Who The Hell Do You Think You Are!!!

I’ve been chewing on this a while, and this is the straw...

In a democratic country we elect our leaders. Those leaders form the government and have an honour bound duty to lead the country. Inherent in that leadership is the fact that the people who form the government are elected for their ideals, policies and platform. The idea that they must represent those people in the public that backed, and most likely continue to back, the opposition is nonsensical. The only portion of the public to which they owe any loyalty are those that gave them the mandate to govern. The rest quite frankly can go pound sand until such time as there is an election or the government in toppled by a vote of non-confidence.

On the other side of this coin is the fact that the Loyal opposition is supposed to oppose the government in Canada. IN CANADA! Their duty to oppose ends at the borders of this country. To insist that they be included in international forums, that they have a seat at the table for conferences and international bodies is preposterous, and done, if at all solely at the pleasure and with the permission of the elected government.
We the people of Canada, representing a plurality of the population elected the government to represent us both nationally and internationally. We most emphatically did not elect the Opposition to speak for us as a nation or on the international stage. The oppositions job is to oppose at home and stay at home! Not to go chasing our duly elected leaders around the world spewing partisan talking points in order to score points with Canadian voters.

These opposition media whores are making this country a complete laughingstock internationally. You do not see Condolezza Rice berated in Israel by Hillary Clinton who followed here there to state the Democratic platform. You don’t see Gary Kasperov waiting in the hallways of the UN building in the hopes that he can grasp the coat-tails of some NBC news crew so he can deride his governments position on the state of Georgia.If Dion, or any other member of the opposition, Liberal, NDP, Greens or Bloc want to spend their own personal money and travel as John Q Public to whatever, meeting wherever, then fine, there is no way to stop them but it should be crystal clear that these people do not speak for Canada and do not speak for Canadians.

The funniest thing I've read on the web this week

h/t to Angry in the Great White North

"Police are looking for three men dressed as women driving around downtown Memphis -- they look like Cher, Donna Summers, and Michael Jackson.
OK, technically dressing like Michael Jackson does not make you a transvestite. Not sure what it makes you, but there must be a name for it."

SOCIALIST MYTHS: #1...The Rich get richer, and the poor get poorer???

This is possibly the most persistent lie of the socialist shell game. It is based on the incomprehensible idea that there is a finite amount of wealth, resources and most illogically of all, human industriousness in the world.

Their logic goes that if I earn a dollar, then that is one less dollar that can be earned by anyone else. Rubbish.

Money is made. It is manufactured by man and is used to trade goods and services for other goods and services. There is no limit to the amount of money that can be made. To think so is to believe that there is a limit to the ingenuity, spirit and industry of man as a rational animal.

The fact is that there is an infinite amount of money to be made, the socialist complaint stems from the fact that they aren’t, merely by virtue of their existence, entitled to profit from your use of resources and your personal industriousness.

But that is really what they want. They want you to work hard… for them, and they want to enslave you by deciding just how much of your own production you need.

They seek to rob you of the reward of your effort, to steal your hard won earnings and give them to those that can’t, won’t or don’t deserve it.

It’s the ultimate power that they want. The control of intellect, labour, initiative and production. They want to build the ultimate cleptocracy where anything that can be made, imagined or built by a man can be taken from him and given to those that do not have the capacity, intelligence, will or ambition to make it, imagine it or build it for themselves.

Full of Sound and Fury...

No real or substantial comment on the news today, after all why bother when most of it is just useless water cooler fodder for us ignorant masses.

Now I’m not given to conspiracy theorizing but there are days, today being one of them that lead me to believe that the media and government are in collusion and are actively trying to distract the population, from, and with everything…

Its bread and circuses for the 24/7 newsverment™ team.

Mulroney and Schreiber? $300,000 over ten years ago? Is that really worth the millions it is going to cost Joe and Jill six-pack to run a Public and Parliamentary commission on this non-event? If he stole it let the courts handle it.

Tazers… I won’t even get into the logic of that argument again.

There are Taliban “in” over half of Afghanistan’s provinces… Which somehow equates to ‘The Taliban are running half of Afghanistan” at least that is the impression the hyperbadnewsmedia wants to portray.
News flash... There are racists in all of Canada's provinces, but that hardly means they can or will overthrow the government.

Dear god, don’t get me started on the dollar. Fricken Canadians, we’ve spent the last 30 years complaining about the value of our weak dollar and now you fricken people are whining because its worth too much?

Taliban prisoners are being tortured, by their own government… in their own prisons and (should you choose to believe the captured Taliban… the same people who hack heads off with rusty bread knives) the Afghani Government is lying to us about it. What’s that? A score of 0.00000001 on my giveahairyratsass meter? Go figure.

So there you have it, no real or substantial comment on what is news of no real or substantial worth. Ironic eh?

The Other Socialist Shoe Drops

If there was ever anything that proved to me, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the NDP don’t give a rats ass about the people and are only interested in pushing a communist agenda down the throat of every single man, woman and child in Canada it is this.

Forgetting for a moment that I despise socialist ideology and any governmental interference in the provision of services from the free market, aren’t the NDP the same brain-dead morons that have been harping on about the lack of daycare spaces in Canada since, the last election, or last several elections? Aren’t these mental midgets purposely sabotaging (or trying to) the provision of this vital service?

The answer to both questions is yes.

The reason is simple. The NDP and their communist fellow travelers believe that it is immoral for any business to make a profit. Examine this policy closely and you will find within it the ideal that reduces every man to a carbon copy of another. It extols the “virtue” of the lowest common denominator, a nameless faceless communist drone, malleable and meek. To them the individual is worthless, the collective is God, and the tallest nail is the one the hammer drives home.

In their socialist utopia the incapable feed off of the capable, the slothful off of the industrious, and the dim-witted deride the gifted for their innovation.

Moochers, scavengers and parasites, the lot of them.

An Argument in Favour of a Triple E Senate

The request for a Triple E Senate, meaning one that is equal, elected and effective, is a logical and practical request in a democratic country such as Canada. It would serve to address the current imbalance of regional representation, create an effective voice for the individual provinces in confederation and eliminate the autocratic nature by which Senators are currently appointed.

Presently, the one hundred and five seats of the Senate are divided as follows: Ontario and Quebec have twenty four each, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick each have ten, Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Newfoundland all each have six, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon Territories are represented by one each and Prince Edward Island has four.[1]

Although there have been many proposals put forward to reform the Senate, the scheme most often cited, and the one I will deal primarily with in the course of this discussion is the Alberta Senate Resolution.[2]

With regard to the allocation of Senatorial seats, the Alberta Resolution calls for each province to be represented by six Senators and each Territory to be represented by two for a total of sixty-six Senators. This proposed equalization of seats among the provinces is seen, especially by those in Western Canada, as a way to balance the power base of the Senate throughout the nation, rather than focusing it in Ontario and Quebec as it is now. Many feel that this solution would make the Senate more responsive to all of Canada and not just the two central provinces. Preston Manning said on the subject of Senate Reform that, “the current Senate arrangement is not serving Canadians. But, if we abolish the Senate, Canadians outside of Ontario and Quebec will continue to be at the mercy of Central Canadian influence. The Senate has the potential to provide a more balanced regional representation to protect less populous areas of the country.”[3] It is this kind of sentiment that the Alberta Resolution was designed to address.

As equal as the Alberta proposal seems, under it the province of Prince Edward Island with a population of 137.9 thousand, would have the same number of Senators as Ontario which boasts a population almost 90 times that size, and Alberta whose population is 23 times as large[4]. Some in the more densely inhabited provinces might argue that this is hardly equal and places too much power in the hands of the less populous provinces. After all, is one citizen of Prince Edward Island really equivalent to 90 Ontarians or 23 Albertans? Are PEI’s interests really that much more important than BC’s or Alberta’s? This argument is misguided as the primary intent of the Senate was to represent the interests of the regions of Canada, not based on population but on a governmental level, as equals within the federation. As George Brown said in 1867, "Our Lower Canadian friends have agreed to give us representation by population in the Lower House, on the express condition that they would have equality in the Upper House”.[5] The Senate was never intended to represent the population of the provinces but to give the provinces a voice in federal politics and to guard their interests against federal incursions.

The Senate was also designed to address regional and minority interests as a part of its mandate. With a system of provincial equality, such as that proposed by the Alberta Senate Resolution, the Senate would be more able to represent both the minorities within the provinces as well as larger provincial concerns. While it is true that this could lead to a situation where a number of provinces comprising only a minority of the population could effectively dominate the Senate, the possibility of that would be unlikely, especially if the Senate were elected and not appointed.

Some may argue that the Senate’s greater responsibility is to the nation as a whole and the effective functioning of our bicameral parliamentary system and that this would somehow be in danger should the Senate become equal. This is doubtful. For its entire history, the Senate has enjoyed powers almost equal to the House of Commons and yet it has never acted in an obstructionist manner. Even though under the Alberta plan, the six least populous provinces of the country could enjoy a majority in the upper house, it is highly unlikely that the Senators of those provinces would vote as one block. This would be especially true if those Senators were elected instead of being appointed by the Prime Minister of a single party.

With the current regional representation in the Senate, a majority is reached at 53 votes. Western Canada, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces (not including Newfoundland and Labrador) each hold 24 seats and therefore it is possible under the current system for Ontario and Quebec, with the aid of only five more Senate votes, to effectively control the Senate. Certainly this is less equitable than the parity proposed by the Alberta Senate Resolution. With Ontario and Quebec already holding the majority of seats in the House of Commons (106 for Ontario and 75 for Quebec) there is no doubt that the opinion that central Canada dominates over government at the federal level is not entirely unfounded, and therefore needs to be addressed.[6]

The allocation of Senators in our current system is not equal, either in the sense of population or provincial representation. In 1867, there had been an attempt made to represent the regional divisions in the country, but this falls short of the realities of Canada as it is today.[7] In a poll conducted in March of 2002, when asked the question, “In your opinion, does the federal government sufficiently look after the interests of your region?”, in all the provinces except Ontario, the majority of respondents replied, “No”.[8] Certainly this is an attitude which could be altered, at least somewhat, by instituting equality between the provinces in the Senate.

The next, and possibly the most important prong of the Triple E Senate is the question of election. What would or could the Canadian people expect to gain from having an elected Senate? What would the cost be? What could be done to make it reflective of both provincial concerns as well as those of minorities?

First and foremost, election would eliminate some of the perception of nepotism within the Senate. Making Senators responsible to the voters would reduce the inordinate amount of influence exercised over the upper house by the Prime Minister and the ruling party. A Senator’s continued service would be dependant on popular vote and not Prime Ministerial selection to a permanent appointment. With the election of Senators, the Prime Minister would no longer have power over who would sit in the upper house. Because of this, he or she could not be said to control it. This perception would hold, in spite of the fact that any party able to win a majority in the House of Commons would likely enjoy a similar majority in the Senate through the election process.

Another reason in support of an elected Senate would be the democratic principal behind it. As it stands now, a Senator is appointed and can serve till the age of 75 with virtually no way to be removed. Senators, such as Andrew Thompson, who was absent from the Senate for 488 days without excuse, would, if elected for a fixed term be responsible and accountable to the electorate for their actions.[9] While this particular example has more to do with the lack of one Senator’s work ethic than it does the effectiveness of the Senate itself, the election of Senators would impart a measure of liability which is currently lacking in that chamber.

It can be argued that this elected Senate would only duplicate the House of Commons within the Senate, and therefore, not effectively address the minority opinions that have had a voice in the Senate through the appointment process since 1867.[10] This does not have to be the case. Every election, a percentage of votes are cast for independent candidates. If Senatorial elections were based on proportional representation, then it is possible that there would be more independents in the upper chamber than there currently are.

Another argument against Senatorial elections is the cost to the taxpayer. The only province to have run Senatorial elections so far is Alberta which has done so three times since 1989. In the most recent election, that province spent approximately three million dollars to elect four Senators to fill three of Alberta’s vacant positions. Although these Senators in waiting may never fill a seat in the Senate the exercise does demonstrate just how costly Senatorial elections would be to the taxpayer.[11]

While these concerns are valid they are not insurmountable. The logical solution is to implement a system of proportional representation in the Senate that is tied to our federal elections.

For example, in British Columbia during the federal election of 2004 the parties involved garnered the following percentages of the popular vote: The Conservative Party of Canada – 36.3%, the Liberal Party of Canada – 28.6%, the New Democratic Party – 26.5%, the Green Party – 6.3% and Independents – 2.5%.[12] These percentages would translate into the following representation with regards to British Columbia’s six Senate seats: The Conservative Party of Canada – 2.178, the Liberal Party of Canada – 1.71, the New Democratic Party – 1.59, the Green Party – .378 and Independents – .15. Rounding down these results to the integers, the three major Canadian parties would receive four of the Senatorial seats with the Conservatives filling two, and the Liberals and the New Democrats filling one each. This leaves two seats to be split between the remaining parties, namely the Green party and the Independents, for a total of six seats.

This system of proportional representation is much more reflective of the democratic wishes of the Canadian people and in addition, is representative of minority parties. However, to implement this change without a corresponding change in the actual appointment of those Senators is to leave the job half done. The Senate is not only supposed to guard the interests of minorities but also to guard areas of provincial jurisdiction from infringement by the federal government. In order to address this requirement of the Senate, I propose that the responsibility for the selection of Provincial Senators be delegated to the Provincial Legislatures, who in turn, would select appropriate candidates from a list of qualified personnel.

I believe the above proposal would eliminate the monopoly that the federal parties are currently able to establish in the Senate after long periods of successful election. It would represent minority and provincial interests, eliminate federal patronage within the upper house and do it without any significant increase in cost to the taxpayer.

Additionally, the claims of those calling for Senate Reform stemming from the belief that “the current process of appointing Senators offends Canadians' democratic values, has deprived that House of political legitimacy and efficacy, and has prevented the Senate from being effective in protecting the interests of the provinces of Canada” [13], would be addressed. Indeed, the question of Senate effectiveness would no longer be an issue at all. Addressing the inequality and the autocracy of the system under which Senators were selected, would eliminate the perception of an ineffective Upper House.

In conclusion, it is time that we heeded the words of Sir John A MacDonald, when he spoke on the creation of the Senate in 1865 he said, “There would be no use of an Upper House, if it did not exercise, when it thought proper, the right of opposing or amending or postponing the legislation of the Lower House. It would be of no value whatever were it a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the Lower House. It must be an independent House, having a free action of its own, for it is only valuable as being a regulating body, calmly considering the legislation initiated by the popular branch, but it will never set itself in opposition against the deliberate and understood wishes of the people.”[14] Our current system has become far too subservient to the ruling party without true provincial clout, equitable representation of minorities or responsibility to Canadians.

Under this system, with equality existing between the provinces and a democratic selection process of some kind Canada would be far ahead of where it is now. The Senate would still exist as, “the House which has the sober second-thought in legislation,”[15] but it would more accurately reflect Canada as it is today rather than the best work of one hundred and thirty-seven years ago.

Bibliography

Campus program.com (2004) Reference Library: Encyclopedia “Canadian Senate” http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/c/ca/canadian_senate.html, World Wide Web, (accessed on, November 24)

Canada online About (2004), “Alberta Election of Senators-in-Waiting” http://canadaonline.about.com/od/provincialelections/a/abelectsenators.htm, World Wide Web, (October 27)

Canadian Press/Leger Marketing (2002) “Canadians and Canada” http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/spclm/020325eng.pdf, World Wide Web, (March 5 & 10)

CBC News in Review April 98 “Canada’s Upper House: Do we need the Senate? http://www.cbc.ca/newsinreview/apr98/Senate/triple.htm , World Wide Web, (Toronto, accessed on, November 22)

Government of Alberta News Release(2003) May 14, 2003 “Alberta Senate Resolution” http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200305/14388.html#resolution, World Wide Web, (Alberta, May 14)

George Brown, “Quoted in Robert A. MacKay, The Unreformed Senate of Canada, revised and reprinted (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1963), p. 38.”as quoted in The Senate of Canada (2001) “A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada, Committees and Private Legislation Directorate” http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/senate/legisfocus/legislative-e.htm, World Wide Web, (accessed on, December 19)

John A MacDonald, “Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, (Quebec: Hunter, Rose, 1865), p. 35-36.”as quoted in The Senate of Canada (2001) “A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada, Committees and Private Legislation Directorate” http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/Senate/legisfocus/legislative-e.htm, World Wide Web, (Ottawa, November 24)

Parliament of Canada Edited Hansard Number 57 (1998) “Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.), Senate of Canada” http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/057_1998-02-11/han057_1405-e.htm World Wide Web, (Ottawa, February 11)

Parliament of Canada, Senators and Members (2004) “Senators 1867 to date By Political Affiliation – Independent” http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/Senate/SenIdx.asp?lang=E&Hist=Y&param=par&id=6 World Wide Web (Ottawa, accessed on, November 21)

Simon Fraser University (2004) “Elections: Initial Results of the 2004 Federal Elections” http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/2004-results.html, World Wide Web (Burnaby, accessed on, November 22)

Statistics Canada, The Daily (2004), “Demographic Statistics: Canada’s Population” http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040929/d040929d.htm, (Ottawa, September 29)

Wikipedia free encyclopedia (2004), “Canadian House of Commons”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_House_of_Commons#Composition , World Wide Web, (accessed on, November 18)

---

[1] Campus program.com (2004) Reference Library: Encyclopedia “Canadian Senate” http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/c/ca/canadian_senate.html, World Wide Web, (accessed on , November 24)

[2] Government of Alberta News Release (2003) “Alberta Senate Resolution” http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200305/14388.html#resolution, World Wide Web, (Alberta May 14)

[3] CBC News in Review April 98 (1998), “Canada’s Upper House: Do we need the Senate? http://www.cbc.ca/newsinreview/apr98/senate/triple.htm , World Wide Web, (Toronto, accessed on, accessed on, November 22)

[4] Statistics Canada, The Daily (2004), “Demographic Statistics: Canada’s Population” http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040929/d040929d.htm, (Ottawa, September 29)

[5] George Brown, “Quoted in Robert A. MacKay, The Unreformed Senate of Canada, revised and reprinted (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1963), p. 38.”as quoted in The Senate of Canada (2001) “A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada, Committees and Private Legislation Directorate” http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/senate/legisfocus/legislative-e.htm, World Wide Web, (accessed on, December 1)

[6] Wikipedia free encyclopedia (2004), “Canadian House of Commons”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_House_of_Commons#Composition , World Wide Web, (November 18)

[7] The Senate of Canada (2001) “A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada, Committees and Private Legislation Directorate”

(2a “Text of the Quebec Resolutions as they Pertained to the Senate”) http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/senate/legisfocus/legislative-e.htm, World Wide Web, (Ottawa, accessed on , December 1)

[8] Canadian Press/Leger Marketing (2002) “Canadians and Canada” http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/spclm/020325eng.pdf, World Wide Web, (March 5 & 10)

[9] Parliament of Canada Edited Hansard Number 57 (1998) “Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.), Senate of Canada” http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/057_1998-02-11/han057_1405-e.htm World Wide Web, (Ottawa, February 11)

[10] Parliament of Canada, Senators and Members (2004), “Senators 1867 to date By Political Affiliation – Independent” http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/Senate/SenIdx.asp?lang=E&Hist=Y&param=par&id=6 World Wide Web (Ottawa, accessed on, November 21)

[11] Canada online About (2004), “Alberta Election of Senators-in-Waiting” http://canadaonline.about.com/od/provincialelections/a/abelectsenators.htm, World Wide Web, (October 27)

[12] Simon Fraser University (2004) “Elections: Initial Results of the 2004 Federal Elections” http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/2004-results.html, World Wide Web (Burnaby, accessed on , November 22 )

[13] Government of Alberta News Release(2003) May 14, 2003 “Alberta Senate Resolution” http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200305/14388.html#resolution, World Wide Web, (Alberta, May 14)

[14] John A MacDonald, “Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, (Quebec: Hunter, Rose, 1865), p. 35-36.”as quoted in The Senate of Canada (2001) “A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada, Committees and Private Legislation Directorate” http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/senate/legisfocus/legislative-e.htm, World Wide Web, (Ottawa, accessed on , November 24)

[15] John A MacDonald, “Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, (Quebec: Hunter, Rose, 1865), p. 35-36.”as quoted in The Senate of Canada (2001) “A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada, Committees and Private Legislation Directorate” http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/senate/legisfocus/legislative-e.htm, World Wide Web, (Ottawa, 2001)

Socialist Equality, Some animals really are...

The underlying and defining concept of democracy and the democratic system is equality.

Equality means not only are all persons equal before and within the democratic system but all are permitted to compete equally for all elected positions. To limit any persons right to fight for and be selected to represent his/her party’s ideology is fundamentally damaging to a democracy.

This on the other hand is a blatant example of the socialist tendency to subjugate or confuse concepts like merit, equality and opportunity to all sorts of imagined rights, quota's and caveats.

God! Think of the Children!!! (Never post while channelling a socialist)

Proof of the horrible and inhuman capitalist system.

How dare they do this without billing the taxpayer for the good deed!!! This philanthropy will not go unpunished!!

People Don't Kill People; Tazers Do!

Now some of you know that I am genetically predisposed to believe that Police are more apt to behave in accordance with the law than the average Joe. But anyone who has watched the video of Robert Dziekanski being Tasered by the RCMP would be hard pressed to see the mans actions from the time the RCMP officers arrived till he was Tasered as threatening. Upset, yes, agitated, of course, but threatening? One man with a stapler facing 4 RCMP officers does not constitute such a threat to the welfare of the police that any aid to their own physical force should have been required.

It astonishes me though, that the hue and cry from the population is more about whether to eliminate a predominately non-lethal weapon from the police arsenal than it is about the obviously flawed illegal use of it in this one case.

Wake up people. Without the Taser there are many more instances where a police officer might have to draw a real gun and shot some poor sod dead. And once you start playing with lead and gunpowder there is going to be bodily harm 99% of the time, not 1% of the time.

Hank Reardon would recognize this...

The underlying impression one gets from this is that in order to make the hiring done by the federal government fair there should be allowances made for those who think that they deserve a full time permanent job, and are above applying for a temporary one to get a foot in the door.

Included in this deluded application of socialist logic is the oft repeated call for quotas for visible minorities. Skill level, training, qualifications and most importantly, number of applicants be damned.

Who's running this show? James Taggart?

Government initiatives, Choking off inovation since forever...

If global warming is unavoidable and linked to human activity then the fact is, that there is probably a fortune to be made innovating solutions to it.

So why have all business initiatives been so lacklustre, absent even?

Yes, some will say that it’s because the whole thing is a crock, but a stupid idea has really never prevented some enterprising businessman from at least attempting to make money off of it.

So why not now?

The answer is easy. The reform liberals and socialists are, once again, looking for government to do all the work, and weak kneed politicians the world over are obliging them.

With a crowd of government initiatives, forced regulation and social hand holding there is absolutely no wonder that business’s have been steering clear. After all, there is no better recipe for a blind-folded clusterf^*k than “government control” (oxymoron alert).

Now I'm paying to be taxed?

So I got a bill from the City of Ottawa today for $35.00. The letter that came with it explained that the charge was for a “Name change” and was linked to my property taxes.

Still a little confused I phoned the City to clarify. I thought that my lawyer should certainly have paid this charge, whatever it was when the house was transferred into my name.

Not so.

The charge, it was explained to me, was an administration charge levied against me so that I could be added to the city’s tax roll.

“So let me get this right,” I say. “you are charging me $35.00 for a city service so that I can be added to the cities tax roll so that I can benefit from city services?”

The nice lady on the other end of the line sounded very tired when she agreed that my summary was correct.

I hate it when my money is stolen, but I hate it even more when it is stolen for no other reason than to administratively support a self-perpetuating bureaucracy.

So, in Ottawa now they charge you for the priviledge of being taxed.

So wrong...

On so many levels.

The Darling of Celebrities

How come things touted to be "for the good of all" so often end with gunfire?

Will Sean Penn, Naomi Campbell, Kevin Spacey, Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte be helping to reload?

No, I won't

The question was innocuous enough…

"Can you buy me a cup of coffee?"

My response.

"No, I won't"

Not “I can’t” but rather “I wont”

You would have thought I'd shot the poor wretch but apparently this piece of honesty hurt far more. It elicited a visceral reaction, a curse.

No great loss surely, the man wasn’t a friend, and certainly not anyone I cared about. But it got me to thinking. Somehow his reaction to my honesty was supposed to make me feel responsible in some small way for the self-induced misery of the beggar.

In a word… No.

Some might claim that I am my brother’s keeper; well if I am, I refuse to “keep” my brother a beggar by allowing him to survive as such.

So, the next time you are accosted by a vagrant, be blunt, be honest and be willing to make him/her responsible for his/her lot.

Then perhaps, just perhaps he/she will accept it.