on politics but I do follow it as a human interest story. Lately, I'm amused by the righteous indignation that followed the release of an audiotape where presidential candidate, Donald Trump, speaks about how easy it is for him to kiss women and grope them. He seems to be bragging that it's easy to do if one is rich and famous.
If I were his speech writer, I might explain these words by suggesting that he was showing some insight and that he was amazed that women are willing to let themselves be treated this way just because he has some fame and wealth. He might also comment that he's noticed other men take advantage of this phenomena as well, with Bill Clinton, being an obvious case in point. He might add that he's since learned that he has a choice as to whether he takes advantage of this with women, or not, but that he realizes how hypocritical it is for men to be scolding him when many, if not most of them, in similar positions of power have done so as well. Read our history. It's full of such accounts. How many descendants is Genghis Khan supposed to have? That's only one example.
Studies a while back showed that if men were not stopped or punished for raping women, a large percentage of men would follow through with it. Luckily, we've realized that and have made laws to keep this in check.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not excusing men's behaviour when it comes to "conquering women". I'm simply stating that this is a constant battle and we need to keep reminding ourselves that we no longer want to be that way.
Now, let's move on to the other presidential candidate. I'll just pick one incident that I'm aware of. I admit that I've gleaned all of this information from various media. So, if I'm misinterpreting what I've read, I apologize. But, I'll dare to delve in. When Assange (wiki)leaked the military secrets, the US establishment was aghast and angry. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at the time. She apparently said at a meeting of the top brass, "Why don't we drone him", meaning kill him using a drone. In other words, assassinate him. Apparently, she said it without humour, which would have been an indication that she would like to do so but was only kidding.
Again, we can get on our high horse and condemn her for her words and her wishes in this case. This, again, is the "privilege" of being in a power position. She had the power to make that suggestion and if the others had agreed it would have happened. So, why isn't the media  and her fellow Democrats condemning her for her words? Some are, but quietly, I'm sure. Again, because we all have had thoughts like that. Again, we have laws and social norms that now prevent that from happening easily. Not in all countries, mind you, but so far in North America. That could change at any moment, if we don't keep a close watch.
See the similarity between the two? Once in power we think and act differently as we're given certain privileges (private law). Fortunately, there are checks and balances and condemning such behaviours helps to stop it or at least slow it down.
So, my question is this. Why aren't both being taken to task for their comments not in a condemning way but by asking whether this is the way they plan to continue to behave or whether they have learned their "lessons" and now know better. Of course, actions speak louder than words.
That, to me, is more important than knowing that they succumbed to the "traps" of being in power and went along with them, no questions asked.
We, who are not in power positions, have a responsibility to monitor their behaviours and not condone them. Not in a judgmental way but simply reminding everyone that it's not okay.
This blog is meant only as a beginning of a discussion that needs to take place if we are to make real change. Simply condemning these behaviours doesn't change anything. It just stops it temporarily. Let's start this kind of discussion now....

Voting is a feel good exercise

It's time to decide not only who to vote for but whether to vote at all. The party leaders are paraded before us in their best attire while they are pilloried by each other at the same time. We're to believe that one of them is worth voting for. Our vote is valued insomuch as it means their future as a representative of their riding. It's the only time we are begged to get involved in the government. The rest of the time we're to simply nod and smile when decisions are made that affect our lives, whether economically or socially.
I follow politics closely. I'm fascinated by how human nature shows its true colours at election time. Potential "leaders" butt heads to establish whether or not they will lead the "flock" for the next while. The "sheep" look on in awe, or with disdain, as the potential suitors promote their attributes or attack their competitors.
So, what to do? Does my vote really make any difference? If I vote for the Green Party am I casting my vote to the wind? If I vote for the ruling party, will I gain some kind of merit or be treated special by the party I supported? If I cheer for the Blue Jays and they lose, have I wasted my energy? If I cheer for them  and they win, have I made the difference?
I saw the first game of the Blue Jays/Rangers game and noticed some fans crossing their fingers hoping that that would be enough to give the Jays a win. It didn't work.
So, I'm wondering? Is voting merely a feel good exercise that gives me a little bit of hope? Does it keep my faith in the system alive so that I can face the fact that what I have to say is almost less than negligible? Perhaps it's like prayer. I pray to my god with the understanding that my requests might be heard and somehow honored. When my prayers aren't answered (my vote doesn't elect my candidate) I feel cheated and sometimes want to blame my god (the government) for not fulfilling my wishes. My faith needs to be strong to believe that my prayers (my votes) will make a difference.
So, that's what it is then? Faith in a system that I know is failing may just turn it around and make it into a caring, responsible, accountable body of people who act as representatives of the people? Okay, now I'm dreaming!
Keep up the faith, or all is lost!

Justin Who?

I was given the book, Common Ground, by Justin Trudeau to read just a few days ago. I didn't pick it up right away because I wasn't sure if I'd get through it. I admit I have some biases when it comes to a son of a former prime minister. I expected it to be full of self-aggrandizing statements and claims to fame. I was pleasantly surprised to find it to be quite the opposite. He appears to be self-aware enough and possess enough insight to find faults with this dad and his mom and the Liberal Party. He does it in a kind and understanding way, but still doesn't hold back. He also speaks to being a small "l" liberal, who happens to belong to the Liberal Party. After reading a book on the death of the liberal class I was surprised that he would even know enough to promote such a position. Maybe, just maybe, there is some hope after all. If, and I do mean, if, other people around his age are similar-minded and have strong enough convictions to pull it off we might, just might, become a nation of caring, compassionate people who will pull together to give everyone an opportunity to live under decent circumstances. Having the basics of survival are key to a happy population. Ensuring everyone's well-being would go a long way towards true peace on earth--timely for this holiday period.

When is it called bribery?

I just read an article about a woman in Alberta who's struggling to get the government of that province to acknowledge that fracking has caused irreparable damage to her property and that a delivery of toxic water should be of consequence to the company that delivered it. The article exemplifies, in my opinion, the way governmental officials and politicians turn a blind eye to anything that could jeopardize the relationship they have with large corporations. Corporations have the funding and the wherewithal to lobby and financially support hand-picked politicians during elections and after they're in office. While there are some rules around contributions there are many ways to get around them and many do so. In other countries when an official is given money for favors it's called bribery and corruption. What do we call it here? Business as usual? We certainly don't admit that any time a politician makes a decision based on where their financial support comes from that it's out and out bribery and extortion and ultimately, corruption results. What else can we name it?
The common folk are afraid to address this way of doing things for fear of being labelled shrill or out of touch. Or, are they hoping that they, too, could someday be in a position either to receive such gifting, or to be able to persuade their politicians with some cash of their own? Or, is it because we know that if we complain too much we'll be cut out of the good graces of the person-in-charge-for-the-day?
As I see it, it stinks to high heaven, as much as the toxic fumes are stinking up the atmosphere of Alberta and other oil-drilling and fracking sites around the world.
A sad state of affairs, indeed.

"We won't be intimidated"

The tragic events of October 22 at the Parliament in Ottawa have caused many reactions. The government has jumped on it as an opportunity to crack down on potential persons who might see it fit to hurt people in the name of a certain cause they believe in. The general population has become more patriotic, as though that will protect them from such persons. The members of parliament seem to have become quieted. Their responses to having been locked down for the day of the shooting seems to have intimidated them into submission. I'm speaking particularly of the opposition members whose duty it is is to ask hard questions in order to keep the ruling party in check. I haven't seen this happen so far, although a call for a reasonable response has been made.
This is where I'm making the leap from men's violence against women to this incident. Violence works. At least in the short term. It keeps the recipient of violence afraid enough to keep quiet in order to avoid possible further injuries. My guess is that the same phenomena is occurring with our MP's in Ottawa and in our nation's capitals.
Having worked for 18 years with men who were violent to their wives I got a good sense of how this happens. While working with them I had to learn to overcome my natural fear of their possible behaviours towards me as well.
Too often we judge women for not simply leaving their husbands after being violated, or at least speaking out. So, perhaps I'm being too harsh on our opposition members for not speaking out and setting an example as to how to overcome these natural fears and to address their own needs for comfort and reassurance.
Let's put it this way. If we paid as much attention to stopping the violent behaviours of men towards their partners as we appear to be towards potential violators of the public in the name of whatever, we'd stop up to 100 deaths and many injuries a year in Canada alone. Interesting priorities we have. One's accepted as "normal", as in "common", while the other is treated as an anomaly that's worth spending billions of dollars to stomp out. So, I'm naturally asking myself why this seems so important. Is it normal to cause violence against one's partner, but not against one's citizens or soldiers? Both are violent. Both are intimidating. Both cause irreparable harm.
Why not view all violence as unacceptable and come up with help-based solutions rather than with more violence?
Our PM made the statement that we will not be intimidated by this horrible act. What did he mean? What if women weren't intimidated after being abused by their husbands? What would be the appropriate response? Fight back? Fight fire with fire? Kill or be killed? That seems to be the answer to most violence. Why isn't that the answer for women? I'm not suggesting that. What I'm saying is that violence may work for a while but if both parties participate in the violence it follows that each party will have to up the ante until mutual destruction is inevitable. Violence does not stop violence. If it did we'd be over it by now. Right?
Why can't "we won't be intimidated" mean instead that we won't be tempted to lock down the country and take away citizen's rights in order to attempt to end this kind of violence? Why can't it mean that we'll put our resources into caring for our people by making sure they have their basic needs met? Why doesn't it mean that we'll make democracy a real word instead of a euphemism for what ought to be? What if we ran our country based on what will be best for the overall good, rather than what will increase the GDP?
If we have the ability to know that we can be otherwise we can choose to do so. What's stopping us?

Remembrance Day 2013

During my early morning walk a few days ago I saw a poppy and pin on the walkway. I picked it up, put it together, and stuck it on the fence that straddles the walkway. When I looked at it I envisioned the shape of a cross and took a photo to try to show that image. When I processed it afterwards, some conflicting thoughts ran through my head. While I value the fact that young men were willing to risk their lives fighting on behalf of their country, I also decry the need for war. My father was a drill sergeant during WWII. When I was young he would talk about the futility of war and how horrible it was. Later in his life his attitude changed and he took some pride in having served in the army. I'm not sure why.
So what is Remembrance Day supposed to signify? Is it to honor those who risked life and limb or to keep the public conscious of war in order to have conscription available at a moment's notice? Are we remembering war as a last resort, or as a moment of pride and honor? Perhaps we risk losing potential soldiers if we don't make heroes out of those that have fought and died during the conflict. If war were to become a distant memory we may just decide not to bother if a war were to be declared. As long as war is glorified we can count on vulnerable young people to join up with relative ease.
While I can imagine times where taking up arms becomes necessary, I'd rather we spent our time and energy learning how to resolve conflict instead of learning how to kill efficiently. I don't know of any video games that teach conflict resolution but I've seen lots of examples of games using extreme violence. Once violence is commonly accepted, it becomes an easy first choice.
So, I struggle with how to approach Remembrance Day every year. The photo I'm posting hopefully will illustrate it better than my words.

My response to our local paper's editorial today

I was upset enough after reading today's editorial in the Nanaimo News Bulletin, that I wrote a letter to the paper. Here it is (in case it doesn't get published):


Re your Editorial: "Voters clear on the future": 
In your editorial dated May 18, 2013 you state that, among other things, "In light of the results Tuesday, there are some clear facts the people of B.C. should strongly consider accepting, if they have not already: A clear majority of British Columbians -- even more in the Parksville-Qualicum riding -- believe in a free enterprise model of governance."
I happen to live in this riding and wish to challenge your assumptions, stated as "facts", on a number of counts. Firstly, an editorial is not a statement of "fact". It is an opinion piece by the editors or contributors to the newspaper. Secondly, making a blanket statement about the voting preferences of voters is verging on delusional, as even the so-called pollsters couldn't predict the voters' intentions. And, thirdly, assuming with confidence that the voters chose free enterprise rather than the other choices (not stated in the editorial), is presumptuous and highly pretentious. 
Are you, by default, stating that the rest of the Nanaimo voters chose to reject "free enterprise" and therefore have some sort of death-wish? Are they therefore less knowledgeable, somehow, than are your "facts"?
It has been stated that the preferred electorate is an ill-informed one. Perhaps your policy is the same. That way the voters can be manipulated to vote the way of the "ruling" class. 
You have shown your true colors by treating your readers as in need of your "facts". This, in my opinion, reflects very well the position of our "ruling" class. As a result, I certainly won't be looking to your paper for some balanced thought, especially not in your editorial column.

Oftentimes, when I respond, in writing, to a paper I find I'm not the only one with the same opinion. But, I do think that it's important that the average citizen, such as myself, state their responses to any public pieces and hold them accountable in that sense. It may not change their minds, but it may add support to others who thought the same but didn't have the time or inclination to say so.

Mud-slinging 101

With the BC provincial elections on the horizon the incumbent Liberal Party is ramping up it's  US-style attack ads on the opposition leader, Adrian Dix. The NDParty is caught in a quandary--do we attack back and show them we're as tough as they are, or do we rise above the fray and show the public a kinder, gentler approach to running for office?
With a two-party system it's too easy to set up a false dichotomy that paints the other as the Evil Force that will destroy the province if elected.
It's sad that we have to depict each other as different in order to distinguish ourselves from the other when in reality there's little real difference between people, especially once they take a seat in the legislature.
If the only way we can persuade people to vote for someone is to put down the other person we are no better than the schoolyard bully who attains superiority by beating others into submission.
That's not the kind of people I want running our province, or country, for that matter. I want people there who have the time and energy to look after the general population's needs and not there only to hang on to power at all costs. What a waste of time and energy!
To break this sick pattern of "may the best man win", we must be willing to break the mold and campaign on a positive note, outlining the vision of the Party and its members, and then once in power, being willing to be open and accountable to the public for its decisions and actions.
Until and unless that happens we're just a step away from a "dictatorship" mentality where the public be damned--the only difference being a brief time before the next elections where the politicians feign interest in the citizen's needs simply in order to retain or gain power.
Just exactly what does "democracy" mean again?

Crossing the line in Ottawa

What is happening in the House of Commons when a member of parliament can walk across the floor and stand over the opposition party member, wave his finger at him and scold him as though he were the parent of a misbehaving child? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a member of parliament uses profanity while addressing the floor, he or she is asked to apologize and often is sent from the chambers until this occurs. To me it's a much more grievous behaviour to actually cross over to the opposition benches and act and speak in an intimidating manner. Why no censure? Why was the member not cast from the chamber and punished in an appropriate manner? Why hasn't the Prime Minister spoken out against such behaviour? His silence on the matter appears to be condoning the behaviour, or even worse, speaks to his ineffectiveness in setting a good example. If this behaviour is tolerated anything goes and soon we'll have a free-for-all happening. Okay, so it is already, but until now it was limited to verbal jabs and jeering. Even that is intolerable when we consider that these are elected representatives of the people of Canada who are supposed to looking after our best interests.
The speaker of the house needs to take charge when this occurs and assess "damages", so to speak. Otherwise, why bother having a Speaker.
If this isn't taken seriously by the House of Commons we will no longer be able to depend on a reliable, trustworthy system to take care of the needs of the nation. This is the thin edge of the wedge. It must be addressed seriously and not allowed to reoccur. If it isn't treated as a serious contravention of parliamentary protocol, the "Commons Bullies" will rule the roost and all hell will break loose.
Very sad and very frightening!

Gaza strip saga

I'm saddened by the frightening situation that's happening between Israel and the Gaza strip.  From what I've been reading, it seems that Israel attacks Gaza every four years just after the US presidential elections, which happens to occur just before the Israeli elections. A vote-getter, perhaps? A way to show the world that Israel dictates to the US what to do and to say, perhaps?
Why, oh why, do the US and Canadian political leaders say that Israel has a right to defend itself from attack, but not that the Palestinians ought to be ticked off that their leader, Ahmed Jabari, was assassinated by the Israeli's? And, why are the disproportionate casualties caused by this so-called defense not seen as a crime against humanity?
I'm not an expert on these things. But, I do know when it seems grossly unfair and unnecessary in the larger scheme of things. Bullies don't want peace. They want control and power and nothing will stop them, other than force greater than theirs. How very sad!
I can't imagine what it must be like to live in a strip of land confined by a military giant and limited more and more as the giant's family slowly, but surely, moves in and takes it over.
I'm afraid to imagine it too long or I won't sleep at all tonight.

Pink Politics

I happened to watch a CFL game on the weekend and noticed that the players and coaches were wearing a lot of pink on their uniforms. I didn't catch the beginning of the game so I wasn't sure why they were adding pink to their attire. It probably was announced at the beginning of the broadcast, but I never heard any reference to it during the parts of the game that I watched. My guess was that it was in support of breast cancer research. To find out I just now googled it and found out that indeed, it was to show support for this research. Here's the article if you're interested in reading the whole thing. The first sentence of the article states: "The CFL will again look pretty in pink". Okay, so pink is considered to be pretty. I get it. But, further in the article it talks about it being league policy that all dress this way, and that Reebok will donate a portion of the sales of pink paraphernalia to cancer research.
Just as I suspected. This is a corporate-sponsored attempt at raising money for Reebok, and to justify it, some money will be directed towards cancer research.
I'm sure some of the players have had some direct experience in losing a loved one to breast cancer, but simply donning the correct colour to raise awareness and promote sales for Reebok is taking it too far, in my humble opinion.
The players also don ads for other corporate sponsors such as Rona, etc. So, now Reebok, under the guise of doing good, gets to out-advertise the others? I wonder how much they paid the CFL to do this? I'd like to know. Would it not have been better to pay this amount directly to breast cancer research and if they wanted, tell the CFL audience that they did so and how much they gave?
I might be able to stomach this kind of corporate-grab-for-good if every once in a while a player or coach were interviewed during the game to ask them what wearing pink means to them. The player might speak about how his mother survived cancer, and so on. You get the picture.
Simply dressing in a certain colour just doesn't do it for me. It cheapens it. It makes it common. It loses its significance.
As has been said many times, the personal is political. Once corporations claim the "personal", it's still political, but it's no longer personal. 
There are many causes out there looking for funding. Is this the only way people will give? Or, are we making it so commonplace that the public will no longer be influenced by just another two-minute ad dressed in pink?

Political Gamesmanship

I thought I'd put this blog to rest, but I see there are some people out there who are checking in on what I'm writing on the subject of politics. I come from a family where politics was often discussed. My dad was asked to run for a federal position but decided against leaving the farm for Ottawa, should he win. He had a good chance of winning the seat as he was well-known and popular at the time.
That doesn't mean, of course, that I know any more than anyone else. It just helps to explain why I'm even remotely interested in following the political scene, so to speak.
I just read an article today about how our present Conservative government is naming their anti-crime legislation in a manner that "sells" it, even though the content may differ significantly. For instance, the latest one is about protecting seniors (this affects me personally). Well, it seems that seniors are hardly mentioned in the actual legislative changes and the changes that are proposed are apparently insignificant.
So, my rant this time is that governing our country is all about getting re-elected. It has little to do with looking after the needs of the people. Every move and word is geared to giving the populace the impression that they're doing what we want. How many times have I heard politicians preface their decisions by saying something like, "The people have spoken", or "This is what my constituents are saying they want". Trouble is, this only is "heard" if it agrees with the prevailing government of the day. They might as well just say something like this: "I'm choosing these words in order to get re-elected. Please don't hold me accountable for the results of any empty promises that I make. Believe in me, not in what I actually do." (Etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.)
Just imagine what our country would be like if we couldn't vote any more. The government wouldn't have to pretend that they care what the voters think. Oh, just a minute. We're almost there already!
I know. This is old hat. The old saying about fooling some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time, still holds. Unfortunately, it takes a major blunder for us, the voters, to rise up and throw the government out (only during elections, of course). Now, a replacement group takes over till we catch on that they're much the same, just dressed up slightly differently.

Enough, already. One must carry on.

NDP Surge?

I find it quite amusing that the NDP is being considered a valid vote for more Canadians this time around, especially in Quebec. It may be that the voters are tired of the same old, except for the die-hard cons and libs and are looking for an alternative to the tried and not-so-true main parties. It would sure shake up our country if the NDP gained enough seats to be the official opposition. It might even change the dynamics enough that the Libs would suddenly be willing to seriously entertain merging with the NDP and forming a second major party to the merged PC's and Reform-Alliance parties. Unless they do, it appears the cons will continue to gain enough seats to form a minority government time after time.
There is an alternative. Why not join the rest of the world (USA, exempted) and go to proportional representation instead of first-past-the-post? I would like to think that the electorate is becoming literate enough to think beyond us vs. them, black-and-white, and all-or-nothing that's required in a two-party system. One can only hope.

Parliamentary system needs overhaul

That's the essence of an article in today's National Post. Essentially what we see on TV during Question Period is a farce, a staged performance meant to garner support. Unfortunately the way it's being done brings more derision than anything. According to the article the best work is done in secret, by committees, that don't see the light of day. The rest is for show. Very sad indeed. It's time for a overhaul. But, guess what? No one wants to sacrifice their lives or mental health in order to do it. No wonder apathy rules the land. Unfortunately apathy is exactly what keeps the system from changing to one of accountability and bringing it closer to the grass-roots where it belongs. Oh, right, the ruling corporations won't let that happen as they control the financing of political wannabes.
Maybe someday......the financing will come from the common folk. Now there's the making of a revolution.

Canadians for Fair Taxation

Good news!
A citizen's group is tackling the fairness or wisdom of cutting corporate taxes. They point out that the more money the government gives away to corporations the less the government has to spend on social needs, etc. Eventually the government is so limited due to lack of finances that they are given no choice but to farm out social services to guess who? Corporations! They then benefit once again by taking over services normally run by the government and make even more money all at the expense of the common folk. The well-connected wealthy folks don't mind as they can spend money on whatever comes up but for the vast majority of the population this is a serious threat to their very survival.
I encourage anyone with a sense of justice and decency to go the website and sign the petition and be courageous enough to bring it up in conversations with your buddies.

Bloc Party in the national debates during federal elections

I thought Rex Murphy made a good point on the National tonight about the fact that Quebec gets to state its case during the national debates when no other regions or provinces are able to do so. Just because they run a separatist party and win some national seats do they get this privilege. Duceppe, at present, gets to promote his province like no one else is able to. Maybe the only solution for the other provinces to get similar representation is to start their own separatist-type parties and run in the federal elections. Then they, too, can sit in on the debate. See the problem? Either the leaders meet in every province and/or region to have their debates or they leave Quebec out. So, to be fair, if the leaders don't debate everywhere they only should debate once in both english and french. Not separately. Not favouring one province.
At least that's what I think right now.

Voter turnout

The Globe and Mail has an article in todays paper re negative campaigning and how it can keep voters at home.
I believe, from my observations, that the Harperites are doing just that--making politics so ugly-looking that most people, especially young people, stay away from the voting booths out of disgust. That plays perfectly into the hands of a party that has a solid base it is catering to that will come out and vote to keep what precious power they have.
This is not a new strategy as apparently the Republicans do this in the USA. It's also a strategy that is used to make companies easier to sell off. Remember when CN had good passenger service across Canada? I am old enough to remember that era and I remember how gradually their service deteriorated to the point where ridership went down dramatically. Suddenly it was for sale and the government dumped it at a fire-sale price. I've seen other companies do the same thing.
Harper and his crew criticized the Senate and then appointed loyalists who were clearly not Senate material but were appointments who would give his government a majority vote to make sure any bills that he wanted passed would get passed and those bills that displeased him and his voter-base would be defeated. The Senate is not supposed to be partisan but is to provide sober second-thought to legislation brought forward by the parliamentarians. By changing those dynamics the Harperites and the Cretianists have created a monster that suddenly no one wants any more. Perfect for a power-hungry prime minister who then has less hurdles to cross in order to bring in laws and programs suitable to his or her (I wish) philosophy.
And furthermore, the antics in the House of Commons turn off potential voters to the point where little positive regard is left for how things are being done in Ottawa. Teachers are reluctant to take students there on field trips anymore because the teachers don't want their students to learn by example. The media is complicit in that it shows news clips of the highlights of the yelling and put-downs that are now all too common. It's the Canadian version of reality shows on TV. I'm waiting for this to be spoofed on some comedy show. Or has it been done already?
Again, the Harperites are saying that we need a majority to bring stabilization to this chaotic version of the House of Commons. What he's doing is setting us up to believe that only with the Harperites in power will there be stability and civility.
We will soon find out how gullible we are. Come May 2 we will know whether this cruel, calculating strategy has worked. If it has, I have to wonder what comes next? Controlling the media and the public so that there are no embarrassing revelations that would give the government a negative light? Will there be tons of propaganda in our mailboxes and on TV promoting the good the government is doing for us?
I imagine the government will moderate its behaviour enough to stay in power but without external checks it may try to go where no democracy should go.
Only time will tell.

Fair Vote.ca

I highly recommend reading the articles, etc., that Fair Vote publishes on line extolling the benefits of proportional representation. I wrote a letter to them that I thought I'd share here.
This is what I wrote after going over their material:
I just signed the Fair Vote petition as I strongly believe that our system is out of date and in need of updating just as your site points out. What seems to be missing from your articles cited and posters, etc. is some analysis of what happens under the present system that is so crippling to democracy. (I admit I haven't read every article on your web site so if I've missed these points, my apologies.)
Under our first-past-the-post system the politicians spend most of their time during elections in swing ridings, like you say, and more destructively, they spend their time and energy trying to prove or at least show everyone how much better they are than their opponents. Even if they win the "false majority" they continue to decry the losing party and how they have to clean up after them, etc. They spend more time, publicly at least, marketing themselves and their party than in some effective governing. The PM grabs more and more power in order to control and enforce the messages sent out to the public again in order to convince the public to keep electing them, NOT it seems to support their decisions to govern effectively on behalf of the electorate. They are not concerned with being accountable to the public but rather are concerned with their image and how it will translate into more votes in the next same-kind-of-election.
And, during elections parties crowd the centre of the political spectrum in order to attract the most votes. How do you win votes when all gravitate towards the centre? Run down the other person, not just their policies or promises! No wonder we get fed up during elections. And, that's possibly another reason for asking for a false majority. So that the public quiets down and forgets how useless and destructive the election process is! The only time a large turnout of voters occurs under our present system is when enough people are fed up with what they believe is going on. So, what do parties do? They create scandals in the other parties hoping that it will catch fire and get the voters out to support them. The recent non-confidence vote is one of many examples too numerous to mention here. They had to wait till they had what they believed was a legitimate scandal that would upset enough people to bring about a change of government. It goes on and on. If there are genuine scandals as this one likely is, fine, but contriving them or making mountains out of mole hills is much more common.
I think the proportional representation voting system would allow politicians to concentrate on what they can offer, such as their assets, and where they stand on the political spectrum in regards to social needs, human justice, etc., etc. They would not have to tow the party line as tenaciously in order to hold on to their seats or to stay in favour of their internally elected boss.
No system is perfect but choosing the one that does the least amount of harm makes the most sense.
In summary, I'm very concerned about the way this system distorts reality and forces politicians to play roles they wouldn't have to play if the rules governing elections were different.

Who pays the bills?

What I would like to know is where the money is coming from to fund the politician's campaigns. Why is no one asking to see the running records of incoming funds for each of the politicians and the party as a whole? It wouldn't have to name individual contributors, unless the contributions were over a certain amount, but certainly any corporations or unions that spend their money on campaigns should be public knowledge. The reason being that after the elections are over the ones who contributed towards their successful campaigns expect something in return. And, since the "winners" don't want to bite the hand that feeds them they must promote or make decisions that will please their benefactors. At the same time, the elected candidates must appear to be doing what their constituents wanted by electing them. Or, at the very least, making sure their constituents don't find out what they're really doing and saying in office.
I'd love to hear from past politicians about their experience in balancing this delicate balancing act between funder and voter. Any takers?
I've heard first-hand what it's like to have to tow the party line and the penalty for breaking those rules, but I've yet to hear much about the price politicians pay personally, not just financially, for any missteps they might make while trying to please their funding bodies. And, how many of them must they please in order to stay in the good books? And, if they remain a back-bencher how much less are they "worth" on the funding market, so to speak?
There must be articles or books on this subject by now. I'll start searching.
I think we need to know this so that the public is fully informed and can make their decisions based on more than personality or party lines.
Ultimately, the question becomes: Is our country corporate-led or people-led (i.e., without fear of losing their position other than through open, accountable elections)?