kevinwhope

Hi there,


First, I read in the  press that Obama is speaking to the graduating class at Notre Dame University and it is causing quite a stir.  Hundreds of thousands have apparently signed petitions and many students are planning protests.  Never mind that he was invited, not imposing himself, the stir is about his appearance and receiving an honourary degree from a Catholic institution, given his (somewhat, certainly not extreme) pro-choice views.  Some are apparently walking around with strollers containing 'blood-drenched' baby dolls, others have spread fake fetuses on the ground with signs saying 'Obama killed me'.  So this is the major pre-occupation, the biggest problem Americans face?  This is what a mainstream and 'moderate' religion has to contribute?  In my view, Obama has done nothing anyone could possibly call extreme on this issue (or most others), these people might just as logically label the fake fetuses with 'Bush killed me'.  And this is the level of debate in America?  Pretty pathetic, and led by dozens of Catholic priests and bishops, great...where would we be without religion? 

While I may not agree with everything Obama does or has done, I think it is worth noting that he was elected democratically, he represents the will of the people.  And rather than taking extreme positions, he appears to be quite moderate and reasonable, often backing away (thankfully in my view) from his more radical pronouncements on the campaign trail.  ie to those on the right, they should be relatively happy that Obama is proving more pragmatic than dogmatic, that is good for all but the extreme left. 

And cudos to him on his foreign policy so far.  I must say I am impressed and relieved that someone finally seems to get it...Pakistan is the problem...we cannot possibly prevail in Afghanistan, or against our enemies (their choice, not our's), while on the hands-off track we have been on wrt Pakistan.  I have spoken of this for years, a no-brainer one might think, but now at last we have some leadership on this.  (readers here may recall that I even suggested Bhutto would be a likely assassination target once she returned to Pakistan, an unfortunate outcome that quickly proved true, more impressive perhaps than my call that the Black Hawks would defeat the Flames and Canucks) It doesn't mean it is any easier to resolve, it is a complicated mess, but at least we have identified the problem and have begun to take steps in the right direction.  Obama's recent meeting with the Presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan was very encouraging, as is the current effort in the Swat valley to deal with the Taliban, and presumably Al Qaeda, who have now become the de facto government there. 

Until now things have been allowed to continue to deteriorate, agreements have been struck allowing Sharia law, agreements to secure 'peace' that are always broken by the enemy because they believe they are directed by god, not bound by law, democracy or silly agreements made among humans...(you cannot reason with religious zealots, they are unreasonable by definition) ...and the world has helplessly and pathetically looked on, doing virtually nothing about it.  Kudos again to Obama, let's hope his resolve is lasting, that he gets the support he needs to continue through inevitable set-backs, this is not going to be easy.  (and let's not count on much support from the UN, Europe or even Harper's Canada, so long as political convenience dictate otherwise).  As far as I am concerned, he can get a lot else wrong and I will become more a fan all the time, so long as he gets this one right.  Nothing could be more important than our security, perhaps survival, and I am quite prepared to be tolerant on other issues, esp as he appears to be more moderate and pragmatic than some might have feared.  As for bloody plastic fetuses, give me a break!


And in the meantime, we watch in frustration as girls of Muslim families (I won't call them 'Muslim girls', because they are children, not free of indoctrination unfortunately), being beaten, raped, killed, all with religious sanction, god's apparent will, and now poisoned for attending school.  We cannot simply abandon these people.  Education and hopefully one day, secularization, is the only real hope we have for a better world, for them and the rest of us.  This will not and cannot happen without freedom.
________________________________________________________________________________________

While on religion, I have heard and read that even Mother Theresa became quite disillusioned late in life and wrote about it in letters to confidants.  She questioned why, after dedicating her life as she had to god (to eradicate various plagues on the third world, such as the spread of condoms), she had never seen even a glimpse of god herself, had she been forsaken by him?  Does this need an answer?  Could her faith have been the real question, rather than the will of her imagined god?  If even she made these confessions, (to other humans), what about others?  At least, to give her credit, we get a glimpse of something...truth, however fleeting.

It has always amazed me how some otherwise rational people will claim to have seen a glimpse of god in their lives.  It is obviously always more easily explained by naturally-occurring phenomena, but it is also often comical.  I'm sure everyone has heard the same type and quality of examples, offered as proof, something we are expected to take seriously, not with laughter.  'I followed the directions you gave me, but I wasn't sure until I saw the red truck parked at the corner and I knew that that was the corner I was looking for, that god had put that red truck there as a sign to guide me...'   And this type of nonsense is to be taken seriously, they really believe it, it would be offensive to question them, never mind laugh.  Sorry folks, the guy with the red truck just happened to stop at the corner 7-11 to pick up a litre of milk!  But if we were to claim we had visions of pink elephants, or saw signs of the easter bunny, equally well reasoned (not), we would be considered dellusional.  I suggest both are, but one form of delusion is to be tolerated, no, respected.   The one suffering from delusion is in fact generally accepted as morally superior to anyone who might question it.  Go figure...
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


On a lighter topic, the other day I was out on a scouting trip to see some farmland to be auctioned off soon, roughly an hour south of Stoon.  I travel in my old van in an effort to look as 'farmer-like' as possible, not that it really matters much, there is virtually nobody out in the boonies to see me anyway.  I had a flat tire on a lonely grid road in the middle of nowhere, a sharp rock got caught in the tread of my brand new tires, then worked its way in to cause the puncture.  I have always had a policy of keeping good tires on my vehicles, believing 90% of your problems occur in the last 10% of wear...I change tires well before that point, to be safe, to avoid flats, etc.  As it turns out, this flat would not have occurred had I still kept the old more warn tires, oh well, so much for prudence and good policy...  And on a grid road in Saskatchewan, you can still stop well beyond easy walking distance of another human, and spend considerable quality time by yourself without a single passerby...this is generally a good feature of Saskatchewan life.  Fortunately, I saw it as a positive experience and opportunity to be self-sufficient and enjoy the Saskatchewan sunshine more than I had anticipated.  I got out the previously unused jack and tools, and set about the manly task of changing the tire.  The spare is mounted on the back of the van where it had rusted in place over the course of 12+ years and 255kms...but I was up to the task, after an impressive battle.  It felt good to be on the road again, now feeling more independent than before.  And Canadian Tire fixed it for free, even replacing my 'green' air, nitrogen I think, which makes me feel a whole lot better about driving the 'rocket van'. 

And this year I was on the watch for ticks, scratching and slapping every imagined one that crawled on me.  You see I am not much of a tick fan, and last year at about the same time I had a bad experience with them.  We seem to have had an infestation, a cyclical thing, here in rural Sk.  These are not wood ticks, but hide in the grass all over the prairies.  Last year when I took Fay out to proudly show off the farm we had aquired, again south of Stoon and west of Davidson, there were ticks everywhere, but unbeknownst to me.  We stopped at the old turn-of-the-century farmyard, just a shelter belt and cement foundations still in evidence.  Fay was thrilled, but would not get out of the car.  I saw several lilac bushes in full bloom and wanted to explore, did so on my own while Fay waited.  I gallantly collected a nice big bouquet of lilacs for her and presented them when I returned, all was good.  Then as we started to drive away, I noticed a tick on my leg, then another, and another...this was not good.  We were on another isolated farm road in the middle of nowhere, and by the time I had driven a few hundred yards, I realized I was covered in ticks.  Fay seemed to enjoy this more even than the flowers.  After about the third tick, I realized I had them everywhere, and thier general direction seemed to be north, likely toward an unmentionable (and unwelcome) destination.  I don't like insects to begin with, but this was not good at all.  I then had to stop the car  suddenly, jump out and while slapping and scratching (a few ticks feel like a thousand), and stripped to my underwear right there on the road.  It was unbelievable how many ticks I had on me, they were everywhere, perhaps 20 or more, uggh!  And Fay was very sympathetic, I could tell by her laughter.  So there I was in my underwear on the side of the road going through my clothes to make sure I had them all...it was a proud moment.  Fortunately, none of my new farmer neighbours happened to come by...this would not be the way to introduce myself and expect to be accepted as credible on coffee row.  Anyway, this year I hope the infestation has peaked and the ticks are gone, but I was watching and imagining them while changing the tire on a lonely country road in the middle of nowhere, er Saskatchewan.  (I am scratching just thinking and writing about it)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


more later

Hi there, 

Could it be that we packed away the snow shovels and car brushes too soon?  In Sask we have 8 months of winter and 4 of mosquitoes?  This is amazing and a bit tiresome, one day I mow the lawn and the next it is covered in snow, uggh!  Meanwhile I understand Al Gore is writing another book on global warming.  This has been a cash cow for him and given him rock-star status, Nobel and Academy Awards.  Good for him, quite a racket.  But at what point do we say enough?  At what point do we finally start to say the skeptics were right to question his science and facts, much of which have now been proven to be false.  At what point does someone ask him to quit distributing information that has been proven false and misleading?  Even though we still don't have all the answers, isn't it time for some accountability and honesty?  Wouldn't policy makers and taxpayers be better served with the truth and an honest discussion before committing further to Al Gore's sensational and false theories?  How much do Al Gore and the sensationalists have to cost us before we smarten up? 

It seems to me that the facts fly in the face of the global warming crowd.  The globe is cooling, isn't that a problem, not just for us, but for those who believe we should commit vast resources to stop CO2 emissions to stop global warming?  If indeed there is a human connection to climate change, and CO2 does in fact warm the climate, at what point do we start doing all we can to produce more of the stuff to slow global cooling?  All of the reading I have done, points to the likely conclusion that solar activity accounts for the bulk of our climate and climate change.  This has been documented over hundreds of years. 

There may be other factors on top of the sun's activity, but the basic premise that our climate is determined by the sun is intuitively more acceptable too, it just make sense.  And now we have dramatically less solar activity (sun spots, or explosions on the sun) and it is cooling on earth, this following an active solar period during which it was warming.  Hmmm, let's look for the correlation, not rocket science.  And could it be coincidence?  I suppose that is possible, correlation does not necessarily mean causation.  But should we blindly ignore solid science in favour of Al Gore's lies?  Doesn't it look more and more like he was wrong?  Doesn't it make sense that as the sun heats up, we heat up, and vice versa?  Is it heresy to say so? 

And without the answers, I have said all along, that the presentation of Al Gore's theories, the religious fervor with which they were adopted by the UN, the steps taken to discredit anyone opposed and label them as 'like holocaust deniers', this all set off alarm bells, something was suspicious and likely wrong or that would not have been necessary.  When someone says don't think for yourself, just accept what I say, or you are immoral and a holocaust denier, it sends up a red flag with me.  It is exactly the same red flag I saw (and kept quiet about at the time) when I was a young child and was told to say the Lord's Prayer without questioning it, to sing "jesus loves me, this I know, for the bible tells me so".  I assume many others like me are suspicious and skeptical when told just to 'do it and don't ask any questions or you will be labeled a bad person'.  This was the approach of the global warming alarmists, skepticism was certainly called for, if based only on the presentation of their case.  Unscientific, unreasoned, religious and dogmatic...red flags all over the place for me at least. 

Also, I should mention that I still don't know all there is to know about the science of the climate, nobody does, but that only supports what my position has been.  And let's start to apply some reason, common sense.  Climate change is one constant we can all agree on.  It is always changing, always has.  Right now it is cooling...isn't this something we should add to the discussion?   And from my reading of the history of the planet, this is not the first time.  And the cooling cycle, if that is what we are into, is a lot more to worry about for our species than warming cycles.  Ie cooling periods cause a lot more disruption and death than global warming.  But let's not get alarmed, just deal with things in a reasoned manner.  Whatever is happening, we probably have little control over it.  For now, the best use of our resources would be adaptation.  The worst use of resources would be to at best throw our resources and capability to sustain ourselves on a non-contributing factor (out of some misguided religious conviction), or at worst, we could in fact add to the cooling and exaggerate a natural cooling cycle....this is nothing new in the realm of public policy, our govts seem good at getting it wrong and exaggerating economic cycles rather than smooth them as Keynes recommended.  So why not screw up the climate too with mistimed govt policy...destroy our resources and capability to adapt to a cooling environment, by adding and exacerbating the very cooling we should be adapting to...great idea... I can't wait to see the outcome.  Then perhaps just as we are ready to exit another ice-age, as solar activity picks up, that is when humans, through their ever-knowledgeable govts, will take steps to warm the planet, either to no avail or to cause a warming crisis again at some point down the line.

One more thought...Al Gore has helped create an incredible mess of this issue, something we just didn't need right now with all the problems in the world.  Who knows how much or how many lives could have been saved if not for this false issue he promoted.  At what point does the Nobel committee and the Academy Awards committee acknowledge their mistake and strip him of these awards?  If it turns out he has harmed humankind with his lies, is it appropriate that these awards stand?  I think not, it is a travesty, history will show. 

more later...
_______________________________________________________________________________________

The past few days I have followed the Oliphant Inquiry closely on Newsworld.  I wanted to see Mr Mulroney on the stand for myself, not read media reports on it.  It is of special interest to me because of my involvement in his govt during this period of time (early '89 thru '92 when I served on the exempt staff, political, to Mr Mazankowski, in his role as DyPM, then Finance Minister).  Thankfully I was not involved in the procurement or economic development activities, I had my plate full to say the least and I did not have much stomach for this area of govt...dealing with lobbyists, shoveling money out the door to 'create' jobs, etc...something I have never believed in, although it is a reality in politics.  I took a pass and left it to others, some of whom enjoyed the stuff.  I preferred actual econ and tax policy and the like, and that was my forte.  I also enjoyed my role as liason with the BofC, the international file, etc.  I was oblivious to all the lobbying that went on, the connections, etc and never aspired to getting an appointment or job through connections, and have never been a 'connection' type, never went to lunch, etc.  It just wasn't my thing.  In fact I was never much into Party stuff either, except as a local volunteer and organizer, have never been to a National Convention, etc...again, just not my thing, not a networking/party type, preferred policy over partisanship.  

As I watch the proceedings and have followed it over the years, I am disappointed to put it mildly, and baffled too, that Mr Mulroney would have done this to himself and indirectly, to all of us.  I thank my lucky stars that I kept a distance between myself, what I saw as my role and contribution, from the lobbyists and 'friends' wanting something from the govt.  I almost feel a bit naive to think this was happening while I was there, but that is better than the alternative now.  

I should also mention that being legally trained and having practiced for a number of years, I was familiar with ethical dilemmas.  Everyone finds themselves in them from time to time.  I had my own 'sniff test', and it kept me out of trouble.  Only once did I receive an offer of money that I felt was inappropriate, and it would presumably have been a cheque, not cash.  I acted for a young woman in a fatal accident claim and received a large settlement for her.  Thinking she was not a very responsible type, and fearing she would blow the money, I persuaded her to deposit most of it with a financial institution in a deposit that would pay her a monthly income.  Shortly thereafter, the mgr of the institution called me and offered to pay me a $1000 "finders fee".  I flatly refused it...I explained that I could not accept money from them for services I had provided to her, it would be a clear betrayal of my duty to my client.  I did not have to think about it or call him back, it was a no-brainer, just wrong on the face of it.  And it wasn't a question of how it would be paid, whether a cheque to me or my firm, etc...the answer was a flat no, I didn't need to discuss details.  

The reason I raise this is it is one time I recall being in such a position, so I know how I reacted and that as a lawyer, it was just clearly obvious, not a gray area between right and wrong.  And to think if it had been compounded by an offer of cash in an envelope, it would have been even more obvious that it was wrong.  I can't imagine that a lawyer would think otherwise...just on the face of such a transaction, there would be red flags all over the place...in fact had I been offered cash I might have become angry, it would have suggested I was a crook, which would have been offensive.  These dealings with Schreiber could not possibly have been something a lawyer would do and not think he was doing something wrong...it just makes no sense.  And to accept the envelopes of cash on three occasions, having time to reflect in between, makes it all the more obvious.  This is not what lawyers do. 

I have my own theory on what happened.  Mulroney made a huge mistake, then compounded it.  Of course not mentioning it under oath during the airbus suit was not an accident...he hoped nobody would find out and knew it would be highly inculpatory.  It was the smoking gun nobody knew about at the time.  Even if he did not know about or have involvement in the kickbacks or commissions paid on the airbus deal, how would it look to have accepted envelopes of cash since traced back to the airbus commissions?  And what about not depositing them in an account or declaring the income to revenue cda?  He now says they were a retainer for work to be done internationally (all parties that he says could verify his efforts are now dead, amazing), and that he did not declare them because they were not yet earned, just a retainer.  Somehow in '99 he decided they were now earned and used an exceptional procedure to disclose them and pay tax, wow, quite a stretch.  Any retainer I have ever known gets deposited in an account immediately, it is held in trust until the work is done.  Keeping it in a safe and safety deposit box in NYC?  Not what a lawyer would normally do, even if acting outside his scope of practicing law...it just doesn't add up. 

Then Schreiber had his hooks into him, very deliberate I suspect.  It was certainly known to both of them that Mulroney could not lobby the Cdn govt (potentially Kim Campbell) because of the conflict of interest.  Any transaction in this regard would be illegal, could not be documented  There were huge potential commissions at stake.  Later, the deal had gone nowhere, and now when Schreiber called on Mulroney for help with his own legal problems, and did not receive satisfaction, he turned on Mulroney...since taking the cash, Schreiber owned him, not a big surprise to anyone with half a brain (and Mulroney is not stupid).  My suspicion is that the whole notion of a retainer for international work was cooked up after the money was received in an effort to explain it...a weak and incredible explanation.  Whether Mulroney ever had involvement in the airbus decision, I don't know, but I suspect that this cash was a undocumented if you like, that Schreiber had hooked Mulroney, and Mulroney made the mistake of accepting it.  Since then there has been a lot of effort put into concealing and then explaining it, Schreiber has lied in all directions, some in favour of the concoction, some opposed, but all to serve his own interests in avoiding extradition to face jail time in Germany, and with Mulroney not helping him visa vis Harper's govt, he was prepared to do anything including throwing Mulroney under the bus.  Mulroney made a huge mistake and it has snowballed, compounded by more storytelling, things that nobody with any sense, let alone a lawyer, could believe.  Why if this was a legitimate international retainer, was it not documented?  Was this a surprise to Mulroney?  The truth may or may not ever come out.  Schreiber is such that we will likely never have the full story.  Regardless, Mulroney's reputation is destroyed, and he did it to himself.  If a friend tries to give you cash in an envelope, someone who makes his living selling govt procurement contracts, and it sounds too good to be true, for sure it is.  In this case we now know if nothing else, that Mulroney was willing to sell himself pretty cheap...what a shame. 

more later.  (I should add, just to be abundantly clear, that the forgoing is my opinion only, not based on some direct or inside knowledge, but as a distant observer, like anyone else, aware of things as they are presented through the media)

Hi there,

Lots to talk about, I will try not to get carried away...?!

First, another busy Mother's Day is behind us.  In the flower business, holidays are celebrated for being over, another reprieve before the next one.  Thanks to the dedication and hard work of our staff, and particularly Ryan and Fay, who manage the business day to day, it was another good one, and despite the recession.  Thankfully it has not hit here with the force felt elsewhere.  We picked up Chinese Food last night for a family meal, and the restaurant was quiet, surprised that it was not busy as in previous years on Mos'Day.  This is unfortunate, seems people tighten up in a recession even if they have no reason too except media reports that suggest they should.  People in the restaurant business work very hard, and take a risk when they buy a perishable product and prepare for a rush that doesn't materialize. 

We are fortunate to have felt little of the downturn in consumer spending, it is always a worry though, when we too deal in a highly discretionary consumer item.  It also makes it more difficult to plan and manage inventory (a perishable one).  On the other hand we benefit from a rising C$ and we have a well-established local brand, strong customer base and confidence in our product and service.  In fact previous recessions have only proven to strengthen our business over time.  We started in a recession in the early 90s and then experienced a moderate one again in the early 2000s.  We found that recession, while hard in the short-term, is really an opportunity to increase market share (weak market participants exit the industry) and we are stronger than ever when recovery takes hold...we are confident that this recession will be no different...those that are strong will survive and become even stronger. 

We also recently gave all of our staff raises.  This might seem counter-intuitive, even our staff were surprised, given all the bad news these days.  We went out of our way to let them know they are valued and have nothing to worry about...all we ask is that they continue to take care of the customers and everything else will take care of itself.  A happy staff is a real asset, a threatened staff is not what you need in a recession.  We take care of our people like family, and the customers always respond, taking care of all of us. 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Next, but still on Mother's Day,  in our family the boys wish their Mom a 'happy Turtle Day'...Fay collects turtles and that is reflected in the gifts she receives, regardless of the holiday.  Our cottage is loaded with turtles, literally hundreds of them, and from every corner of the world.  We will soon be running out of space and planning an addition:  the Turtle Wing.  Even our granddaughter is now into turtles, her clothes and toys sport this common theme (Ryan and Bronwen own the lot next to us at Turtle Lake, so they are no doubt indoctrinating Sadie early!)

We have now acquired a couple of turtle paintings for the collection, most recently one that was featured in a show at a gallery in Kelowna.  We bought it ahead of the show and it was a good thing as it apparently was a popular piece and they could have sold it several times.  We figure we are getting in on the ground floor with the growing popularity of turtle art...(!?)

While on this subject, Kelowna is a great art center, it attracts many talented artists, and with all the supply of quality art, it is relatively affordable.  For under $1000 you can find many very nice works, something to suit any taste (even turtles...).  I think it is a best kept secret, a real find for anyone who appreciates art, but has a limited budget.  I have told the boys and hopefully set an example of collecting pieces you enjoy.  I wish I had been onto it earlier.  Just think if at 25 you started buying one nice piece per year, say $500 or $1000, as you can afford it.  What a collection you would have by age 50.  Kelowna is a great place to start, although there are many quality artists here in Sk and elsewhere too (here you have to spend quite a bit more I find).  And it always amazes me what people will choose to spend their money on.  A guy will think nothing of spending $50K on a new truck, but $5K on a painting...not a chance.  Yet in 10 years the truck will be worthless, an embarassment, and the painting may  even appreciate in value, and that isn't even the point - if you like it to begin with, you will enjoy that painting over and over again, if you are like me, you will like it even more as time goes on, what a bargain!  And if it is a concern about the capital cost, (Trucks can be bought with monthly payments), most galleries will do the same, lay-away a piece while you pay it off monthly (I have never done that, but it makes more sense to me than paying $500/month on a truck). 

And I have spoken several times about priorities and 'stuff'.  Basically, I feel that beyond basic needs, or savings and investments to enhance  your future, discretionary money is better spent on experience over stuff.  Experience is of lasting value, produces happiness, stuff tends not to...in fact many become slaves to their stuff.  The problem is that we tend to ape what our nieghbours and friends do...we see the new truck and tend to want one without really asking ourselves whether it will enhance or harm our general happiness.  Here is where art is a unique thing, somewhere between stuff and investment...it is discretionary money spent on a consumer item, like a truck in that respect, but it is also something we 'experience', becomes part of us, and does not tend to depreciate if you are counting the $.  It is a clear exception to my experience over stuff rule...it is both, but neither...a good thing to spend on if you can (I suspect more could if they really assessed their priorities).  I was lucky to fall into an art appreciation by birth, my great grandfather painted and my great aunt Rheta (his daughter) painted, and in fact taught me when I was a teenager.  She learned from Gus Kenderdine in the 1930s when he founded the Emma Lake Art School, now part of the UofS. 

Anyway, there is my advice for what it is worth...spending discretionary money on art is okay, more in the 'experience' camp than purchases of most consumer items, one that will enhance happiness...for today and for someone a hundred years from now...where will your truck be?  (perhaps part of the picture frame?)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


And I see, by coincidence, a piece in the Globe today about Parenting, that having kids does not produce happiness, quite the opposite, according to studies.  This does not suggest we should not have kids or that the diminished happiness is not worthwhile in other ways.  It just means that we should not feel guilty if we are feeling less happy sometimes, when the baby is crying in the middle of the night and you are desperate for a good night's sleep.  Of course this is not happiness producing...and it is unfortunate that mothers especially should be made to feel guilty or that there is something wrong with themselves when they feel less than thrilled with spending another sleepless night with this little person.  What would one expect?  Having kids is a big step, means giving up a lot, in fact most everything a person enjoys in life, including sleep, social (adult) contact, work, fitness, etc etc.  It is a very hard thing, no need to feel guilty too, but that is the norm...our society dictates or requires a brave face, kids complete the perfect, and perfectly happy family picture...there is much more to it.  And this doesn't mean we don't love the kids, quite the contrary.  In fact if we didn't love them so much, we wouldn't have these feelings of guilt and other emotions that go along with the sacrifices of family.  Most of us love them to bits and wouldn't have it any other way...but it is also nice to have grandkids some day...all the enjoyment, the plus side, without the sleepless nights and guilt, etc.  This column in the Globe today nails it:  (except the god part) "Grandchildren are god's reward for not killing our kids".  Every stage of life has its pros and cons.  Having our first grandchild just has more pros than I am used to!  and no cons that I can think of...
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I was going to touch on many other topics, Pakistan, the economy, swine flu, but I have gone on longer than intended already, so will leave it for another day (these topics are unlikely to go away any time soon).

Kevin

ps since last entry, I have moved from 0% to 75% on my round two picks in the playoffs (Pittsburg, Detroit and Chicago).  And it is not over yet, with Boston showing good life yesterday, perhaps I will still keep my 100% record alive into round three.  KI

Hi there,

 

Just a few comments today from Kelowna. Yesterday Kyle and I cycled the Kettle River Railway trail, an abandoned rail line that passes through this area, up in the mountains, and has been maintained as a renowned cycling route. It is part of the TransCanadaTrail network. The stretch we cycled yesterday included some 18 tressels and a couple tunnels. In all, the trail, abandoned rail bed, covers over 200kms. The access to such gems is a real plus for those living or travelling to this area. We were a bit ahead of the season and encountered a number of snowed in areas where we had to get off the bikes and trudge through the snow. The scenery is spectacular, overlooking the valley and Lake Okanagan. 

 

Following our day on the bikes, we barbequed pork ribs, doing our part to support the pork industry in Cda (we were willing to make this sacrifice), and then attended the Kelowna/Calgary WHA final game, watching the local team take game three (now 3-0 in the series) over the heavily favoured Calgary Hitmen. The Hitmen had swept all three of their previous series to get to this one. 

 

 

I watched the CBC National last night and the piece on ‘over-reaction’ to the potential for swine flu to become pandemic. I find it a bit worrisome that the media is now apparently on the defensive and that this type of notion, apologetic for legitimate coverage, criticism of WHO, is receiving such attention. While there were two guests giving the piece some balance, I feel there is real danger in allowing the ‘over-sold sensationalism’ view. The problem with this issue, is that we don’t know the outcome ahead of time, that is the nature of it. Further, the outcome itself is influenced by public behaviour. If the public comes to believe that every time there is a potential threat of this nature, that it is an over-reaction, that it will go away and can be ignored, we are at much greater risk when the real thing appears, as it most certainly will. 

 

What is WHO or the media to do?  Isn’t it their job to sound the alarm? Wouldn’t it be a failure of their responsibility to stay silent with the information that came to light? Are they to read the minds of these little viral organisms to know for sure what is coming? Nobody knows, that is the inherent problem. Just because one legit scare does not amount to pandemic, does not mean that there was never a threat in the first place or that precautions should not be taken by authorities, the media or the public. Of course the message, ‘don’t worry, be happy’, has an appeal, esp if the immediate threat disappears. But it would be dangerous official policy. Further, the more successful actual efforts are at containing and eliminating the threat, the more it may appear that there was no real danger in the first place, only over-reaction.

 

 

Next, I am currently reading Gross National Happiness by Arthur Brooks, an American academic who is currently hailed as one of the leading bright lights for the US right. It is actually kind of discouraging for a right leaning, but moderate type like myself. It is interesting though as it certainly provides plenty of statistical evidence to smash many commonly held views. Just as an example, children actually reduce the happiness of their parents. Apparently marital happiness drops significantly right from the birth of child one, and only gets worse right up until the kids become adults and presumably leave home. This is counter-intuitive to me, but supported by statistical evidence. He suggests we love our kids all the more because we have a defense mechanism that tells us if it hurts (reduced happiness) it must be worthwhile, so it is justified.

 

He maintains that not only does religious belief lead to greater happiness, but that it is on the rise and will continue to do so because religious families tend to marry, have more children and their children tend to become religious too. Their children are thoroughly indoctrinated and equipped with ‘defense systems’ long before reason is presented to them in adulthood. Ie it is a tough slog for those who would prefer to move away from religion, they get the first crack and indoctrinate their children who outnumber those of us who don’t. I guess this is no surprise, we are seeing it in America today, but do they have to be so darned happy about it? I would suggest it is blissful ignorance, not a good happiness, more like that which comes from other delusion producing practices, namely drugs. Not helpful, not constructive, and generally not happiness-producing in general, or world-wide, unless you prefer more war and suffering. Ie I see it as a rather selfish happiness, the heck with everyone else. 

 

He also reveals that conservatives are happier than liberals. While people on either extreme seem to be happiest, those who are moderate liberals seem least happy. The common thread apparently is that control and certainty produce happiness. If you know god exists, that you are correct beyond question in your views, you tend to be happier than those who aren’t. And of course, conservative religious folk, tend to be happiest as a result, they have both going for them. If personal happiness is what matters most, this is the way to be…

 

This has brought me to think of a number of ironies and admittedly, frustrations, that I see all around me these days. 

 

It seems to me that most right leaning folk tend to be more self-reliant. They tend to value independence, hard work and initiative.   Capitalism is about freedom and having choices, not having someone  else make them for us, and taking away that freedom as socialism does.  Generally, right leaning folk are not about greed, quite the contrary, they tend to be more generous, but it is a matter of free choice.  They do not believe in being dependant on the state or madatory redistribution of income. They would rather work hard and earn their own keep, than take something from someone else earned through their hard work. Liberals, socialists tend to think the opposite, that somehow it is unfair for some to get ahead through their hard work, and that those who don’t should be entitled to an equal share from those that do.  This is greed, taking something you haven't earned from someone who has it because they earned it.  This is the classic fable of the little hen who worked hard planting and tending her crop while others scoffed and played. Then at harvest time, they expected to share in her produce, fair is fair…or is it? It comes down to a question of interpreting ‘fairness’. And collectively there is not only a moral or ethical question of fairness, but a greater good: which system will best provide the correct incentives to take care of everyone. As we see in most socialist regimes, everyone becomes poor because the incentives to human behaviour are all screwed up. Nobody wins. The liberals or socialists who would take the hen’s grain and redistribute it, their interpretation of fairness, in fact destroy initiative in taker and giver, resulting in a less moral or ethical system, one where everyone suffers, but claim the moral high-ground in doing so.

 

But here is a paradox, something I really can’t explain, and nor does the American whiz kid, Arthur Brooks. If right-leaning folk tend toward independence, self-reliance, why do they also tend toward religion? Isn’t religion the ultimate in dependence, the opposite of independent thinking, self-initiative? Seems to me that those who take direction from, and depend on another, albeit imagined, in this case god, fit more with the socialist crowd. Ie there seems to be a fundamental contradiction here. Liberals tend to shun dependence on a supernatural fiction, god, but embrace dependence in the form of the state. Conservatives tend to embrace self-reliance and independence in most of their lives, but depend on god for the most fundamental and important aspect of their lives. How does that work? Wouldn’t it be intuitively expected that liberal/socialists would be the believers in god, the ones waiting for someone else to take care of them? 

 

And what about those of us who tend toward right-leaning independence, self-reliance, but cannot believe in the religious nonsense, cannot lower ourselves to depend on a fiction out of fear of death or for any other reason? I see the two as inherently consistent. I prefer self-reliance (reason) on both scores, and feel strongly that both are the more moral and ethical choice. So that leaves me (and presumably some others, apparently a minority) in the middle, with the non-religious on one side believing in reliance on the state, and the religious on the other, believing in reliance on a supernatural and fictional god.

 

As for happiness, I thought I was. Apparently the extremes are more happy. And those who are religious and conservative most happy. At least I have one factor going for me! (of course I know that statistical averages have exceptions, so I will take consolation in that). Seems to me there is something to be said for common sense and reason too. They can keep happiness if it requires being stupid or closed-minded to reason. Ie one may be happier to believe in Santa, I can understand that, but I will pass on joining them, look for happiness elsewhere. Happiness has to come from within, my view, not from something outside of us, circumstances, Santa or god. As individuals, we decide whether to be happy (sort of a right-leaning self-reliance thing I would have thought?)…

 

This author provides stats to support many other challenges to the myths, some of which I can relate to through personal experience. For example, the left tend to be considerably less generous with charity (helping others), an interesting contradiction. Ie they don’t walk the talk. They talk of generousity, but when it comes to doing it, like everything else, they would rather leave it to someone else. They tend to be less honest (not just my opinion based on experience in life), quicker to take advantage of others, even those at disadvantage, again if you fundamentally believe in taking from others, how would you expect them to rate on questions of honesty?   Taking what isn't there's, like Robin Hood, is not dishonest, but a moral duty to the socialist who also happens to be superiour and knows best what is right, who is deserving and who isn't.   But that is certainly not what they proclaim. To listen to a liberal/socialist, it is the right that are greedy, but not so. How is it greedy to work hard and earn your keep? Wouldn’t greed (and envy) better describe those who would take it away, fail to contribute then expect a share from those that do?  

 

I would add that in my experience, those of the right, in terms of initiative and self-reliance also tend toward greater tolerance, generosity not only in a material sense, but of ‘spirit’ too. Again, the left lay claim to tolerance, but too often fail to walk the talk, are much more strident and intolerant of the right than the other way. One exception here though, again a paradox to me at least, is the religious believers who in my experience tend to lack tolerance at least on this issue, relative to non-believers. Society seems to train us to accept and accommodate religion as a common ‘good’, but the same is not reciprocated and we non-believers are to remain silent or face intolerance and discrimination, we are morally inferior, period. 

 

Interesting too to step back and have a look these days at our politics in action, all the contradictions. Again, I speak as someone who feels isolated in the middle somehow, and certainly not part of the typical center of a bell curve…so much for our study of statistics in school. I see these days spitting hatred, contempt and intolerance from the left of all things conservative.   Again, what happened to the ‘liberalism’ they claim?

 

And the right seems to be moving left on fiscal and economic issues (witness the Bush years, and now Harper in Cda), yet right toward religion and other social matters. It seems both are a step backward, so where does that leave me, and others like me (there are some aren’t there?). I would prefer to move right on economic issues and left on the social ones, we seem to be doing the opposite. And with the right moving strongly left on at least fiscal issues and living within our means, why is there escalating antipathy from the left? You would expect them to be happy with all the redistributive efforts underway. 

 

Right now we have the frustrating situation where a supposedly conservative govt is economically socialist, irresponsible, yet socially conservative, the worst of both. And so what is the option? There is none? With the Liberals could we be assured more liberal social policy and greater economic conservativism? It seems on the latter that there is a race on between the two, a race to the left, how do we win? The only good news is that the NDP are becoming redundant, we now have both major parties, supposedly representing the right and the middle, taking their place, not encouraging. 

 

And if I can briefly touch on a more local situation, we have in Saskatchewan seen a continuation of a trend over the past few decades…the conservatives are the liberals, the NDP the conservatives. The previous govt took many politically difficult but prudent steps to improve the economy, now the current govt takes credit for it, but lacks the courage to do anything more. If you want right wing policy in Sk, good fiscal discipline, the courage to make difficult decisions, you have to vote NDP. If you want govt who will not make difficult decisions, but spend and take political credit for actions of their predecessor, you vote Conservative (now the Sask Party). Obviously there is a contradiction here, a paradox, but what I have said can easily be supported by the facts. As an independent thinker, a true conservative, not dogmatically partisan, where does that leave me? What do we make of things when the party preaching left-leaning rhetoric governs conservatively, and the party preaching right-leaning rhetoric governs liberally? 

This is not a whole lot different in our Federal politics, Harper preaches from the right, but governs from the left (or which ever way he feels the wind is blowing), the difference being that the Federal Liberals do not appear to be doing the opposite as is the case in Saskatchewan. Who does one vote for when black is white and white is black, or in Federal elections, black is white and white is also white. 

 

Enough for today, lots to chew on (and get excited about for some?). I will go back to reading my discouraging book on the future of happiness in America…another contradiction? My poor little brain…interesting times! 

 

Kevin.

 

Ps I guess it goes without saying that others happiness would be a good thing if not for the fact that religion has a sinister side, there is great harm being done in the world by religious faith, even if it also makes some individuals, or America, happy. Their happiness is not sufficient on a moral basis to compensate fot the harm done by or in the name of religion, otherwise it wouldn’t matter. If they simply believed in Santa, no harm, no problem, but this is not the case.  I would suggest that it is morally acceptable to pursue individual happiness (by all means, do so) only if it is not at the expense of others’ happiness.  

I would like to see a world where the maximum number of humanity can achieve maximum happiness, and I don’t see that including religion or socialism. Unfortunately we don’t appear to be on track on either score.   K

 

 

 

Hi there,

Today we loaded in Cranbrook and I am staying at a Hotel tonight, watching hockey with Kyle and Cindy.  Tomorrow we head for Kelowna bright and early.  Here it is beginning to look a lot like Christmas...not what one might hope for at the end of April in BC. 

Just wanted to point out that my calls on the playoffs were dead on so far, only Vancouver survived the first round (and even that was only thanks to Luango's heroics).  Chicago is a strong team, everyone is focused on what is wrong with Calgary, but forgets to notice how good Chicago is, and many up and coming young stars.  Same with StLouis, if not for Luango, they likely would have beaten Vancouver, and only last year they finished the season in last place, watch for them to become contenders in a few years.  

In the next round I pick Detroit over the Ducks (assuming they defeat the Sharks, quite a story in itself), and Chicago over Vancouver (here I would not bet much on it...Luango is amazing, but Chicago has the better team, and they have good goaltending too). 

Back to watch the third period from LA. 

Kevin

Hi there,

This will be very brief today, as I am off to help Kyle and Cindy with their move from Cranbrook to Kelowna.  I may be out of touch for a few days, a welcome respite for all of you, I am sure. 

First, I stand corrected on the naming of Lorne 'Gump' Worsley.  Thanks for that.  I must have picked up my version from HNC broadcasters way back, but they probably did not know the inside story either.  And yes, I am too young to remember the cartoon...  I do recall when I was young speaking to a person who had played on the Stoon Quakers, and asking him if he was paid to play.  He told me that they got a hat.  I thought at first that he was joking, but apparently not...that is all they got, a hat!  Maybe this is incorrect too...just a little anecdote that I remember...quite useful really...

I will just touch a couple of topics briefly...

First, the 'rescue' of Robert Fowler and another diplomat held captive in Central Africa apparently by Al Qaeda.  I am happy for them and their families, but disturbed by the whole situation and secrecy that seems to surround it.  Harper claimed no ransom was paid for their release, but there is a conflicting message from Africa claiming that a ransom was paid, some 5million Euros, I think, from a European country.  I think we are entitled to know exactly what happened.  Are we complicit in a ransom payment?  What is our role, what quid pro quo is expected of us? 

I don't think Harper's answer is good enough.  At best there is more to it, at worst, he is lying to us.  And it is not just irrelevant.  I found it hard to believe in the first instance that these kidnappers just suddenly turned these guys over to us out of good will...it would be nice if the world worked that way, but...   And is it appropriate that a ransom be paid at all?  It seems we put great value on human life and that is good, but what about all the innocent people who will die as a result of these  funds placed in the hands of terrorists...what about even our own citizens and troops put in harms way with Al Qaeda?  ie there is a price to be paid, not just in dollars, or Euros, but in human life, morality, if nothing else...these groups do not likely use these funds for the greater good of their own people, let alone the good of others including us, around the world.

The first thought that came to me was the memory of Oliver North and the Arms Contra scandel from the early 80s.  Someone feels they can break the law to do what they feel is right, but the heck with others and how many die in the process?  Again, release of the Iranian hostages was the only priority at the time?  Other lives in Central America or elsewhere didn't matter?  The rule of law and political transparency didn't matter?  Someone knows what is best for the rest of us and is above the law?  There is something rotten here and we have a right to know what went on.  We live in a democracy, we believe in freedom and the rule of law, that is supposedly what we fight and die for...so how does this fit with those ideals?  ARe there certain things we are best not told about because they fly in the face of everything we stand for?  We fight Al Qaeda and at the same time fund them (through a complicated transaction providing political deniability, like Oliver North?)  And what does this mean for our security around the world...we claim not to pay ransom to terrorists, kidnappers, but then do so?  How does that help prevent more kidnappings?  Does Harper really think the rest of us are stupid  (don't answer that...) ?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Next just very briefly, really....on the swine flu, a potential pandemic.  This is over-due, we have not had pandemic for some time and they occur naturally from time to time.  Modern travel will only ensure faster spread of a pandemic illness, witness SARS a few years ago.  The good news it seems so far, is that this particular bug does not appear to be as lethal as it could have been.  There are two issues, the transmission from human to human, needed to become a pandemic, but also the severity of the illness itself.  This one seems capable of killing humans, so it is not to be dismissed lightly, but it is one that most appear capable of being infected with and surviving.  If full-blown pandemic occurs, there could still be millions killed with it, esp in less developed countries where anti-virals are too expensive and vaccines too late.  But it could be worst, and pandemics are inevitable, so if we are faced with pandemic, better that it be less lethal, more survivable than others have been. 

The big dread has been that the H5N1 bird flu become pandemic.  It is still perking along in some parts of the world (recent deaths in Vietnam, now an outbreak in Egypt), but so far it has not mutated into something that is easily transmitted human to human.  Ie most victims get it from close contact with infected birds.  The risk is continuing though...the more time it exists in birds, and infects some humans, the more risk that one day it could infect a person already suffering from a human flu, then mutate or adapt into a new strain of bird flu that is easily transmitted among humans...then it spreads quickly and becomes pandemic.  The bid threat though is that the H5N1 is highly lethal to humans...it seems to me that the death rate of those infected with it (in its present form) is over 50%... the catastrophic consequences are obvious.  In the meantime it is out of sight, of no interest to Western media, but it is a serious risk that is still out there and should not be ignored.  Compensation to farmers in the third world, for instance, is an important issue to all of us if we want them to report the illness in their birds so they will be destroyed. 

This swine flu is serious and now suddenly front and center...as it should be, millions are at risk, many may diel...but it is also worth noting that there is a much bigger potential time bomb out there for all of humanity...it has not gone away and needs more ongoing attention, esp from the rich western world...for now, we can thank our lucky stars it is this swine flu and not the H5N1 that is on the verge of going pandemic...Maybe it will help wake us up to the potential threat and the need for more action on it.

Enough for today...

Kevin

Hi there,

First, I will try to resist launching into another rant on taxes (?).  My point the other day was primarily that all the current bailouts, and fiscal stimulus, comes with a price.  Growth will return, but we will have a bigger hole to dig ourselves out of, and it would be foolish to assume that growth alone will carry the day, esp in an environment (likely) of slower growth and changing demographics.  We can't live beyond our means indefinitely either on a household or govt level.  Our standard of living is going to take a hit, likely in the form of lower income and higher taxes.  The question is who is going to pay?  There is a lot of anger around and this leads to convenient scapegoats.  The notion that we are going to tax the rich is a fiction.  In fact we will be going back to the same well, the middle class.  In the meantime, there is a false perception that corporations do not pay their fair share. 

I wanted to point out that most corporations are simply small businesses, the very ones that drive the economy, create jobs and already pay a disproportionate share of the tax burden.  This is no untapped source of revenue for govts, but a likely scapegoat as usual...largely because the facts are not understood (conveniently so).  In general, there needs to be a distinction between consumption and investment for tax purposes, if we wish to see economic growth.  We can tax those who would invest to death if we wish, it might feel good, but we can't also expect investment, job creation and growth.  This is the problem with rampant govt spending...if we are led to believe there is some cash cow out there, some means of having someone else pay the bill...it is wishful thinking. 

My opinion, and I think I happen to know something here, given my background, is that we are better to tax less on money put to use in growing a business, creating jobs and expanding the tax base, while increasing the tax on consumption.  Tax the small business person not when he buys his upgraded plumbing tools and another truck and hires an apprentice, but when he takes the money out and buys a new boat.  To me this is just common sense...it is a matter of getting priorities straight, avoiding disincentives to invest.  It is not intended that the small businessperson avoid paying a fair share of the burden, clearly on 'payday' or when consuming, the burden has to be shared equally and fairly. 

And I could give dozens of examples of taxes paid by small businesses that are not seen or shared by the general taxpaying public.  These are not only unfair, but hurt economic growth in my view.  Of course I can be accused of having a self-interest here, I confess, but that is why you never hear anything about them...business people make an easy target for this reason.  We do not mind paying our fair share, but it often goes well beyond fair and nobody even knows about it, in fact there is this false notion, perpetuated by some, that corporations get away with murder, not paying their fair share.  And at times like this, when there is widespread anger, the need for scapegoats, combined with wild govt spending and deficits, we can't help feel that we are wearing a big bulls-eye on our backs... I think some transparency and truth is in order... and we will get the economy we deserve, it would just be nice if it were on an informed basis. 

Let me give one tiny example from personal experience.  Again, I could cite dozens, there is tax buried everywhere in business here, much of it very discriminatory...we pay our share and then some...but for the most part don't/can't complain.  In our business we import most of our product.  We pay for it in US$, so our margins are whipsawed at the whim of exchange rates, beyond our control, but that is another matter.  We also pay heavy import duties.  For instance on roses we pay over 10% import duties.  This is theoretically to protect the domestic rose growing industry from imports.  The question is what domestic rose growers?  They don't exist.  So why the duty?  It is a tax pure and simple.  Our little business pays enormous amounts of tax before the product even arrives.  Of course we have to pass on this and dozens of other hidden taxes in our prices.  Ie the consumer ultimately pays all the taxes we pay, but it is hidden, and we are competing with a whole lot of others for the same discretionary consumer dollar.  We pay a tax that say, a restaurant does not pay, yet we are both chasing the same consumer dollar (ex on a special occasion, we want to sell flowers, while the restaurant wants to sell a meal out). 

And if that is not bad enough, industry and job killing enough, get this... when the US imposes duties or tariffs to protect its grower industry (they actually have one, a strong lobby group), we pay those too.  This may make no sense, but we have no choice because the product lands in the US  en route from South America...there is no logistic alternative.  So we pay the US charges, then the Cdn authorities consider the US duty to be part of the landed product price in Cda, so we pay Canadian duties (to protect nobody) on not only the product itself, but also on the US duties.  Ie we are paying Cdn duty on US duty, neither of which we should be paying in the first place.  But what do you do?  We smile, that is the way it is in business, you have no control on this and must concentrate on things within your control.  You could drive yourself crazy with all the unfairness of things beyond your control, but it wouldn't do any good...try telling a customs agent all this, it doesn't matter.  So long before we make a dime, early in the risk-taking process, and regardless of win or loose, we are paying tax left, right and center.  If you do a good job (and lots of hard work, good judgment) you will succeed and make an income, on which you are taxed just like anyone else.  No problem there, it is the hidden and unfair taxes, those that are paid not on income, but on enterprise, taking a risk...these are the tough ones to take, the business/enterprise killers.  Competition is fierce, but small businesses often have an anchor tied to their necks before they even start, not good policy if we want growth and an economy that can support all the programs and the standard of living we enjoy.  Shifting tax burden toward consumption (the opposite of Harper's GST cut) does not mean that business people would avoid paying tax, it would mean a stronger economy, more job creation and a higher std of living for everyone.  (it isn't as though business people can live on thin air and avoid taking income and dividends, spending and paying tax on income and consumption). 

I have often been asked for advice and to speak on starting a new business.  I always advise first to spend a year working for someone else in the chosen business.  The view from outside is deceptive.  What isn't seen is the risk and the years of 80-100 hour weeks put in to get established and become successful.  Nor are all those who invested their time and savings only to fail.  Then statistics show that most small businesspeople work twice as hard for half the income.  Only one can be the best in any given market or sector, and this is the one everybody focuses on.  Most are average and don't do very well, always a struggle.  If one intends to go into business, you had better be prepared to do whatever it takes to be the best, and hope for a little luck too.  Otherwise, it is probably better to leave the risk and grief to someone else.  And the risk and worry never ends...you are forever just a few bad judgment calls away from destruction...there is always someone there trying to replace you, trying to put you out of business.  Being in business has its rewards, but only a small minority are successful, and unless you are GM, govt policy isn't helpful.  That is the way it is...

So much for not going into another rant...and I am not complaining so much as worrying about what is coming next, who is going to be made to pay, the fiction that there is this untapped group who don't pay anything now.   Okay, time to move on...
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Next, how about that Ahmadinejad.  What a guy.  We give him a platform and he delivers.  We pay disproportionately for the UN and this is what we can expect...  We watch this 'anti-racism' conference turn into a forum for racist garbage. 

In my view, I would rather we not boycott this but if efforts to kill it beforehand fail, I would rather we attend and use it as a platform to call a spade a spade, to call Ahmadinejad and the other religious and racist fanatics for exactly what they are.  Our silence is not going to help, it won't discourage them.  Same with the UN resolution to 'protect' religions (Islam) from criticism.  We need someone to speak out against it, this is the forum for such debate, and we aren't even there...who is going to be heard for reason?  What does our boycott accomplish?  We pay, they speak, we remain silent in our absence.  (and when are we going to get tough with the UN itself, a tool for the religious and racist fanatics)
_______________________________________________________________________________________

BTW I know that we live in a backwater here, but I always marvel at our own little world and how ignorance is so prevalent here and everywhere.  Today for instance, here are a couple of quotes from two letters to the editor that appear in the local paper: 

"Faith is rewarded in prayer"  "I wonder who demonstrated to MT that 'intercessory prayer has no effect'.  She (MT) obviously moves in different circles than I do.  I have seen the effectiveness of intercessory prayer many times and would not like to live without it.  However, it does require faith in God."    James M

"Faith, Evolution compatible concepts."  "Whether one believes God used evolution to achieve the species we see today, including humans, is a matter of faith, not something scientifically provable.  There's little evidence that God intervened miraculously at any stage of Earth's history, but maybe that is the way God wanted it."...   Andy dB

This is pretty discouraging stuff.  These folks are not easily reached by reason.  Reminds me of the sunday school song we all learned (indoctrination)... Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.  How do you argue with such solid logic?  Where do you even start?  Faith trumps all...

And yesterday I attended a Catholic Mass.  Yes out of respect and courtesy to the family, I attend these primitive gatherings for funerals, weddings, etc.  This was a funeral, not the time I figure to question ones beliefs.  Actually seeing the number in attendance taking communion, one could easily get discouraged.  But I respectfully stand and sit, stand and sit, etc and feel highly conflicted throughout, wondering if I should be there to show support and friendship, trying to do 'the right thing', or am I actually showing support for an institution I believe is not only wrong, but doing tremendous harm in the world...I continue to attend and be conflicted.  And as I look around I wonder, surely some of these apparent believers don't really believe this nonsense.  And if the deceased has gone on to paradise, why is everyone so upset?  They believe, but they don't seem to accept the priest's encouraging words on what a great time this is for the deceased.  Confusing for someone with such a simple 'evidence-based' mind as my own I guess.  At times I want to scream, but of course wouldn't dare, just stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down (puppets on a string)...until it is mercifully over.  

And while I suspect most believers have trained themselves to tune out, I actually listen with interest to what the priest is saying...wow, it is amazing stuff.  And all the text read...and all the chants, like "...it is written".  Great, it is written, ie "...for the Bible tells me so".  At least they are consistent in such nonsense and not just imposing it on their children...these are the adults...this is how the children learn, how they too will one day take their place and keep the nonsense going in perpetuity. 

Here is another one I always enjoy.  Something like, 'for every purpose there is a time, to sow and to reap, to live and to die, etc etc...you know the one...but it also says 'to kill and to let live'  for 'peace and for war' etc   So what does it all mean?  And who is to decide when it is time to kill and do war?  What happened to the commandment "thou shalt not kill"?  Oh yes, silly me, that is really 'thou shalt not kill fellow believers, but by all means kill the infidels', that is god's work (and if we don't kill them first, they will kill us... because they all say the same thing).  And of course, since god does not speak to us directly (or at all), it is the church that tells us the will of god, when it is time to kill and go to war...that is the way of human history, and we are living just one snapshot in time of that human history...this is why religion must go if we ever want a better world.  Attending mass is not an encouraging experience...

___________________________________________________________________________________

Next, the economy.  I have already gone on longer than intended, so I will try to be brief. 

First, Dianne Francis (NP) reports today that there are 15 major projects to buy farmland in Latin America by Japanese, Chinese and Arab companies.  They are trying to secure food sources.  They see it coming, but we in Saskatchewan have been too close to it to see it?  Food may be the new oil in the coming years, and we are sitting on both, energy and food production. Farmland is cheap, foreigners cannot buy it here, but Canadians can...

Next, the IMF reports that we will see another $4Trillion in financial writedowns (losses on bad assets) over the next year.  The trouble is not over.  All the major banks are coming out with rosy new numbers as though everything is fine.  There is good reason to be skeptical.  Among other things, new accounting standards in the US allow banks to fudge their numbers, restate the value of assets at something other than current real value...no problem, everything is fine when you cook the books and artificially inflate the value of assets to meet capital requirements, no worries.  If you ignore the losses, there are actually profits to report!!  Caveat Emptor is in order here.  The numbers being reported are not a true reflection of anything, just an appearance designed to create false confidence (isn't that what con-artists do?).

The IMF is worth paying attention to.  Inter alia, thier report says the following:

* credit growth may be negative for a while (getting worse not better) and will only recover after a number of years (not months or weeks).

* global trade has collapsed, emerging markets are in trouble (the poor suffer most from protectionism).

* the backlash against all the govt bailouts may cause industrialised govts to fail to do enough to restore financial System's health.

* Fiscal stimulus can be overdone and govts may take on too much debt, just as populations are aging and may not be able to carry the added debt burden.

* Monetary stimulus with rates as low as they can go, is now taking unconventional forms (quantitative stimulus, printing money), which MAY NOT WORK.  Central banks are compromising their balance sheets (ex the US Fed is buying its own govts IOUs - these are the "assets" it now owns), as well as compromising their independence (those who print the money and those who spend it are supposed to be independent of one another, a major problem when the Central Banks are doing the Govt's bidding for them...where will it lead?)  And the IMF warns that Central Banks have no 'exit strategy' for their current actions. 

* "There is no quick fix.  The deleveraging process (following too much borrowing and spending creating huge price bubbles that have to reset), will be slow and painful, with economic recovery likely to be protracted"  (does any of this sound familiar?)

Enough for today.  Back to watching the markets soar, no worries...

Kevin

ps Go Habs...going, going...

Hi There,

Wow, lots to talk about, interesting times...

First the headlines today include the Bankruptcy protection of Abitibi (lumber/pulp) and the 2nd largest mall operator in the US (retail space in trouble).  Also the World Trade towers delayed (commercial real estate in trouble).  Harley cutting more jobs (HOG) because of falling demand for scrap metal (!?) and US house construction "plunges" in March.  First the lumber and housing are related and no surprise, who would be building now with such a glut on the market?  And no talk of a bailout for the lumber industry (yet?) - those jobs are not as important apparently as auto making jobs - or is it the risk that govts feel they may be on the hook for auto sector pensions should GM and Chrysler fold?  On Harley, this has been one of my favourite shorts, aside from the recession, I have inside knowledge as a Honda rider, just how bad and over-priced these bikes are, and how demographics stack up against them...they have the quality problems of GM (an understatement) and loyalty from a demographic cohort that will soon be too old to ride (watch for Harley edition motorized wheelchairs, they will be the ones that come with a tool kit for the frequent repairs needed).  Commercial, office and retail, real estate is a no-brainer...it just lags the general economy and is now headed into the toilet. 

On the long side, I suggested Sherrit a month ago or so when it dropped below $2, a good company that is bound to recover.  I did not buy it, and suggested waiting, feel it is too soon to jump in...it has since almost tripled!  Uggh.  It helped that Obama loosened restrictions on dealing with Cuba, it has many assets in Cuba and was off limits for US investors, that may change, a positive for S.  I still feel that another market plunge is coming, to retest, likely break the March lows, before a bottom is reached...I sure hope so because it hurts to pick a winner and sit and watch it rocket ahead from the sidelines...

In my view (still) the market has gotten too far ahead of itself, the bad news in the real economy has a long way to run yet, we'll see.  If I am right, it will be a  pretty discouraging time for those who plunged in too early in hopes of making back previous losses, only to lose even more.  This may be what we need as a catalyst for capitulation, I don't think we have seen it yet...this is not an easy time for market watchers.  I  know my tendency is to dive in too early and I want to avoid that this time.  Sucker rallies, dead cat bounce, they can be very deceptive...

Shorting the market can be discouraging at this point, I speak from experience...I have had a couple of costly false starts, when the rally appeared to be faltering, then continued, ouch.  My favourite shorts at the moment to watch are some of the cyclicals that have risen sharply on optimism that we have seen the bottom - CWB (banking in Western Cda where I expect to see a lot more credit default w/i the next year), HOG (motorcycles destined for museums), HD, RON (less euphoric home owners), BEI.un (real estate rental properties with falling values and rents), FGL (discretionary consumer goods, now into heavy discounting), WJA (air travel and vacation, trying to become Air Cda), GOOG (depends on advertising revenues only).  There are dozens of other good picks, but these are the ones I watch and try (?) to catch in downswings, hopefully at least one more good one coming...  ON the long side, I am watching resource stocks and pharmas, although anything in US$ (the pharmas) has me a bit spooked at the moment.  I have sat tight in C$ cash since switching from the US$ at just over 77 cents, a good move with about an 8% gain against the US$ so far (6/77).  Some times I get lucky with my timing...  I had intended just to 'trade' on a fluctuation in the currencies, but have since decided to stay clear for the moment, the US borrowing and spending having gone crazy in the meantime (so called quantitative monetary easing, aka printing money in the US). 

As I have said many times, it is hard to get the timing exactly right...nearly impossible.  When you hit it right, it is largely a fluke.  It is one thing to be right on general trends, the direction of things over a longer period, expecting another low before recovery in this case.  It is quite another to know exactly when they will occur.  The markets involve human behavior, crowd behavior, so there is more emotion than rational thought involved.  Right now the emotion is optimism and wishful thinking (wanting to believe), a distant cousin of greed.  There is still plenty of fear around, so it wouldn't take much to turn this around again, a hair trigger on the sell button...my opinion.  With all the current optimism, a return to the lows will be really discouraging for the optimists, and could trigger capitulation, which is what is needed to find a real bottom.  I also don't expect the recovery to be as sharp as what we have seen in the markets, another sign that this is likely a false start, a sucker rally, who knows?  Maximum pessimism and gloom is needed to hit bottom, when there is nobody left to sell...I don't think we have seen that yet, but caveat emptor, this is a pretty convincing fake !?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Next on hockey.  The Habs/Bruins series should be a good one if their final match-up of the season was any indication.  I honestly don't expect the Habs to win, but I allow myself some wishful thinking here.  I thought I should get my comments on this in here early!  It should be a really rock'em series, classic playoff action, perhaps the best games in the first round.  I will be wearing my red, white and blue tonight, and keep my fingers crossed, not shaving today, etc (!?)  I suspect that Vancouver will be the only Cdn team to advance, and that they will not survive much further.  Calgary is just not with it, Chicago is hot.  I esp think Calgary got duds in Yokanin and Bertuzzi, we'll see if they can perform under pressure.  Also, injuries and goaltending are a big problem for the Flames...this is deadly.  Watch for Mica to do some bench time. 

Overall, I like Boston and Detroit.  But I am secretly pulling for Pittsburg and Chicago.  I also like St Louis, they are almost like a junior team playing in the big leagues.  They could surprise with a couple of wins against Vancouver making that an interesting series...they have nothing to lose, the pressure is on Vancouver's big guns to come through, they likely will, but I remain a skeptic on the twins when it counts the most, also Sundin is over the hill, they will rely on goaltending to get through the first round, then falter.  Any thoughts on this??

BTW I have heard a few references lately to Gump Worsley as the dubious record holder for most losses as a goaltender in NHL history.  This I feel is unfair, because they never mention the whole story.  He was actually a fantastic goalie, but played many years with the NYRangers before being traded to the Habs where he became a hero in the mid-60s.  NY and Boston were the doormats of the old 6 team league in the sixties.  Goalies for these teams got a lot of pracitce, it was a shooting gallery whenever they played the Habs (okay, or the Leafs).  The 'Gumper' was a real character, short and chubby, and helped the Habs win at least a few stanley cups with his unique flopping style.  He was no slouch in the net.  And of course he wore no mask, so his facial expressions were always priceless, he was one of my favourites, before eventually being replaced by another hero, Roggie Vanchon, circa 1968 I think?  Anyway, when you hear of Worsley's unfortunate record, don't think of him as a loser, he was a winner and a character, always chewing gum (ergo the 'gumper'), fun to watch.  And btw, he played here for the S'toon Senior Quakers before going to the NHL.  He was always remembered for his flop-around style.  He would be buried in a melee of players at the net in a scramble, when a shot would come from outside the crease, he would miraculously stick up that famous glove hand and make the save nobody could believe...that is how I remember him. 

One more bold prediction before I move on...the Leafs will make the playoffs next year...I know it is a stretch, but they have new mgt and one that understands they have to get tougher, watch for a lot of new faces next year in blue.  Actually I will be pulling for them, or at least trying to.   They showed some glimmers of hope this past season, not unusual, and it would be nice to see them reward their poor fans with a good playoff run.  At the store we fly the flags out front at this time of year...currently the Habs, Canucks, and Flames.  We actually have Leaf fans come in to complain that their flag is not out there...truth be known, we don't even own one, we haven't had the need....I hope that changes next year, really (I wonder, do they still make Leaf flags?)

Also, Tampa has been offering (prior to the end of the season) tickets along with hotdogs and a couple of beer, for just $59.99, quite a bargain, esp compared to what you pay, if you can get tickets at all, in Canadian NHL cities.   Other American cities are also having difficulty filling the seats.  Last year Detroit could not even fill the stands for Stanley Cup Final games.  Mark came up with an idea...$59 tickets, but instead of a hotdog, they throw in a free house in Detroit!  See a game and own a new house, this might solve two problems for them...
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Next I attended a farm auction yesterday, but kept my hand in my pocket.  The land went really high, seems to be the new trend, despite recession.  In fact the values are in some cases double what they were a year ago, nearly double FVA (tax assessed value).  Just two years ago, you could buy good grain land for 80% of FVA, and last year at FVA or a little more.  Now those days may be gone.  I will keep attending sales watching for a bargain, you never know in an auction.  Yesterday there were several people there to buy.  And this year the number of farm land auctions is far lower than last year or the year before, Ie demand is up, supply down.  I had hoped that the recession might keep buyers away, not so it seems. 

We are now seeing a return to the days of grain quarters going for $100K .  This is still probably a bargain when you consider how low interest rates are, and all the upside for food production, but is a lot higher than what I want to pay.  Over the past couple of years we have been picking up good quarters for just $50K, which makes the numbers attractive even at today's low rents.  I expect all this to change in 5 - 10 years...

If you have never been to a farm auction in Sk, you are missing a good cultural experience.  It is interesting even just as a spectator.  Interesting to see how those with money in Sk dress for instance...no fancy loafers here, just rubber boots.  And yesterday I was standing next to the family selling out, a family farm established in 1905.  As the land auction started (land is the part that is at the heart of the people), there were plenty of tears and hugging...an emotional thing, you have to be there to see it to understand our roots here in Sk. 
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Next, I see Hugo is on the rampage in Venezuela.  He is throwing all opposition leaders in jail on trumped up corruption charges (comical when it is he that is in power).  He is stepping in to control the media, following on his cooked referendum result allowing him to stay in office indefinatly.  So much for the last shreds of the veil of democracy.  He is a dictator, but now it is exposed and beyond question.  Funny, but sad, how all socialist 'revolutions' end the same way, and how the early sincere supporters are the ultimate victims, it is never about the people, but about power and naivety...Chavez is moving to consolidate his grip in the face of economic trouble...what could possibly be more blatant, transparent.  Nice guy this Hugo.  The poor will  suffer most at the hand of so-called socialism, what else is new?  The only likely solution will be revolution, bloodshed, this time the real thing...and it is not as though we have not been down this same road before.  The solution?  cut oil consumption, it is the one thing that undermines Chavez and his ilk, and it is one thing that we control, we are the consumers he depends on.  We should be thinking of him, and his victims when we set the cruise control, when we buy our next vehicle...it is not just an economic thing, but an issue of security, even morality...we get to choose the world we want to live in.

________________________________________________________________________________

I just see that the Cdn govt has announced that it is prepared to let GM and Chrysler collapse, they are not willing to support businesses that have cost structures that will not allow them to survive in the marketplace.  This is good news, sort of.  But doesn't it beg the question, what has changed since 60 days ago?  And why did they pour $Billions of our dollars into them, just to come to this conclusion now?  Are we protected for the money already handed to them?  What about the taxes outstanding, some $1B?  And is this posturing or real policy?  The only thing I can see that has changed is that Obama has toughened up his position on them...follow the leader (when wrong or right)?  We look like fools, much worse than Obama changing his mind, we change our's with the wind...Harper government as usual, one finger in the air to determine policy and principles (not unlike our policy in Afghanistan where we aren't just talking about money).  If you want the heads up on Cdn govt policy tomorrow, just check out US policy today.
(and ironic that this was the criticism of Mulroney in the 80s, when in fact we were leading the US on policy, issues like free trade, apartheid, acid rain, etc)
_______________________________________________________________________________________

more to come on taxes

I see that Ignatieff has let it be known that he would consider raising taxes if elected, but wait til after the economy recovers.  This is risky business, he might speak to Dion, or Joe Clark on this.  But good for him for being honest (its just that honesty doesn't have a good track record at the ballot box).  I suspect here too he is taking a leaf out of Obama's book...and harnessing a potential backlash where angry voters want the rich to pay, someone to pay...the question being who are the rich, how much can they pay, and who will really end up paying the shot.  My guess is that it is the middle class as usual, most of whom have carried the can all along and acted responsibly through the greed cycle we have just witnessed...Ie you and me. 

For starters, the GST should never have been cut, and I said so at the time.  This is bad policy.  Consumption taxes tend to be the most fair, and this one (since tax reform by the Mulroney govt), is the least bad of all taxes - it does not cripple business and investment like most others do.  So the reduction of GST was a step backward, a step in the wrong direction.  If it was to be cut at all, it should have been during recession as a stimulus, and only temporary to ensure effectiveness with a sunset provision, so if someone wanted to save some taxes, they would have to spend now, with the rate returning to previous levels with recovery, when stimulus is no longer required.  This is exactly what they are doing in the UK.  Here in Cda it was done during a boom and has no real effect now, except to reduce revenues and increase deficits.  Dumb, but politically convenient and crass.

I worry about other taxes being increased, but fear it is inevitable with all the spending and now recessionary deficits.  We can't have it all ways and money thrown down the toilet today has to be repaid, along with interest that may be at higher rates one day if inflation is re-ignited in the process, even if originating beyond our borders (read:the US).  We and more the Americans cannot expect their standard of living to be maintained by living beyond their means... spending outstripping earnings/revenues...something has to give, and it will translate into lower living standards.  The only real solution is real growth, something that is likely to be slower not just because of the added debt burden, but also more saving, changing demographics, almost a given, I would suggest. 

So if a correction in living standards is inevitable, likely through higher taxes, who should pay?  Who can pay? Will govts continue to sabatage the very machine of growth that can return us to higher living standards?  Ie tax on income and capital?  These are an easy target, politically they can be painted as the perpetrators of all the pain we have endured...of course that doesn't mean there is much truth to it, but, oh yes, we are talking politics, not truth. 

(btw forgive me for some of my grammer and speling, I just blast away here, and spelling was never my long suit...what was your first clue?)

Back to taxes.  I may have to quit and revisit this at some other time.  First, the notion that we can tax the rich and solve all of our problems is a fiction.  Taxing the rich and the poor is problematic.  If you tax poor people, it is not only unfair (although that doesn't seem to be a barrier lately),  but you create a disincentive to enter the work force - a welfare trap where it is prudent to stay home rather than try to get ahead.  Ie it backfires. 

And taxing the rich also backfires because they are often in a position to leave one jurisdiction for a lower-tax environment elsewhere, and take jobs with them, again, poor public policy, even if it sounds like good politics. 

The bottom line is that leaves the middle to carry the load, those of us who produce and are not poor enough for welfare, and not rich enough to leave, we are stuck and the real target.  Taxing small business for instance, produces huge revenues and there is little they can do about it,  they contribute the most in terms of economic production and growth and are punished disproportionately for doing so, fair game it seems.  And it is easy to point to business as the 'rich', but in fact this is the middle with few exceptions...in fact only one in five small businesses survives the first five years, then we tax the heck out of the remaining 20%, and they don't make a sound because nobody would listen anyway.  I am not complaining here, just pointing out the truth.  Even a successful small business is working primarily for everyone else, is allowed to keep precious little, hardly a fair risk/reward ratio, that is just the reality. 

And what the public sees is only the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to taxes.  Many are hidden from view, just the way govts like it (that is why the GST is a good tax, it is one that isn't). 

One misconception is wrt corporate taxes.  At the rate of about 18% on small business this looks pretty attractive, those corporate bums...but first, most corporations are just small businesses.  And then the rate of tax applied at the corporate level is just that.  When an owner takes money out of the corporation (example for groceries, start the violins now), it is taxed again in their hands as dividends - the combined tax is more like 50% ie there is no preferred rate for business when you add the two together, but when has anyone ever mentioned this?  The common refrain is that corporations are not paying their fair share, nonsense.  And if you dig into the books of a small business you will find about 35 other hidden taxes that most individuals don't pay at all, the bulk of it is going to the govt in one form or another (payroll taxes, property taxes at 2.5 times the rate on homes, consumption taxes, import duty, etc etc... the list is impressive...)

In fact, the best policy would be not to tax income at the corporate level at all, and tax it fully when taken out.  As long as it is left in the business, it is reinvested at 100cent dollars, and only taxed when withdrawn as dividends  or salary for spending or saving, just like everyone else.  And then consumption taxes are more fair than income tax, tax people when they consume, not when they save or invest...instead we have a regime of cascading tax, the govt takes several slices all the way along, it is misleading to look at just one level and draw conclusions from it. 

Corportate taxes are the favourite target of the socialists, but it is just plain wrong, and dishonest.  Even those who know, or ought to know, perpetuate the myths. 

And what about taxing the truly rich?  First there is a question of definition.  This is a big problem.  We tend to define 'rich', not by what one has, capital, but by what one makes, income.  Ie most define rich as anyone with a high income, even if they are penniless, because they live beyond their means, a common thing these days.  In fact someone with a low income but living within their means is more likely to have assets and be 'rich' in capital terms.  But we don't let that get in the way when speaking of making the rich pay. 

The other big issue is the level of income that qualifies as 'rich'.  My understanding, forgive the cynicism, is anyone who makes more than you is rich and should be made to pay.  Ie whatever your level of income, it is someone else who should pay more.  This does not make for good public policy, it is not rational or informed, but reality. 

In Canada, we hit the 'rich' mark pretty darn quickly...somewhere in the $60K mark I believe.  Who making this income feels that they are rich?  But the problem is that this is the big part of the bell curve, this is the only way to generate enough money to cover the costs...perhaps we need some transparency and honesty on these issues, rather than focus on some fictitious rich folk who are supposedly getting away with murder...they don't exist...if there is more spending, more debt to cover, it is you and me that we are talking about that have to pay it, the middle class. 

And in Saskatchewan, admittedly we have a demographics problem unlike most parts of Cda, we already have a ratio of one net tax payer for every eight residents, and getting worse.  When we see taxes rising, who do you think is going to pay???  the other seven?  keep dreaming, our demographics are only getting worse, with aging boomers now and our native population, both groups who are a net drain on govt programs.  That is just fact.  

One solution, btw, is to keep spending in check, try to keep it w/i economic growth levels during the good times, but that is another issue, the spending side of fiscal policy, we are dealing w the revenue side today.

The Economist is running a survey right now on the tax issue, it reflects I think, the backlash we are seeing, the 'make someone(else) pay' mentality.  Both pro and con are represented.  The 'tax the rich' side advocate a 90% marginal rate on high income.  And 50% of this educated readership agree!!  Wow, that is scary.  I suspect a substantial majority of the unwashed public would agree.  Make the rich pay sounds great, simply because it sounds like we are talking about someone else...but are we really? 

In fairness, they are talking about a very high level of income to be taxed at the 90% rate, but I think the message is clear, raise taxes on anyone who has anything, provided it isn't me...start at the first dollar beyond my level of income...90cents please...

Is this really what we want?  Is it ethical?  I would argue not.  It reflects nothing of the risk or effort that may or may not go into producing such earnings, just the fact that they have it, so hammer them hard... and where does it go from there... in Cda you have to look at relatively low levels of income to produce any significant extra revenue, again, the bell curve. 

And why should we punish someone who produces more?  Even at 50% they contribute a lot more for every extra dollar of earnings, where is the justification for taking nearly all of it?  Isn't this almost theft?  Questionable ethics?  And what message does it send to the very people most able to leave?  Those that could simply spend rather than invest and create economic wealth (jobs, more taxes, etc)?

If you read the Pro economist (also happens to be from Europe, what a surprise), he acknowledges that you do not tax 90% in the hopes that it will increase revenues (silly thought), but to keep peoples' incomes from rising too much...unbelievable, but I fear a common way of thinking...we should punish anyone with ambition and ability even if it does us no good, but just feels better...great idea!

This is not what tax policy is about, or at least it is not what it should be about.  We are not trying to punish anyone or provide disincentive to produce.  We are trying to raise revenue, period.  But not the socialists.  They want to punish the 'rich', and who knows how they define 'rich'.  The danger is in this environment of anger, can this get carried into policy?  How else can one explain Ignatieff, presumably not stupid, coming out with such a platform?  Make the rich pay! 

And in principle, how is it that a dollar earned by one person should be taxed differently than that of another.  Shouldn't we be happy just to have the winner, the producer, make an extra dollar so we get half of it?  Again, what is our purpose here...more revenue, or not revenue but instead punishment for enterprise, risk-taking and effort.  The socialist economist (pro-side) referred to above, believes that this is how we keep the rich from grabbing for more...but isn't this something better left to the private sector...if the pay is not justified, why not let shareholders/directors/customers deal with it ...they are the ones to make these decisions, it is their money, their necks on the line.  I say regulate (where absolutely necessary) to give them this power, do not regulate income by govt fiat that dictates how much is too much.   ie it is Pettiness in the place of good public policy.  And it assumes the economy is a zero-sum game, if you make more, it means less for someone else...anyone getting ahead is doing so by keeping others down.

Higher taxes are coming, but nobody will be well served by knee-jerk reaction that hammers those who had nothing to do with the problems and the very ones we depend upon to dig us out of this mess.  ie we need common sense and fairness to prevail, we should not compound unfairness with more unfairness.

enough for today.

Kevin

ps don't be afraid to pass this on, hopefully stimulus for reasoned thought?

Hi there,

First, on this significant Christian weekend, the Pope urges the world to "rediscover hope" (no, I don't think he is referring to my blog).  You almost have to feel sorry for the poor guy (almost), after all, he's just human.  Consistent with everything else he has 'accomplished' recently, he apparently tripped on his way up to deliver his message.  Seems he has had a rough year.  And it is not as though he has anything but good intentions in his message of hope...hope apparently lies in readmission of holocaust denying priests (that is bound to help heal wounds between Israel and Palestinians), and spreading misinformation about the cause and prevention of AIDs...good work.

I always marvel at the religious right, and their persistence on certain issues, despite all evidence to the contrary.  Like prevention of AIDs based on abstinence from sex (in lieu of knowledge and safe sex), a fairly basic human need.  Wouldn't you think at some point they might stop and ask themselves, 'how's this going so far'?  Look at the much more successful outcomes (fighting the AIDs epidemic) in Buddhist countries which do not have the same uptight response to sex and the use of condoms compared to those where the Christian do-gooders have influence.  Have the Christians really 'done good'?  They may think they have earned themselves a place next to god in heaven, but in the process they have expedited the departure of a whole lot of innocents in places like Africa, and not a pleasant one.  If that is doing god's work, who needs god? 

And while on the topic of sex, (this is a shameless entry intended to increase readership), isn't it comical and complicated thinking about the recent imposition of Shariah law in tribal Afghanistan?  We see what should come naturally, but is interfered with by religious nonsense, now mandated by religious law.  I am not condoning this awful law, but there is some irony in it all.  If men and women were free from religion, they might have sex naturally, as nature would have allowed them to.  But because of religious intervention they don't, so religion must intervene again to require it...weird. 

And to how many outside of Islam has it occurred (present company excluded) that the 'once every four days' part of this law sounds pretty good, but of course it should not be a legal requirement imposed on women, so we can't say that.  If any of us had a twinge of envy, we quickly put it out of our minds, invoking the 'three second rule' - god can't read our minds if we change our evil thoughts within three seconds.  Perhaps it should have been imposed on men too, unless there is a physical impediment, for which there is also now a treatment, so no excuses.

And the well justified outrage at all of this, is met with almost comical response from clerics inside Islam.  They obviously don't get it, and there is such irony...they see we in the west as engaged in one big orgy of sex, yet we condemn them for mandating sex in legislation, something they think we do all the time, and not just every fourth day...what's the problem?  Then they go on to explain, presumably with a straight face, that 'their women' do not have financial means of support, so that burden falls upon men, so the least they should expect, in 'payment' for their financial burden, their generous sharing of income, is the odd roll in the hay...fair is fair.  And don't worry, the women can leave the home without permission in the case of a medical emergency...now I feel relieved...and the men will decide retrospectively what constitutes an emergency presumably. 

What really kills me is that the Islamic clerics claim we Westerners are meddling in their democracy - that this is the will of their people.  On the one hand we want to impose democracy  on them, but on the other, we want to pick and choose which democratic outcomes we like.  Again, comical.  Democracy?  Shariah law?  They are mutually exclusive, oxymoronic (emphasis on 'moron').  Shariah law is god's law, humans supposedly cannot intervene, this is their inherent problem with democracy because it imposes lawmakers between god and the people, elected representatives in the place of god's word (via the clerics).  So they cannot have democracy and Shariah law, because it is the law of god, not the people.  It has to be one or the other.  We are not meddling with their democracy, but pointing out that perhaps they have none if Shariah law is to prevail, which begs the obvious question of what we are doing there and who we are supporting with our blood and gold.  Ie if we sit back and allow them (obviously the men) to impose Shariah law on women, our efforts are a contradiction and pointless. 

Here we thought we were fighting to free them, to allow them to have a democracy which empowers the people, including the women.  If we let this pass, soon girls will not be allowed in school again, and by calling this a 'democracy', we may have done more harm than good, by providing a false facade, a sham.  If there is no freedom there, we would be better accepting that it is not democracy, they are not free, they are controlled by religious fanatics claiming to represent some mythical god...not a hopeful thing, but at least more realistic.  And obviously thier leadership wants it both ways ... if we leave, their heads will appear on posts at the entrances of thier cities (again, presumably god's will).

And back to Sex, for those starting to nod off...

This is one big area of human life, our natural existence, where Abrahamic religions, 'the big three', have really involved themselves and screwed us up royally.  Who ever planned this stuff, and for whatever reason, could have picked some other natural need and done us a real favour...say eating...think of the impact it would have had on our obesity epidemic if we could substitute eating for sex in our religious/cultural makeup!??  And you wonder why they are so much less sexually uptight but thin in Buddhist countries? 

And I can just see it now...the Islamic clerics, realizing the frustration they have created with the sin of eating, would codify in Shariah law, the requirement that women feed their husbands at least every fourth day...and that they be permitted to leave the home without permission ... to get groceries.

And look at what a mess and source of frustration we have had created for ourselves in Western Christian countries.  And we have nobody to solve it with legislative mandate.  Instead we have to suffer with our democratic system, the opposite of Islam, where it is the women who decide and meet out whatever they choose, a system where the men have little input (excuse me). 

Seriously though, we have really messed things up.  Where would we be without religion?  Even those who don't practice their religion have been influenced by it and wear the scars.  It goes something like this, if I recall correctly from sunday school, cub scouts, etc...

And it is a childishly silly story to have had such impact on life in general...frustrated men going to war, playing hockey, or blowing themselves up ...

Eve was the scapegoat, she started all this sin stuff, by defying god (don't we all defy authority at one time or another?) and eating the forbidden fruit (she didn't know god was watching, reading her filthy little mind) from, of all things, the tree of knowledge.  What does that tell us?  Knowledge, free thinking, reason, is something bad, very bad, it could undermine this whole story, the whole concept of god.  

So to punish her for reasoned thinking, er, eating the forbidden fruit, she would be condemned forever, along with the rest of us (that being the point) to hiding her body, something dirty to be ashamed of, and sex would be something she couldn't enjoy (god's mandate), but would only be enjoyed by men whom she would now drive crazy by resisting, and that she would bear the painful burden of childbirth as further punishment, menstration thrown in for good measure and to remind her how dirty she is.  Wow, what a great story, and what a loving god this must be...

And of course she lured Adam into the mess too, (he would have been perfectly happy just to watch hockey on TV), nothing like a good explanation to deal with temptation, his natural urges.  He too took a bite of forbidden knowledge and look where it got him...let that be a lesson for us all.  We too are to accept that our bodies are dirty, women in particular, and sex, outside of certain strict guidelines to ensure procreation, is to be a sin.  Notice how sin has nothing to do with morality or nature, just a silly story, not half as credible as Jack and the Beanstock. 

And look at the impact on our world.  We are not only meant now to not enjoy sex, think of it as dirty, a necessary evil, a paradox and frustration, but we are not intended to enjoy life either, we were banished from the garden of eden, the only world that actually exists, our wonderful natural world and life in it.  What a shame.  Someone should take these guys to task for coming up with such a rotten story, something not even true, worse perhaps than Wikipedia. 

So we in the west have our freedom and democracy, sort of, unlike the people of Islam, but we are burdened the same way with our religious roots.  In places like Europe, they are less burdened with hangups about sex,  not coincidentally with their greater freedom from religion.  Ironically, America, seen as a cesspool of sex by Islam, is the most uptight of all about sex, they are also highly religious.  But it is good for the weight loss and makeup industries, women are well trained to hate their bodies, thank goodness (god) for that. 

So ironically too, we are meddling in Islamic democracy to free their women, but look at the democracy we are trying to 'give' them.  One where women hate themselves and men are frustrated, or vice versa in some cases to be fair.  We too share their lack of freedom from religious influence, it is just more subtle and more easily deniable.  When it comes to sex, we are not exactly a sterling model to the world.  Where would we be without religion?  What if we were free to enjoy life?  

Enough for today...I have enjoyed this...not politically correct I suppose, oh well.  No animals were hurt in the writing of this (not cute fuzzy ones anyway) and names have been changed to protect the innocent.  This reflects only what I have read, solid research.

Kevin


Ps now that I am a mile out onto the limb of political incorrectness anyway, how about that study that reveals that circumcision reduces the spread of AIDs.  I have a better idea...condoms.  The choice is really no contest if you really want to reduce the incidence of this disease.  And the weaker choice has a certain downside, esp for guys.  Ouch. 

And as usual, this custom, barbaric to put it mildly, has some religious overtones.  It is only a fluke that it happens now to have some real health benefits, some scientific 'cover' so to speak.  My solution to the ethical dilemma faced by the medical fraternity is quite simple:  any parent wishing to have a circumcision performed on his/her baby, a decision that clearly does not involve informed consent by the one undergoing it, should be required to have their own genitals disfigured by the physician at the same time...this way the rate of assault with scalpels would be cut by at least 50%, the parent having signed a legally valid waiver for at least their own missing parts.  K



BTW I don't know who actually wrote this entry, someone must have hacked into my blog.  K

Hi There,

Here are some verbatim quotes from a piece that appears in the Economist on line today (no, not Wikipedia) titled:   "Financial Markets, Whistling in the Dark, there are still plenty of shadows looming over the stockmarket":  if you read my entry the other day, I think you will find all of this sounds vaguely familiar, perhaps they read my blog :)

            "As American companies begin the first-quarter earnings season, the news on that front is hardly encouraging either. Profits are forecast to be down by 37%"

           "So what explains this dichotomy between share prices and fundamentals? "

            "Investors have also been encouraged by signs that the pace of recession is slowing down. This factor has been dubbed “the second derivative”, or the rate of change of the rate of change."

            "But David Rosenberg of Bank of America Merrill Lynch, one of the few Wall Street economists to predict the current recession, is sceptical. He points out that although the Institute of Supply Management’s index of American manufacturing has rebounded from 32.9 to 36, the latter figure is still the fourth worst in the last 27 years. Capital Economics, a consultancy, says its recovery index suggests the probability that the American recession has ended is less than 10%."

           "What seems to have happened is that the sense of extreme panic, marked in November and February, has receded."


          "Global authorities are throwing everything they can at the crisis, and the hope is that a combination of low interest rates, fiscal stimulus and quantitative easing, the equivalent of printing money, will eventually succeed."

          "In the meantime, the desire to hold cash at virtually zero interest rates is waning. But investors’ enthusiasm could yet be tested by a further round of bad news. The results season will be the first test. Three out of four companies that have issued guidance for the first quarter have steered investors lower. In the second quarter of 2007, less than half warned of negative outcomes. Citigroup thinks the peak-to-trough decline in global profits will be 50%."

          "Commercial property may also give investors as many headaches as residential. One of Boston’s most notable buildings, the John Hancock Tower, recently sold at a foreclosure auction for $660m. In 2006 it was bought for $1.3 billion."

          "The economic data, having stabilised a little, could always turn down again. The relentless rise in unemployment will inevitably weigh on consumer sentiment. Industrial-production numbers in many advanced countries are still showing double-digit annual declines."

          "Of course, markets can spot recoveries in profits and economic fundamentals well before they are confirmed by the official data. Investors might be showing such exceptional foresight at the moment, or they may simply be spotting imaginary signs of life in a dead parrot."

So while it is unsettling to sit on the sidelines in cash while all the market rocket scientists are rubbing their hands and claiming that the bailouts have worked, (the equivalent of a famous banner hung on an aircraft carrier a while back declaring "Mission Accomplished"?), I sit here and second guess myself, but come to the same conclusion:  this is not over, we are seeing typical crowd behaviour, and we all know where that usually leads.  There will come a time when the recession bottoms out and it is time to jump back in, but this isn't it...my opinion, caveat emptor.

My latest hard copy of the Economist (April 4, The Economy, A faint sound of applause), also echoes my view that there are unique difficulties with recovery this time: 
       "Yet even if the bottom in economic activity is in sight, a robust recovery is not.  Housing usually leads the way out of recession as falling interest rates unleash pent-up demand"  (obviously this time there is no pent-up demand for housing, an understatement).  
       "Consumer spending may also be depressed for some years to come by the record 18% collapse in household net worth over the course of last year, a drop of $11Trillion." (the 'poverty effect' I call it, the flip side of the wealth effect that drove everyone to borrow and spend)  and they fail to mention the fact that everyone is already up to their eyeballs in debt, lines of credit, credit cards, etc. 
       "The greatest risk of renewed recession or stagnation comes from the banking system.  As long as home prices keep falling and unemployment keeps rising, banks bad loans will keep mounting."  (I would suggest this applies even to Canadian Banks, the ones we are bragging about).
       "...the loss of capital will constrain their lending.  That increases the odds of a multi-year Japanese-style credit crunch."

Enough doom and gloom.  There will also be great opportunity come from all this...we just have to wait, and hope that assets will be allowed to reprice themselves, that we taxpayers will not simply be required to prop them up, frustrating free markets and postponing the inevitable to a future date when the crash will be worse and when there are no policy options left to cushion the blow - imagine a recession like this but with no available credit, nobody willing to lend, no deficit spending, governments cutting programs and services and EI in the midst of a crash?!  That is the real doomsday scenario we could be headed for if we do not bite the bullet now, and allow markets to correct, making this mess look like a walk in the park.  Certainly the IMF could not rescue us because it depends on us (the West) to fund it.  ie we can't be donors and recipients at the same time.

One other silver lining in all of this, is that Hugo Chavez is on the ropes in Venezuela.  Not officially yet, but just wait.  He declares that even a worldwide recession will not derail his "21st Century Socialist Revolution".  What a joke.  He has destroyed any  real economy that existed there, driving out private investment, confiscating private property and creating phony cooperatives that produce nothing and compensate their members accordingly...the only way to keep things going is with govt handouts that are in turn funded by oil exports.  In other words, they are running not on socialism, but capitolism, our money.  Ironic that it is this hickup in Capitalism that is decimating his brand of so-called socialism.  They depend on money from us, money from capitalism.  Their prosperity is not a measure of socialism, but of capitalism.  When we are in the toilet, they are in the toilet, what could be more glaring proof...comical.  And after years of record revenues with high oil prices, you  would think that a responsible 'socialist' would be in good shape to weather a downturn, that he would have saved for a rainy day...apparently not...he was out being a socialist hero, pumping money into other 'socialist' regimes (Cuba, et al) and receiving adoration on the public stage (even in NY at the UN podium, shaking his finger at we Westerners, the US in particular), and has no cash left.  He has bankrupted the country, destroyed its economy, and now the oil revenues upon which they became more dependant than ever are way down, they are in big trouble...so much for his socialist revolution. 

Speaking of international pariah and rogues, how about those Iranians.  Israel bombed a convoy of 23 trucks of Iranian rockets crossing Sudan and destined for use by Hamas in Gaza, to be sneaked in via the Egyptian border, the tunnels.  Great.  And this is the same Sudan run by a war criminal wanted for Crimes against humanity in Darfur, and also propped up by Iran. These are the buddies we are talking about, religious zealots, murderers.  And one would think maybe Hamas might have learned something in January when Israel struck back.  No chance.  They have no care for their own Palestinian people who they will again allow to be sacrificed in their ideological, sick pursuit of the elimination of Isreal, the pursuit of one world govt under Islam (Isreal is just step one).  What boggles me is that we are so quick in the West to side with the Palestinians, condemn Israel, and pay the shot for reconstruction, when Hamas goes right on plotting more of the same...is there any question of cause and effect?  I know most Palestinian civilians are obviously caught in the middle, but it is time for them to speak up and resist what their own leaders (they elected Hamas) are doing to them.  And it is time for us in the West to tell them so...they should not expect our support so long as they just claim to be victims in all of this and point the finger only at Israel (ironically, at the other victim).  ....and where would we be without religion??

Next, the common wisdom that it is the role of govts to create jobs.  This is nonsense, govts are best to stay out of the way, they do less damage that way.  A recent study in Spain suggests that for every job the govt 'creates', they cost 2.2 jobs that otherwise would have been created in the private sector.  This is because they extract money from the private sector and spend it inefficiently.  The example in Spain was creating 'green' jobs.  Sounds good, they create a bunch of jobs, but this ignores the opportunity cost to the economy - had the money been left in the private sector, it would have created even more jobs, and with market discipline, ensuring that it is done efficiently, not wasted. 

Along this line, it kills me when I see the ads on TV lately by our Govt advising of all the new tax breaks they have awarded us.  They say "you've earned them, so be sure to use them" (something to that effect).  This is offensive.  It suggests that our money belongs to the govt and we have to 'earn' some of it back in tax breaks, govt benevolence.  Wrong, we earn it first, in the real world, then we are taxed.  This seems to be lost on whoever writes the ads.  It is like we should be grateful to keep any of it, they could have just kept it all, some sort of entitlement by fiat, but are nice enough to give us some back.  A tax break because govt deems have earned the right to keep some of our own money, not because we earned it in the private sector where it really comes from in the first place.  Am I making sense here?  It is a question of whose money our earnings are.  Is it our money out of which we pay taxes, or is it the govts out of which they determine how much we are permitted to keep?
It is like a left-wing article I read recently that proclaimed that by certain tax increases in the US, Obama "freed up" billions of dollars.  Say what?  Since when is taxation 'freeing up" money?  I think of money we earn which is left in our pocket as the money freed up.  The money taxed away as "captured" - it is our money, not free money.  But this is socialist creep...any money not taxed away is wasted (on the greedy 'rich' who just happen to have earned it)...money that could be "freed up" through higher taxation and spent wisely by govts who know better than us what to do with it.   And never mind that someone may have actually worked to earn it in the first place, if you have any money left (indeed a challenge), it must be stolen or taken off the back of someone else, better to liberate it, free it up, through taxation and spending. 

Enough of my rant for today.  I want to speak of a backlash I fear may be around the corner, but I have to go...the backlash I worry about is a result of all the anger, justified, at certain groups, but the victims in this backlash will not be the ones who perpetrated the recent wrongs, but anyone who worked hard and tries to pay his/her bills and those of everyone else, and has behaved responsibly.  We see anger, but will "make the rich pay" cast a broad net to punish some of the biggest victims of the mess, rather than the perpetrators?  Will we see a lashing out at anyone with anything?  A second wave of unfairness, aimed at those who are the producers?   Where will that lead us?  And what will the response be of those producing and paying the bills, how much more abuse can they take?  More on this later....

Kevin

Hi There,

This will be really brief, I  promise...

I just read a review on the new Honda Insight, soon to be available here.  We are not in the market at the moment, but I like to follow developments anyway, my nickname in elementary school having been 'Car Man'.  (not my choice, but I guess it could have been worse).

It is rated to get approx 60mpg (Imperial, not US) city and hwy.  Clearly the biggest advantage is with city driving, but I assume a fairly average split between the two when running my numbers (I know, you are wondering if I don't have better things to do!). 

The exciting thing about the new Insight is not just that it is a Honda, but it is also much cheaper than other Hybrids on the market have been.  I ran the numbers thinking that finally there might be a hybrid that is 'economic', and would make sense from a financial standpoint.  I realize that most vehicle purchases are emotional, not financial decisions, but bear with me.  For me, although I am a big advocate of reduced oil consumption, I would have trouble making a car purchase that made no sense financially, esp when the other factors are relatively similar (the Insight is not sexier than the Civic, perhaps less so). 

I assumed 20KMs/year of mixed city/hwy driving, and gas prices of $1/litre.  The Insight will apparently start at around $25K, and Civics at less than $20K, but lets assume a $5K spread, plus 10% in taxes, making the difference $5,500 (this is being generous to the new Insight).  With these assumptions, it would take approx 366Kms or 18 years+ to make back the $5500 with fuel savings.  Ouch. 
And in theory you would have to leave the $5500 in a term deposit to be fair, so over the 18 years you would still be well ahead with the Civic...I won't bother with more assumptions and calculations, it is simply no contest. 

Then for a stretch in favour of the Insight, lets say gas averages $2/litre over its lifetime instead.  Still, to come even, you have to drive it more than 9 years, and that is without considering a return on the investment of the $5500 difference. 

So there you go.  The Insight may give you green bragging rights, but with a price.  And then consider that the Insight will weigh more (batteries are heavy) and have poorer performance, making it both less safe (braking, accident avoidance) and less fun to drive.
Also, assuming the batteries are expensive and will have to be replaced at least once during the vehicle's life, the economics become worse, along with used resale value.  And then there is the consideration of the environmental impact of producing and disposing of batteries. 

The long and short of it, the Civic is still the smart choice.  For city-weighted driving, the Honda Fit is an even better choice, fun to drive, cheaper and almost as efficient as the Hybrid (admittedly this involves comparing apples with ... crab apples). 

Electric technology is close at hand and promises to make these hybrids look like dinosaurs.  They should be light, less complicated and cheaper, but batteries are the key and great strides are being made in this technology...it should be worth the wait.  Meanwhile, if everyone eased up just a bit on their speed and checked tire pressure more frequently, there would be a huge reduction in fuel consumption.  And hopefully gas guzzlers, pickups or SUVs used as daily drivers, will be a thing of the past, socially frowned upon. 

Kevin

PS   "Banksters"...you have to check out this video on the financial mess we are in, the lending practices that created it, fraud by lenders, borrowers, and all courtesy of the misguided monetary policy of Greenspan, the Maestro, who made it all possible:  
                           pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html 

Thanks to Tom for the reference.  K