Julian Assange IS Che Guevara - in his brain maybe...

So the trouble most self-styled revolutionaries have, is at a certain point in their feverish pursuit of their inner narrative, blood is spilled (often theirs). That fact, proven time and time again, always seems to surprise them as if this one time the law of checks and balances will not apply to them. This willful ignorance is another example of the magical thinking that runs prevalent among so many. Take Julian Assange, currently ensconced in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. As Golgotha is lonely this time of year he emerged the other day to, predictably, lay all of his troubles at the feet of the U.S.A. who are hell bent on prosecuting him for Wiki leaks. He was a target, all charges were bogus, it was an international conspiracy that put him there. So he says he was forced (the champion of free publicly available information) to seek shelter in the arms of Ecuador, a country with a long and distinguished tradition of press censorship and brutal repression.  Whats missing in this story arc is the fact that Julian Assange has been charged with rape in Sweden, a country not known for a sense of humour about these things and believed to be competent both in its investigative and prosecution process. So one would believe that these charges have merit and Julian Assange is a sex criminal on the run who is trying everything he can to avoid the trial and eventual conviction his reprehensible actions have brought upon himself. 

There is an expression I have long believed (ignoring it occasionally to my regret) along the lines of "don't believe your own bullshit".   So moving onto Mr. Guevara he, with Fidel Castro, led the popular revolution in Cuba against Fulgencio Batista.  So the other problem with  most self-styled revolutionaries is, like The Highlander, in the end there can be only one.  So ignoring the bullshit rule he led the revolution into Bolivia and, abandoned by his "brother" Fidel was hunted down and executed by the Bolivian military (nothing much had happened there since Butch and Sundance).   I wonder in the end if Che understood that the law of checks and balances was immune to his charisma, the rightness of his cause, all the money his image would make on t-shirts etc.  Julian Assange, like Che, has left a lot of wreckage behind him (Bradley Manning will get of jail in the year never) as well as the women he victimized.   His current plea for "justice"  (i.e. not being held accountable for his actions) is his personal Bolivia whether he knows it or not.  In the end the law of checks and balances is a kind of essentialist karma - justice without the personal satisfaction.

"Maybe I'm a different breed
Maybe I'm not listening
So blame it on my A.D.D. baby"
SAIL - Awolnation

Peter McKay - this is your Trotsky moment - enjoy!

The Russian Revoultion of 1917 was a fascinating story of an imperfect idealogy married to popular discontent that resulted in an inconceivably worst system that inflicted decades of misery on its population.  As the revolution "progessed" the various leaders spent a lot of their time and energy eliminating each other.  A great example is Leon Trotsky, who as the founder and first leader of the Red Army (among his other accomplishments)  was murdered in his mexican home in 1940 with an ice axe (ick.).  His fate sealed by his acrimoneous relationship with history's greatest monster Josef Stalin, what I find interesting is, that without his early efforts the success that Lenin and others achieved in building the communist party might not of been achieved.

Flash forward to today and take a look at the slow motion and very public evisceration of Peter Mckay over the F35 fiasco.  For the record I don't blame Peter McKay, Stephen Harper or pretty much anyone else in Canada for this mess.  Dwight Eisenhowser warned the world all those years ago about the military industrial complex in the US, Canada is just another dog being wagged by the tail in this respect.  This deal was probaly going wacky before the ink dried.  No the lesson from history is that  Peter McKay is quite simply Stephen Harpers Trotsky and although I am pretty sure he is safe from an ice axe the principle of keeping your friends close - your enemies closer has never been more true.

Simply put without  Peter Mckay's agreement to merge the Alliance party with the Progressive Conservatives (how Canadian is that name eh!) the present day Conservative party would not exist.   So at best McKay is an embarrassing memory of when our fearless leader was not the master of his domain.  At worst he is an heir in waiting for a king who has no intention of setting aside his crown.  So what happens next?  Peter McKay will end up "shuffled" to another portfolio,  lots more woman will get cabinet jobs and the F35 fiasco (which McKay will take the fall for) will now be blamed on greedy American companies as Harper now makes a stirring example of cabinet loyalty.  Cue the inspiring music and lets have a May Day parade..

Peter?  My advice - hold off ordering pizza for a while.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.-William Pitt, British prime-minister (1759-1806)

With the resumption of Parliament the long maligned long gun registry will (maybe) meet its Waterloo. As an an example of what happens when ideology engages in sacrilegious acts with party politics the long gun registry has no equal in Canadian politics. Politicians preyed on urban dwelling Canadians frightened by what they saw on the television about crime in the US. Our police chiefs (elected to run police forces and not set policy) opined that knowledge of whether a firearm was in a residence would make a police officers jobs safer. And to top it all off that holy grail of the anti-gun crowd - The Montreal Massacre was lite once more into a blazing fervour! Huzzah said the masses - we will prove to the world how civilized we are by supporting the "necessity" of long gun control (the handguns everyone is afraid of have been strictly controlled and registered for years - except by the actual bad people of course).

So the government of the day(s)announced they had a plan - why this thing will cost a mere 100M$ to set up and pay for itself with "user fees" (or as I like to call this stuff taxes"). Contracts were awarded, people hired, politicians celebrated! A 100M$ would insure that we would know for sure if a farmer in Saskatchewan had a .410 coach gun tucked away to clear out the varmints’ in his barn because (here it comes) he will TELL us. This simple (and erroneous) assumption began the long, slow and phenomenally expensive LGR debacle. Why you ask, well here’s a couple of reasons – that farmer in Saskatchewan, that hunter in Quebec, that target shooter in Metcalfe – we all wondered how exactly the registry was going to protect anyone. After all it wasn’t like criminals were going to meekly fill in the forms and tell Police what they had; the LGR was “targeted” towards the non-criminal members of society. When this point was raised it was shouted down by Police Chiefs with the “knowledge is power” argument. Well I am not a police officer but I’m pretty sure rule #1 is to assume that ANY situation is dangerous and to conduct yourself accordingly (regardless of what the LGR says or doesn't say).

So One (1) Billion dollars later we have a long gun registry that tracks the firearms of all Canadians.  What happened of course is that the government (in a desperate attempt to get people to use it) caved on the user fees.  For One (1) Billion dollars we have now a reasonable competent system in place.  However what we don't have in place is increased public safety from criminals nor do are our brave police officers any safer than they were before.  What could we done with One (1) Billion dollars? Well we could have hired so many police officers that you couldn’t walk three steps without tripping over one. For One (1) Billion dollars we could of built more prisons where the message of “you use a gun in a crime and you do serious time” would be delivered one day at a time.

Any "necessity" born of Politics is predestined to fail everyone except those who take credit for the idea.  Such is the case of the LGR - may it rest in peace.

"Mama always told me not to look into the eye's of the sun, But mama, that's where the fun is" - Bruce Springsteen

So the Government of Ontario has seen fit to announce on-line gambling as an extension of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporations "service" to the good citizens of Ontario. This was reported in the Winnipeg Free Press as follows;

"The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. estimate that Canadians spend nearly $1 billion a year at a unregulated gambling sites and want a piece of the action. Ontario's cash-strapped government is eager to find new revenue streams to eliminate its massive deficit and fund expensive promises ahead of the 2011 election."

Personally I find phrases like "piece of the action" and "expensive promises" heart-warming as an (over) taxed-payer in this province. What really concerns me though is that in the endless gold rush to grab more and more of our money the government we elected to represent us, our collective values and to set a higher standard for the world to see somehow seems to have forgotten that just because people do or want something it isn't the government’s role to make it easier for them to get it.

Let’s take the 2010 equivalent of a Nazi - that's right I am talking about you smokers! The Nanny state mentality of our provincial and federal governments results in passing laws right, left and centre to insure that practitioners of this particular habit experience the maximum bullshit level in their use of a legal product (and one that the provincial government generates huge tax income from). Despite this incongruity I least get the feeling that they (our fearless leaders) have grasped the concept that smoking, as a rule, is not good for you. Now here's my thesis - neither is gambling. When Bob Rae was in opposition he opined that "gambling was a tax on the poor" and when he was elected famously opened the first Casino in this province. Since that moral flip-flop our governments (remember we elected them) have been hooked on gambling revenue with all the style and class you would expect from a 12 hit a day crack whore working a corner in some urban hell.

If you make gambling easier then, wait for it, PEOPLE WILL GAMBLE MORE. The government knows this and is already rubbing its greedy little hands together in anticipation of all the money they pry from those who can least afford it. Their defence – why people are already gambling on-line – why shouldn’t we get a taste as well (think the Godfather). I can think of reason, ITS NOT GOOD FOR YOU. In other words I expect my government to promote values that we as a society have, crazy old fashioned things like work for your money – don’t expect to “win” it. Manage your debt so you are not an encumbrance to those in your life; don’t assume that we, as a group of hardworking individuals, are somehow responsible for the various miscreants our entitlement based social welfare system creates. 

I am a realist, I know that people will gamble regardless of risk to themselves (and smoke, and drive drunk,  own pit bulls, pay "eco" fees etc) and we can't expect (nor should we want) our government to control everything about our behaviour(s) (see earlier Nanny State comment) but at the same time I don't expect them to just give up and jump on the same gravy train either.  So here’s the thing Mr. McGuinty, you got it on cigarettes, what is it about about making gambling easier you don’t get? If I walked in and said lets sell smokes in schools you would (justifiably) have me burned at the stake. Gambling destroys families, causes chaos and death – why in any god’s name would our elected representatives want to promote this through making access easier?

There are times I believe that I cannot be cynical enough to truly understand the depth of greed and culpability our “leaders” are capable of….

"The most violent element in society is ignorance.” - Emma Goldman

If you accept the renowned anarchist's Ms. Goldman's assertion then Toronto during the G20 was a very ignorant place indeed. The Oxford dictionary defines anarchism as "belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a cooperative basis." My view is that its a bunch of idiots who want to get away with socially dysfunctional behavior under the guise that they are actually representing a philosophy. In fact upon reflection that concept is most likely too advanced for these "Black Block" cretins - they just want a little of the old "ultra-violence:" - they are confrontation junkies without any actual point.

What to do? Perhaps a new concept in the "Survivor" franchise with the "Black Block" dropped onto some desert island with everyone getting the essentials (hatchet and waterproof matches). There they can prove the veracity of their "philosophy" by not depending on each other for anything (plus unlimited smashing opportunities). I would suggest that a monthly fly-over showing the growing pile of skulls would pretty much get the point across that there never was any point at all pretty well.

If that sounds a little harsh it is. Put it it this way - imagine that instead of changing into their "Black Block" clothes in the middle of otherwise peaceful protestors they changed into Nazi or KKK outfits. They would be summarily pounded into corn meal by those same "peaceful" protestors in the same time it took me to write this sentence. Read your history, the Nazis employed the same tactics when they were known as the "brown shirts". Society was repelled then and we are repelled now, after all - what is the difference? If the "Survivor" idea doesn't catch on lets make peace with the North Koreans and stage the next G20 there. I am sure that society would be wide open and welcoming to the "Black Block", or how about the Iranians, or the Chinese or.. well you get the picture.

This rant started with a quote about the relationship between ignorance and violence. This is not a debate about left vs right - ignorance is universal, violence is universal. What is required is the will to stand up to those who embrace ignorance and violence as ends to themselves. So next time your protesting something and somebody next to you decides to break a window or something please understand that if you do nothing you are complicit. If at that moment you take action, do something, anything to change the outcome then from my view you have established the legitimacy of your point of view. As citizens of a democracy this power resides in all of us and no amount of police or security will ever replace it.

The Last Day of Your Life Is Like Any Other Day (except shorter)

There has been lots of media noise around the right to self termination and assisted self termination. I'm not really sure why there is a public and legislative debate on this. To me this choice is the single most inalienable human right everyone has. If you are religious in your outlook then it’s an easy question to answer – simply follow the dictates of whatever belief system you embrace. If you are not religious and believe the ultimate purpose of life is that it ends then you engage your rationality and make the one decision that is truly no one else’s business. To me this would seem to end the discussion but thank goodness there are so many people out there willing to complicate my life (or specifically its end) with their particular brand of “we are right and everyone else is wrong’ rhetoric which (sadly) passes for actual thinking in an increasingly dumb world.

Ask anyone with a terminal condition facing an ugly end if they would like to die relatively free of discomfort or die horribly and in pain and I’m pretty sure that unless they really believe that their God wants them to suffer before their reward they will opt for option “A”. For years caring and committed doctors have warned their terminal patients that if they take too many pills it might be fatal thus jumping that ethical chasm as smooth as Burt Reynolds in a black trans am with a screaming chicken on the hood. So, why the debate- none of us have any choice about being born into this world (religious belief systems aside) so really who’s business is it how and when I decide to check out of it? (Assuming we are of sound (ish) mind).

Perhaps it is the rise of social media as collaborative phenomena – the pervasive belief that everyone is interested in everything everyone else is doing. After all if we collectively offer up the minutiae of our lives for validation then why wouldn’t we do the same with our deaths? I read recently of services that offer to continue or terminate your Face Book, MySpace etc pages after you die. Not sure about Twitter but it certainly raises some interesting scenarios (still decomposing, its dark, there are bugs in here).

As with most social issues the various interest groups have engaged in the worst levels of demagogy by raising every nightmare scenario possible (it got so bad I had to sit down and watch my copy of Soylent Green again to get a rational perspective). But to what end? When a cat or dog knows it is going to die it will often leave its home, curl up somewhere warm and wait. Jeez – what do they know that we don’t? It is our perpetual arrogance that we are somehow removed from the natural world and the rules under which it governs our existence, however brief, that drives this debate. Imagine the surprised look on everyone’s faces when the truth, the real truth of existence (namely that it ends) is revealed and the moral, ethical, religious, political and philosophical drivers resolve into a simple choice between death with dignity or the surrender of that inalienable right to those with no stake in your particular game.

"Death is terrifying because it is so ordinary. It happens all the time.”

Susan Cheever

"There must be some way out of here said the joker to the thief" Robert Zimmerman

There is a persuasive sense of ennui to our winter political experience in this country. An example is the reaction to Mr. Harper's (aka "Steve") suspension of Parliament. The stated rational from the government being "we've got stuff to do helping the recovery, and oh yeah the Olympics are on TV" etc is weak at best but that rational has been almost perfectly balanced by the level of "outrage" from political parties and the lumpen proletariat. The whole thing has felt like everybody has been going through the motions but with no real (to quote Bruce Lee) "Emotional Content"

The public protests about Parliament not sitting have predictably come from the same folks who protest everything the government does when Parliament IS sitting. The opposition parties muddle around consumed with their own inner drama (yeah that's you Natural Governing Party or "Liberals" as they like to portray themselves). The biggest flame so far? The British Economist comes out and says Steve's a bad boy. This bold move probably helped the big C's in Quebec for all I know.

Guy on the street? A giant "whatever" seems to be the prevailing reaction. The workings of our government are pretty much a mystery to us (and by mystery I don't mean something cool and slick with a space age crime lab that solves everything in 60 minutes). Everyone complains about the economy, the weather, hockey and repeat once and rinse. Nobody connects what does or doesn't happen in our government with anything meaningful in their own lives. Governments have always known this thus the long tradition of bread and circus type public events stretching back to Rome. Think I'm exaggerating? Wait for a series of bold, visionary and expensive pronouncements to flow like wine from our current government JUST before Parliament sits down again, quelle surprise!

Soon spring will come, snow melts, dog poo reeks, flowers bloom and for some reason I always want to buy a new car. Everything changes right? Will anybody think that democracy was suspended for a while like some third world junta? The truth is we elect a government to do stuff. In retrospect parliament is redundant in the eyes of the current (and past governments) and that might be true except for the annoying fact that without parliament a lot of important "stuff" gets left on the table. I want that stuff voted in so my world can be changed in some meaningful way. As this session goes gently into the night we are witness to the expediency of politics over the the principals that a lot of Canadians voted for. Bad Steve...

“Policies are many, Principles are few, Policies will change, Principles never do.” John Maxwell