Marketing Options® » Government

Thank You, Mrs. Clinton

Steve Carlson — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 01:00:24 +0000

Hillary Clinton’s position on the Falklands this week provides Canada with an opportunity to right an old wrong imposed by the United States just over a century ago. The American Secretary of State encouraged Argentina and Britain to sit down and talk about their claims and the future of these tiny islands, much to the chagrin of the Brits whose position has been no-way unless the islands’ inhabitants agree to such negotiations. Since Clinton is so gung-ho on talking, Prime Minister Stephen Harper should insist that the Americans look to their own backyard and re-open the issue over the Alaskan panhandle. Canadians who know their history appreciate that blatant travesty of justice this old border dispute represents.

Let me refresh your memory. Around the time of the Yukon Gold Rush, the exact location of the Alaskan border with Canada was fuzzy. As men and equipment poured across the panhandle on their way to the Klondike, it became an issue. Finally in 1903 Britain and the U.S. came to an agreement on how to settle the precise location of the boundary — three judges representing Canada and three representing the U.S. would be appointed by their corresponding countries to settle the dispute once and for all.

Theodore Roosevelt, the cowboy president, was busy overseeing the expansion of U.S. imperialism (Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Philippines) with the support of his big stick. Not surprisingly, he took the sensitive stance that Canada’s position, “is an outrage, pure and simple. They have no more right to the land in question than they have to Maine.” In that spirit of impartiality, the U.S. appointed three politicians who had no doubts as to whose cause was just. In fact one of them, Elihu Root, was the Secretary of War. Root’s appointment was entirely appropriate considering that Roosevelt had secretly informed Britain that if the resolution didn’t go his way, he would “ask Congress for permission to run the line (border) as we claim it,…without regard for the attitude of England and Canada.”

The Canadian contingent included a Toronto lawyer and Sir Louis Jetté, the Lieutenant-Govenor of Quebec, both of whom fought hard for Canada’s position. The fly in the ointment was the third member, Lord Alverstone, Lord Chief Justice of England, who was there because Canada, as a colony, still did not have control over its own foreign policy. Alverstone voted with the Americans and Roosevelt got the border demarcation that he wanted. Canadians were outraged, one prominent citizen, Sir Charles Tupper, summing it up succinctly with, “The whole course of British negotiations with the United States is marked with a line of gravestones under which Canadian rights are buried.”

Considering all this, Canadians should be most appreciative of Mrs. Clinton’s generous new position espousing the merits of “friendly mediation”. I feel certain that a fair and final negotiation would split the Alaskan panhandle in two equal portions, giving the southern half to Canada. And as restitution for this past wrong and to put Sir Charles Tupper finally at rest, the U.S. might just as well throw in Maine, too.

Harper Kicks Some Obama…, But

Steve Carlson — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:04:32 +0000

This post is not by a Canadian who dislikes Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth. I like Americans. Most of the ones I’ve met are smart and friendly. I just dislike most American politicians. That’s only a misdemeanor compared to how I feel about Canadian politicians. Visiting Ottawa is a pleasure for me. I love the galleries, the museums and the strolls along the locks. But I have never ever entered my country’s parliament buildings. Suffice to say that I suffer from high blood pressure and I just know if I pass through those portals, my heart will explode in my chest. I know this attitude towards my government is immature, but when you’ve been diddled by them for 66 years of your life, it’s tough to be magnanimous. For the other three years, I lived in the U.S. and didn’t pay taxes — and pre-schoolers don’t get too caught up in politics.

Canada doesn’t have a popular right wing party. Our New Democratic and Liberal parties are left wing. Our Conservative party straddles a middle-of-the-road position. That’s why I was somewhat astonished to learn that The Heritage Foundation seems to be saying that the U.S. is sliding further down the slope to a government-controlled welfare state.

The Heritage Foundation describes itself as America’s “most broadly supported public policy research institute, with more than 580,000 individual, foundation and corporate donors.” It has just published the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom which measured just how free the economies of nations are around the world. Canada scored an overall 80.4, placing 7th highest (freest) in the world. Scores are out of 100 and represent an average calculated from ten components which are also scored out of 100. What’s amazing is that the United States stood in 8th place with an overall score of 78. (An overall score of 80 is required to be designated a free economy — at 78, the U.S. is categorized as partially free.)

Here are the ten components and the scores for Canada and the United States. Best scores (if you believe in a free economy) are in italics:

Business Freedom — Canada 96.5, United States 91.3
Trade Freedom — Canada 88.1, United States 86.9
Fiscal Freedom — Canada 76.7, United States 67.5
Government Spending — Canada 54.1, United States 58.0
Monetary Freedom — Canada 75.4, United States 78.1
Investment Freedom — Canada 75.0, United States 75.0
Financial Freedom — Canada 80.0, United States 70.0
Property Rights — Canada 90.0, United States 85.0
Freedom from Corruption — Canada 87.0, United States 73.0
Labour Freedom — Canada 81.5, United States 94.8

One might conclude that Harper is doing a better job than Obama. Maybe but, and it’s a big but, before we get too carried away let’s give the U.S president a chance. Tonight is his State of the Union address. For a 100 years, the United States has stood out as the torch bearer of free enterprise. Tonight the world will be waiting to hear his words and the direction he plans to take America over the rest of his term. If he falters, Canadians had better be ready to catch that torch. It may not be an Olympic gold, silver or bronze but when you’re 7th place in the greater game of opportunity and freedom for you and your children, it’s the biggest tournament of all.

Keep Your Enemies Closer

Steve Carlson — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:53:00 +0000

Last week I visited the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa. I took a few pictures in the World War 1 section and then put the camera away in frustration. On the way over, I had made the mistake of driving by that mausoleum on Parliament Hill. My ability to focus on gas attacks and trench warfare was gone: by the time I reached the museum, all I could think about was the war in Afghanistan.

The treatment of detainees captured by Canadian forces and transferred to the Afghan government has our opposition politicians all aflutter. So the charges go, the Afghan government subsequently tortured some of those detainees. The oppositions’ finger pointing is a bit confounding considering that many of these politicians are members of the party responsible for drafting the agreement that established these transfers in the first place.

Now I hear our troops’ morale is suffering because they feel they are being vilified back home for passing on the detainees. I’ve listened to the Canadian generals and the investigating committee on TV and here’s my understanding of the situation. First, Canadian troops themselves didn’t participate in any alleged torturing. Second, it’s not the job of a Canadian soldier to investigate and pass judgement as to whether or not the Geneva Convention is being violated. Third, monitoring of detainee treatment by the Afghan government is supposed to be the responsibility of civilian organizations. Our troops have nothing to be sorry for except perhaps for the lack of support they received over this issue from the conservative government.

Combat troops have to be able to quickly pass on detainees in a war zone. Their job is on the battlefield. Guarding prisoners for any longer than is absolutely necessary is a significant burden and a dangerous distraction. Our politicians are now going to endlessly drag the issue of torture through the House of Commons in one form or another. Committees will write reports, make recommendations, castigate a few, exonerate others. One way or another, in the end the Afghan government is going to continue to receive detainees captured by our troops. And one way or another, this issue of mistreatment and torture will linger on.

Aside from packing up our troops and bringing them home, there is a solution to the problem — ship the detainees captured by Canadian troops back to Canada for processing and internment here. This action may take some political backbone with our NATO allies and the Afghan government, but surely we have a few politicians around with the spinal fortitude to handle the job. I think this solution would be a big boost to the morale of our troops in Afghanistan. It would also let the troops know that the folks back home were willing to do their part to help out.

Once on Canadian soil, politicians have direct access to the treatment of the detainees. Members of the press, monitoring organizations, and citizens concerned about the proper treatment of the detainees can be more assured that the information they receive is unstaged and honest. Since these detainees are not in uniform, there would be ample opportunity to sort out any lingering issues as to individual innocence or guilt. And our government can move on to address other issues of greater concern to most Canadians.

Canada is experienced running camps for prisoners of war. Thousands of German POWs were interned in Canada in World War II. Is there a difference between a prisoner of war and detainee? Should detainee be given preferential treatment? My understanding is that Canadian troops only detain those who have harmed or intended to harm them so I can’t see one.

There are issues that need to be considered. Saving the most challenging for last, one concern might be where are we going to locate these Detainee Camps? Obviously, not in downtown Toronto. Canada has endless, under-populated areas, which are relatively accessible to civilization, that could be used.

Who would guard the Detainee Camps? Civilian correctional services could handle the detainees inside the camps while the army could provide the outside security from parties trying to forcibly enter the camps. (No direct contact to the detainees should keep the government off the military’s back.) Bear in mind, the number of detainees will never begin to approach the thousands of German POWs who poured into Canada.

What about fanaticism among the detainees? What about it? The German POW camps had fanatical, hard-core, Nazi followers who endeavoured to impose their control within the Canadian camps. They set up secret kangaroo courts that were known to have POWs beaten or even sentenced to death by their own hand. Our system handled it.

Which leads us to the testy issue of the detainees being repatriated after the hostilities are over. (This has to be done under the Geneva Convention.) Since hostilities are over, the current government which is now being accused of torture (or its successor) would have less reason to mistreat the returning detainees. If the Taliban form part of the government at the time of repatriation, they will provide for the detainees’ safety.

The most challenging issue of all that must be addressed before setting up Detainee Camps is why do this if Canada is pulling out its troops in 2011. That’s easy — because, regardless of what our politicians say now, we will have troops in this theatre of conflict after that date.

Women and Children First

Steve Carlson — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:57:24 +0000

The second wave of the H1N1 flu was washing across the country before the vaccine arrived this fall. Government told us that only designated high-risk groups would receive the first shots, the rest of the population would have to wait their turn. I didn’t dwell much on this preferential treatment until a friend, who is a medical doctor, surprised me one day with his comment about this government directive. He told me that the process was “unfair” and that everybody should have had equal access to the vaccine when it was first released.

Yesterday I did what I often do during a long drive — let my mind wander over subjects that seriously bother me. Driving is boring and somewhat depressing, so I wasn’t long in reaching one of my more galling issues: how our provincial leaders have pushed the Ontario economy from have to have-not status. Thinking for me can be quite visual so the images invoked were of a sinking ship. A full Titanic scenario. The massive ice berg of a changing world economy, the breached hull of tight money and more taxes, the great ship floundering under the weight of businesses too big to fail. All right, so my visions can be a shade melodramatic, but the sinking of the Titanic on its maiden voyage exemplified the nautical arrogance of the builders who, just like our politicians, were certain their design could handle any emergency.

On that icy night in 1912, the bravery of many of the passengers and crew to save the women and children first was an amazing act of personal courage. The ship’s owners had placed those courageous souls in an impossibly “unfair” position by not providing enough lifeboats. And that was when my thoughts segued to the “unfair” reference made earlier by my medical friend. What he was referring to by “unfair” was not just the preference given to one group over another, but the ineptitude of the politicians who had made queuing necessary. If government’s emergency planning had been successful, there would have been enough lifeboats and everyone would have had equal access to inoculation.

Our governments have a monopoly on our healthcare system so they are accountable. Only lately have some family doctors even been provided with the vaccine for their patients in Toronto. Now inoculation clinics are reducing their hours and starting to close. Many people have still not been vaccinated against this pandemic which for some is proving to be a life or death issue. And here’s the frightening truth — I have been told that a third wave of the H1N1 flu is coming in the New Year. If for just one minute queuing is re-instated, the government be damned.

Don’t Blame Democracy

Steve Carlson — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:37:38 +0000

How many citizens of Western democratic countries today feel that, although they have a right to vote, the government that gains power after each election never seems to be one that really represents them? Even when their party wins. Promises are broken, priorities change, time passes. As the world grinds on, hope fades. Citizens become cynical, indifferent and wonder whether they should even bother to vote in the next election. They blame the political persuasion of not only the party in power, but also the opposition, depending on their own political philosophies and favourite “ism” (capitalism, socialism, statism, etc.). But they won’t really appreciate what’s happening unless they know the rest of the story.

For greater understanding of the failings of representative government, they could follow the money but they had better keep an eye on the power, too. In their search for truth, they must appreciate a sickness that thrives in most Western countries. This sickness has been around for over a hundred years, but it needs more exposure and discussion. It’s another “ism”. It’s called corporatism and here’s a little 101.

One form of corporatism is the influence over politicians and senior civil servants that big business yields. Most people will have no trouble understanding this form of corporatism. Even Hollywood has made numerous films portraying a big corporation as the ultimate manipulator of government and thus the citizenry. Who else can provide the endless flow of funds to finance expensive lobbyists, politicians’ pet legislation, direct and indirect bribes, expensive gifts, or cushy jobs for retiring politicians?

Describing the second form of corporatism takes us back to the roots of the word. Corporatism is not derived from the word “corporation” but from the latin word “corpus”, meaning “body”. In other words, corporatism can be applied to any “body” or group, such as organized labour, environmentalists, Catholics, native people, teachers, hunters, seniors, etc. They can exercise power over legislators by lobbying or promoting their viewpoint to the public through advertising and public relations. They can ingratiate themselves to politicians by offering funds and services just like big corporations. They can even threaten and march in the streets. Whatever their actions, they all struggle to get their way in the form of political decisions favourable to their causes and their members at the expense of the electorate.

Can corporatism ever be purged or at least relegated to a smaller role than it plays today? Unlikely. Many citizens are a member of at least one “body” or another themselves and each is potentially a supporter of their own special interests. Democracy just gets in the way of this more direct pipeline to the decision makers in government. Should it be fought? Absolutely, corporatism uses citizens’ money and influences far too many aspects of their lives. Of course, if enough special interest groups think corporatism is a good thing, they could just dump democracy, hang the politicians, and deal only through government administrators. Some would call that corpocracy, others might recognize it as fascism.