Hey! Here's news. We have a toehold on disgruntled voters. According to CanWest, anyway.
the [Green] party appears to have a toehold on becoming a permanent fixture for disgruntled voters.Golly, how do they know that? In their telephone pesterings of people at home do they ask, "are you disgruntled, and if so are you voting green?"
Want me to tell you about Afghanistan? Want to hear this from a Green Party of Canada candidate's position? There will be no Canadian military in Afghanistan. I'd bring them all home, immediately. No blue helmet then no Afghanistan force, simple.
CanWest reports that it is GPC platform to:
Call for a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and their replacement with specialized troops from nations not fighting in Iraq.Hmm, this is confusing for me. First off, America being in Iraq is totally unrelated to Afghanistan. Iraq was a weapons of mass destruction issue; Afghanistan was the destruction of a powerful rogue militant cell issue. I don't think the greens are calling for the Americans to get out of Afghanistan and not Iraq.
(Kingston, Ontario, 12 August 2005) -- The Green Party of Canada is calling for a measured but complete withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan and their replacement with specialized troops from nations not fighting in Iraq, announced Green Party Foreign Affairs critic Eric Walton today.See what happens when you don't subscribe to the internal military listserve ... you aren't informed of such things. I guess I was wrong and CanWest was right.
I'd bring the troops all home, immediately.
Christina gave me a blue plaid shirt. And Mom, in her infinite wisdom, gave me a "green" tie for campaigning and maybe also to wear in parliament. The tie, by the way, is supposed to represent the "Taylor" tartan. I told Christina that I felt like putting them both on at the same time. She said not to do that as I'd look like an escapee from the Red Green Show. I did it anyway. But lo, and behold, it doesn't look too bad. Even Christina says it looks good in a perverse sorta way. Don't know if I'd wear it out in public though. Later, J (the son) and Sam (the girlfriend) and Sam's mom (Mom of Sam) came over. Can't remember what they said except that they needed to take pictures.
The greens announced their energy platform in Calgary. Huge approval rating (87%) from Calgarians to end oil company subsidies. No other party says that! Anyway, here are some pictures -
This would be Jim Harris, Leader of the Green Party of Canada, marshalling the media before boarding the wind train.
This would be me. Smiling. A rare occurrance. I was just starting to come down with a cold (the 20th) which would hang on for three days. The other guy is Bryan. Last I heard (today, which is the 24th) he was just starting to develop a cold, too. I blame John Johnson, Calgary Centre, he had it before me.
Jim Harris on the wind train. Not really called the Wind Train because it attracts politicians but because it is powered entirely by wind-power generated electricity. You should see all the wind generators on top of the train. And when the train moves even more electricity is generated.
In the picture is Jim Harris, then me, then Bryan Bayley. Hmm, I wonder if Jim is starting to feel a bit feverish right now (posting day, the 28th)?
---
Great pictures courtesy Grant Neufeld.
Well, this is news. Poll shows 87% support for ending oil company subsidies. After a speech by Jim Harris, Leader of the Green Party of Canada, stating that government subsidies to oil companies making record profits will end under Green energy policy, a Global TV / viewer poll had 87% agreeing to an end of oil company subsidies. And guess what else ... it was in CALGARY!
Monday, December 21, 2005
The Green Party of Canada has by far the most advanced and innovative health care policy of any other party in Canada. It is so all-encompassing that the massive new influx of members from all walks of Canadian life have been having difficulty assimilating the content. Sharp observers, such as Preston Manning and Mike Harris, have apparently not had this difficulty.
Maude Barlow writes that both Preston and Harris want a "dramatic expansion of freedom of choice and acceptance of personal responsibility in every area of national life." This is pure green party dogma and it is representative of green parties the world over. Greens say that all citizens have a right to express their views and to act upon those views in a community and civically responsible manner, and that governances are accountable toward these views. Unfortunately, such usually sage voices diverge from green thinking in the application of the noble ideal.
Where some would privatize healthcare, I would privatize medicine. Instead of publically funding the suppliers of healthcare, I would publically fund the consumers of health care. It creates consumer-driven healthcare as opposed to supplier-driven healthcare. This innovation perfectly meets all Green Party of Canada policy and is wonderfully compliant with green values. It also is in accord with every aspect of the Canada Health Act (publically funded, publically administrated) and stops two-tier healthcare in its tracks. It also perfectly establishes and prioritizes the appropriate delivery of health care services according to health consumer priorities (as opposed to health supplier priorities).
People cannot be both responsible AND accountable unless empowered to be so. Privatization of healthcare and the inclusion of health insurance is a purely corporate concept. It is berift of humanity and of any Canadian citizenship bonus. Simply applying a sink-or-swim process to human existence is fundamentally and needlessly cruel. The live-or-die mentality is certainly not applied to corporate identities where tax deductions, exemptions, subsidies, and other encouragements are routinely granted. The idea that corporations are socialist and people are free enterprise is, at best, descriminatory.
And one of the real beauties of consumer-driven healthcare is that since funding is primarily from the public purse we can (and will) exclude foreign owned businesses in favour of Canadian medical suppliers and deliverers of service.
The "dramatic expansion of freedom of choice and acceptance of personal responsibility in every area of national life" is so appealing to greens that I have developed both a healthcare and an elimination-of-poverty approach which perfectly applies these principles, and is being greatly debated within grassroots structures and EDAs and with an astonished assortment of new GPC members. It would eliminate the governmental tendency to give programs and then take then away (ex family allowance) when times, or balancing the books, get tough.
This approach to poverty and healthcare will enable Canada to continue excluding American education, welfare, health, and daycare service corporations from infiltrating and overtaking the Canadian market. Our identity as Canadians is at stake!
You want to know why the United States is the most dangerous nation in the world with its consequent sky-high murder rate? Because poverty is solidly entrenched there due to its lack of basic health and social programs. People have no way out of poverty. We don't need that here.
I've heard it said that others claim to be "more green than the Greens." And I have read it in some literature and other media. I can only bow my head and think on what a messy political business I have gotten myself mixed up in.
We greens hold the concept of Gaia, our mother Earth, preciously in our minds. We believe the Earth to be a beautiful, living and vibrant ecosystem. A miraculous blue orb in the blackness of space. Our thinking, our thoughts, even our morality all derive from this great globe we live upon.
I can assure you that no policy-picking political party can love the world more perfectly than we greens. We do so want to save the world from the destructive and killing habits of some of its denizens. And we cannot abide the idea of failure. We have a constant and rolling seven future generations of children that depend upon us to succeed.
No party is more green than the Greens.
It is a valid action for people not to vote green. Some people idealize the future of humanity as traveling in great arcs through space; some love the idea of an entirely developed and constructed world where nature in its present form has no place to exist; some jobs at any cost; some no change at all; some view a great industrial / military complex as the future of humanity. So vote for another party. If you love Gaia, you'll vote Green.
America would likely consume the world in order to selfishly maintain their standard of living.
I notice that European countries are well on their way to meeting Kyoto targets. Canada is dismally failing.
I can see the reluctance on Canada's part to meet the Kyoto targets. As the Europeans have surrendered a bit of competitive advantage by complying with Kyoto, the Americans fiercely and recklessly consume and pollute for present time profits and self-gratification. Canada sees the morally correct course of action as walked by the Europeans but is tempted to profit mongering by proximity to the avaricious United States. Global well-being is not an American consideration.
The Green Party of Canada would greatly expand the Emissions Trading System within Canada to achieve and exceed the Kyoto emmissions reduction targets.
As Kyoto is an official UN mandated convention, I would like to see tariffs imposed on manufactured goods from countries which have not signed the Kyoto Convention. I would like the countries which refused to sign the Kyoto Agreement, the countries that have little or no global responsibility, I would like to see their selfish, short-term competitive advantage removed.
The Green Party of Canada believes in fair trade not free trade. It is not fair that other countries can screw their responsibilities to the world. I'd like to see an international alliance formed to descriminate against them.
I've blogged about this fairness principle before: in peak oil and UN reform.
We are all in the Green Party to leave a better world for our children's children. It aint about corporate profits. It's about the kids.
It is probably fair to say that no policy within the Green Party of Canada is more contentious than the Harp and Hooded seal hunt in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Official current policy is to phase out the commercial hunt. Personal hunting of seal, as with deer hunting, for example, is still fine. A mass vote of the membership just before the last Annual Convention resulted in approval for a well-managed commercial seal hunt according to green principles. But at the Annual Convention the mass vote was overturned in favour of banning the commercial hunt. The Terra Nova Greens of Newfoundland & Labrador were some mad at this.
Bear in mind that the Greens are nowhere near to forming a government. The issue of phasing out the seal hunt, or not, is pure fantasy. The more likely and real issue would be how an elected Green Party of Canada MP would vote should another party propose a bill on modifying the seal hunt.
In an ordinary political party one would expect its politicians to toe the party line, shut up, or jump ship. The central authority is always all powerful. In the Green Party of Canada this is not the case.
The Green Party of Canada is a decentralist party. The ultimate power in the Green Party is the local riding, aka the Electoral District Association. The EDA takes in all the presentations of the leader, green "values," green policy, green platform, opinions of EDAs from all over Canada, and lastly, the local candidate. Then the EDA tells the green MP how to vote.
Since there are no green MPs, the leader of the Green Party of Canada and the executive of the green party try to gather all opinons together themselves and create a political platform for communication to Canadians. The platform is, of course, a very gray concensus of the many disparate green views. This is necessarily so as the Green Party of Canada is neither left nor right but is instead a wide and broad party. However, being decentralist, it is of little or no concern except to the would be petty dictators who believe they are more green than those who would disagree with them.
The greens of Terra Nova are expected, nay, encouraged to vote for a proper commercial seal hunt, and some scattered greens from there and other places would vote against it. The leader of the Green Party of Canada would probably vote against the commercial hunt if he had his druthers although I have no idea what his EDA would vote to do.
A decentralized party reflects the character and nature of all the peoples and regions of Canada. It is one of our principle values, "Respect for Diversity." "Grassroots Democracy" is another. And a supporting important principle is "Community-based Economics." It is no wonder that the Terra Nova Greens would vote to support the commercial hunt.
In the end, the decentralized process works. You just know that an excellent, viable demonstrably GREEN hunt will probably result should a Green government be elected. And you know that this is very unlikely right now. What is important to take note of is that the Terra Nova Greens are supporters of a "good" hunt -- and rightly so, whether we agree with them or not.
To draw a clear parallel, we could briefly compare the "pro choice" issue. The Green Party of Canada supports the right of a woman to choice. In a vote in parliament, currently, there would probably be a free vote for members. However, for greens, it is my contention that green MPs represent the EDA. So each green MP vote would essentially be representative of each of their respective EDAs. It is the EDA that is effectively voting in parliament, not the individual.
The concept of free vote or party vote does not really apply to greens. We have only the EDA vote. The only exception to this rule that I can imagine is a "money matter" vote where it would be the decision of the Green Party itself on whether to bring down a government or not.
Hey, come lobby me! Give me great gobs of secret monies. Wine me. Dine me.
But I suppose I should tell you, it is the EDA that dictates how I vote.
We're a decentralist party and it is the collective wisdom of the greens with the Electoral District Association that dictates my vote.
Sorry. Umm, how about that olive? Can I still have the olive?
Politicians should be changed regularly, like diapers, and for the same reason.
--Richard Davies, Welsh biblical scholar
Hat tip to Chimera
I am running against a threepeat going for a fourpeat. This logic appeals to me; however, it appealed to me (and probably everyone else) even before I signed up for this politician stuff. Vote Green to guarantee no incumbents will be re-elected.
------------------
Here is a good post on Frankenfoods by PoliticaGrll
These things are important but only briefly wonder into and out of our political discourse. Pandemic is nuthin compared to the potential for harm from the gene diddlers.
-----------------
I get called names, too:Overly zealous New Age upwardly mobile Yoga master, out in right field,
I use it as a signature on particularly good postings in green party mailing lists. Thanks Dave.
product of a concept of holistic health designed and defined by and for
California yuppies in the early days of Green politics in
North America, typically Aquarian Conspiracy way of thinking.
(Moniker courtesy of Dave Greenfield).
---
WestMart put up his greenparty bio; here's mine.
I have no desire to ban non-military style firearms. The odd and aggravating American saying, "guns don't kill, people do," is largely correct.
Canada is still a very peaceful country. The US, on the other hand, is perhaps the most dangerous country on Earth not currently involved in a civil war. American jingoisms have different lilts in Canada.
Still, I'd like to make crimes involving a firearm a thing of the past. How about a nice, "Real criminals don't need firearms," advertising campaign? And / or simply ADDing a mandatory 5 non-probationary years to any crime commited with a firearm. Message to criminals, use knives instead.
Oh, yes, and decriminalize non-compliance with gun registration. Just a fine, people, just a fine.
Since this is a blog and the exploration of ideas is half the fun I thought I'd venture an opposite (of course) proposal to existing thinking. I wonder how it would play? --
For non-military style firearms, registration should not be required. Gun owners have seen that registration and subsequent wholesale confiscation is a real and highly probable event. Why register if the gun is going to be confiscated at a later date? Rather, I'd like to see people get certified for the many calibres and categories of firearms, perhaps even annually for some some categories. Lots of training and safety and qualification to own various types of firearms. Gun clubs and gun people love that kind of stuff. Out with the current registration and permit system, in with a training and certification system.
Hmm, sounds kinda appealing on first go through. I'm sure somebody out there will whack me upside the head for this kinda speculation, though.
Supplemental: as with most of my postings this post was originally written seven or eight days ago. Since then a Canadian police officer has been killed by a so-called elephant gun. It was registered. Perhaps a training and certification system would have long weeded out this individual from obtaining this type of weapon.
The Green Party loves the concept of family farms. Especially small, certified organic family farms. We even like the idea of productive hobby farms -- certified organic, of course. We love self-sufficiency, local sufficiency, regional self-sufficiency, even national self-sufficiency in sectors.
The green idea is that the more self-sufficient an area is then the more sustainable an area has the potential to become. Put another way, living within an area's means precludes the need to ravage the remainder of world for finite and dwindling resources. There is an ethical divide between how we live and how the remainder of the world is capable of living. We control all the money and technology and then tell the rest of the world to develop upward to our standard of living, knowing full well that it is impossible. And also knowing full well that it is undesireable from a Gaia well-being (polution, environmental degradation) point of view.
The problem is that as family farms have been totally unviable, they have virtually disappeared from the landscape. The Green Party has suggestions and ideas on saving the family farm but, like the ideas of all the other parties, there is nothing on the horizon which will save, restore and grow family farms in today's present culture.
Monumental problems have I solved so far with but the most simple of solutions:
health care, Korean nuclear weapons, Alberta beef, politician's pay, and poverty. Now I'm turning the sights onto the FAMILY FARM.
Being of limited intelectual ability I am forced to draw upon the techniques of problem resolution I used in solving the poverty problem -- the publically funded, FARMER-driven agriculture solution.
How about an income support of $50 per acre per year?
I've just returned from having a word with the manager of Marlborough Mall. He said that his mall has been told not to allow any politicing during this election. He said shoppers don't want to be pestered by politicians. It is pitch dark and horribly cold and impossible to safely doorknock in the evenings during a Canadian winter. I would think a major mall would be happy to offer up as a public service a bit of mallway so a political representative could hand out informative fliers. My opinion of these globalization collectives has just slipped a few more notches. Given the central role malls play in Canadian culture it might be wise to put some restrictions on their corporate certificates. I think it would behoove Canadian interests to compel malls to provide access and space to representative politicians during an election.
Supplemental: the Election Canada site suggests that this change to the Elections Act would be beneficial --
Access to Buildings for Candidates
It would also be advisable to enlarge the scope of legal access by candidates when canvassing electors. At present, the Act stipulates that candidates must have access to multiple-family dwellings. It would be appropriate to extend access to other types of buildings, such as commercial or educational sites, and any public building.
Whoa!
One of my old posts on consumer-driven health care received a comment from a California-based health insurance company. A POSITIVE comment! Egads! Where have I gone wrong?
Ever get one of those blogging moments when you just sit heavily into your chair, stare into space, and think, "what have I done"? Must have been something like that when the first test atomic bomb exploded, or when some idiot scientist spliced and reconstructed the first gene.
But, recovery came quickly. Firstly, and primarily, the publically-funded health consumer can only expend funds on healthcare services. Insurance is not a healthcare service. Insurance is a financial service -- and a dumb one at that. Secondly, I would restrict applicable (Citizen Card) expenditures to only Canadian, wholely owned and operated services.
Of course, private money, personal money, can be used any way a person wants. So if a person wants to buy some kind of supplemental insurance, let them. I don't really see that there would be a general need for such expenditure, afterall, this isn't the states.
Then I got another identical message, one week later. I'm being automatically spammed by Californian health insurance. There appears to be no shame for American health care insurance companies. No wonder their record is so dismally poor.
The fact remains, there is no reason to supplement proper health care with health insurance that preys upon humanity for incorporated profit.
Vote GREEN.
Meet Nora O'Connell, the Returning Officer for Calgary East. Very nice. Very helpful. She's on the right. That's me, the Herbinator, on the left. Is this like too cool or what. Nora, by the way, is an impartial employee of Elections Canada. The picture represents me having fun getting registered. So don't all you political diddlers get yer socks in a knot.
Hey, I'm the first candidate to file registration papers in Calgary East. Not bad for a newbie. I had 180 registration signatures. Only a hundred are needed but I used the process to become more familiar with meeting people. Virtually everybody was kind and supportive. A few wouldn't sign because I was a greenie but other than that everyone was good.
And I couldn't resist this picture. The Elections Canada office for Calgary East has a big "psycho" sign above the entrance. Is that why we have to register there?
Well, you probably all know that Ralph Klein of Alberta and blogger James Bow of Ontario think that there will be a minority government. I must confess that this is not particularly prominent in my thoughts. Vote placement, strategic voting, wasted votes, etc do not occupy my thoughts, either. Yes, every green vote results in an extra $1.75 for the Green Party of Canada and not a $1.75 for a different political party. It might be nice to establish an inverse relationship between seats obtained and dollars per vote. Wouldn't that be wild?
But my thoughts right now are on the Minority Government theme. What would the greens do IF they actually got one member elected and the opportunity evolved where this member held the balance of power?
I've been wondering what issue would rise to the fore as the GPC's make-it-or-break-it issue. Obviously it would have to be reflective of the values and it would have to be something familiar to all political parties.
I doubt that it would be a token rollback of corporate tax relief.
It wouldn't be re-introduction of same-sex marriage.
I think it would be a demand for Proportional Representation. Probably a referendum on whether Canadians want it, or not. And if so, a commitment to introduce a suitable system before the next election.
That would be my guess.
Weekend post time. Time to take off my superhero costume and let things air out.
My blogshares are worth $31,673.15. Anyone know how I can cash out?
I rather like the write-up on the Green Party of Canada in the Wikipedia.
Rather like a walk down nostalgia lane. So much has changed over the years. So many "political" dealings and internal wranglings.
Still, the Green Party of Canada is a values-based party and nothing can change that -- especially no gung-ho individual. It's all about the values. The GPC is the ONLY values-based party.
It is my job to convey the values to one and all. And to execute the instructions resulting from the collective wisdom of my Electoral District Association's membership (all Green Party of Canada members in Calgary East are automatically voting members of the EDA).
If you like the values, vote Green; otherwise, vote as best befits your beliefs.
Hey, while I was away studying the effects of Dihydrous monoxide through personal experimentation I bought a book written by Maude Barlow called "too close for comfort."
The book is what you would expect, it (rightly) decries Deep Integration.
The bookmark that came with it, courtesy of the airport bookstore, was a little boring. So I replaced it with a "special gift" bookmark that came in a GPC envelop amongst the mountain of mail (and e-mail) awaiting my return home.
On the bookmark is printed,
sus-tain-abil-i-ty
living today in ways that do not undermine the ability for future generations to live
Proportional Representation (PR) is a green value thing in and of itself. We greens like PR because it gives voice to smaller parties and allows the expression of newer ideas. It is more democratic in the populist sense and, since giving voice to all people is within the the green value set, we naturally support Proportional Representation.
Our current system is a First-Past-the-Post (FPP) system which is essentially a winner take all system of democracy. For example, if Greens received 51% of the vote in all ridings in Canada and the Conservatives received 49% of the vote in all ridings then Greens would end up with 100% of the 308 parliamentary seats. Hence, 49% of the population is unrepresented. We who like PR say that this type of result is unjust.
BC and PEI have both rejected PR-variant systems. I'm sad about that. But I am also glad. I'm glad because the PR systems proposed were so complicated that only a computer could figure out who won what.
Democracy should be simple and obvious to everyone. The political types diddled with the PR-variants to such an extent that only they were happy -- they were happy because they got the opportunity to diddle -- the people were confused and frustrated.
Even the Green Party of Canada seems to prefer a Proportional Mixed Member Representation (PMMR) system. Again, it is some kind of hybrid system between PR and first-past-the-post (FPP).
I'm a simple guy and I'm simple minded, too. I like the purity of a straight PR system. If the Greens get 10% of the vote then they would constitute 10% of the members of parliament -- that's about 30 MPs: constituted by the leader and the next 29 highest (by percent) vote-getting Green candidates. Simple. Simple. Simple.
I like straight PR because I can understand it right from the git-go. I can understand why BC and PEI rejected the more complicated and convoluted PR-variants proposed. Even the dialogues leading up to the PR-variant votes was impossible to follow. Easy to turn off the population. Yes, the diddlers love this kinda thing but I think the people just see it as the machinations of those surreal.
And what would happen with just straight PR and no surreal crap -- I think the leader of the Green Party of Canada would be in parliament, he would be in the debates, and we would have members from Calgary and Victoria sitting in parliament, which is proper, as that is where the GPC votes came from.
Hey, simple PR works for me.
I have already blogged a bit on the meaning of poverty and social justice. Poverty being a relatively defined term and Social Justice (one of the six principle values of Green parties, I might add) being a concerted societal effort to minimize people's exposure to poverty.
Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI), a long held green social justice tool, is a super concept. It has failed for two reasons: one, money alone is not the answer to poverty; and two, financing income support could never be tied to a set of objectives (ex. spending the money on shelter not alcohol).
http://herbinator.blogspot.com/2005/06/resolving-poverty.html
Afterall, people want some assurance that public monies will be spent toward the matter intended.
All of that can easily be resolved now with our evolved financial system.
http://herbinator.blogspot.com/2005/06/elimination-of-poverty.html
So the capability of eliminating poverty is within our grasp and, yet, there simply is no public desire to execute the task. The price tag of such a task is in the order of $300 billion per year. Now this $300B is not new spending, mind you, but is instead reallocated spending. $300B is approximately what is spent on institutionally provided Social Justice services now. My blogging thoughts have been to simply redirect said funds to the effected individuals rather than paternally rationing services to the public through various governmental and institutional bodies. For example, universities are heavily subsidized by government and my argument is to privatize them, with said university subsidy monies being pro-rated to the general population via some equitable and fair scheme -- the Citizen Card. [Of course it goes without saying that the Free Trade Agreement will have to go otherwise the Americans will just buy up the country like they have our hockey teams and coffee shops.]
Well, lately I've been thinking about private, tax deductable donations to various charities. I have to ask myself just why McDonalds Corp gets big time tax deductions for building inexpensive accomodations near a hospital, for example. Why is McDonalds getting a public subsidy to effect a social policy that is beyond the control government? Isn't it the government's job to determine social policy and prioritization with public funds? If McDonalds wants to do good then why don't they simply charge less for their products? Why are we paying them to effect a social policy of their determination?
The federal credit is equal to 16% of the first $200 of charitable donations paid in the year and 29% for any donation in excess of $200 (13.36% and 24.22%, respectively for Québec residents). For tax purposes of the territories and provinces other than Québec, the credit varies from 4% to 11% for the first $200 and from 11.16% to 18.02% for amounts exceeding $200.
I am entertaining the idea in my head that all tax deductable charitable donations should be paid to a Social Justice fund and it is from this fund that the monthly Social Justice transfers to an individual's Citizen Card should be made. This brings taxable deductable charitable donations back under the control of government where it belongs. Individuals and corporations can still give to charities of their choice but the donations won't be tax deductable.
The effect of all this is that institutions are now effectively privatized and must compete for dollars from every Canadian's Citizen Card. And the poor are now enfranchized to participate in society. Poor folk can now rent a bed each night from the Mustard Seed ministry rather than wait at the door each night and hope there is a bit of floor space available. And if the poor folk think that the Mustard Seed is not up to snuff then they can opt to stay at the competitive hostel next door ... perhaps one that doesn't kick them out so early in the morning. Catering to the poor now becomes competitive and needs-determined rather than paternally and lordingly proferred.
The net effect is that charities must now respond to public demand in the services they deliver. The rich will no longer be able to buy off their conscience with publically supported tax deductions for causes of dubious merit. Perhaps the poor don't want alms-based charity but instead want society to provide the tools and an availability of assets to rectify their own lives. And, if not, they'll have competitively supplied food and housing of a nature they deserve.
It is the birthright of every Canadian to have available the tools to escape poverty. The current prevailing notion that every Canadian should be able to escape poverty of their own merit is plainly ... pathetic.
OK. I'm back from studying deadly Dihydrous monoxide. Discovered plenty. Found a whole lake of the stuff.
Also found New Canada. Picture proves it. Proof there are greens in the New Canada.
Somebody told me there was an election goin on. Guess that means I'll have to behave myself in my postings -- except for tomorrow's post. It was written before the election call so I can post it and write it off as just another blog-minded entry. Right? Or is that nieve?
