Categories
The left Uncategorized US Politics

It’s a Left-Wing Meltdown! Y’all Come!

Dave 07

I’ll admit it’s been amusing, in a sadistic sort of way, to watch the left-wing meltdown since Donald Trump was elected President of the United States on November 8.

First of all, and the US Constitution notwithstanding, they insisted was an illegitimate result because Trump only won the Electoral College, but not the plurality of votes. Enclaves in New York and California had given that to Hillary Clinton, and everyone knows that the folks in New York and Los Angeles should run things, by divine right so to speak; that is, if there were such a thing as the divine.

Then the effort was to have the Electoral College itself overturn the election result and install Hillary Clinton. All this of course was accompanied by demonstrations and riots; although when asked, many of their participants had forgotten to vote.

ashley-juddBut the best part of the show has been since Inauguration Day. The day after, there was a big women’s march, and one of the speakers was Ashley Judd. It was like watching a slo-mo train wreck as she tried her best to channel Dr. Martin Luther King. But somehow her repetition of “I am a nasty woman” – which ironically has a ring of truth to it – just seemed silly beside Dr. King’s, “I have a dream.”

Another star performer in the Left-Wing Meltdown has been Madonna. She’s made a career, and millions, not from her voice but from her unrelenting pursuit of vulgarity. I always wondered how women can insist on respect when they act out like Madonna, or who allow themselves to be called “hoes,” “bitches,” and worse. Donald Trump is low class?

Another trigger for The Meltdown has been the “Muslim ban.” Never mind that it’s not a ban, on either Muslims or refugees, but a temporary suspension on immigrants of all faiths from a list of seven countries, prepared by the Obama administration. It was clumsily rolled out, but when you are sick of slick politicians and elect someone who isn’t a politician at all you should anticipate a lack of slickness. You got it.

neil-mcdonaldAnd we have the horrific killing of seven Muslim worshipers at a mosque in Québec City. The shooter was a disturbed young man, with a Christian name. But that name alone was enough to have Neil McDonald of the CBC prattling on about how most of the killers in North America are Christians.

Canadian taxpayers, you pay this guy’s salary.

It was the same narrative put out by the left-wing media after Anders Breivik massacred 77 people in Norway in 2011. He was a Christian. Except it turns out that actually he was an atheist, and a National Socialist, and, according to the exacting science of psychiatry, a narcissist. But then, the left has called Adolf Hitler a Christian simply because he was baptized as a child.

So the biggest star so far in the Left-Wing Meltdown, has been the mainstream media. They have dedicated themselves for the next four years to delegitimizing everything that the Trump Administration does, good or bad.

There is not a doubt that the Trump administration will do more unslick things. But the media’s wildly biased approach is exactly why very few people trust the media.

And I predict that four years from now, even fewer will.

Best to each of you!

Dave Reesor

Please Like, and Share us on Facebook, and Follow us on Twitter.

Post Script

I recently had an interesting conversation with a Millennial. We were chatting at a birthday party, and she wanted to read one of my blogs, so I gave her the link. She read it, and then looked at me and very sincerely said: “Thank you. I’d never thought of it that way before.”

With 9 grandchildren, and all their friends, I’ve found that Millennial’s are very easy to talk to, and are hungry for information that they find believable. LDIO’S mission is to provide that information using their medium; VIDEO. There’s a cost.

So please JOIN us, and become a member of the Let’s Do It Ourselves community. If you’re one of the 350,000 Albertans who voted Wildrose two years ago, this community is for you. If you voted for the Conservative Party of Canada in 2015, or voted Republican last November, the LDIO™ community is for you and your Millennials!

Categories
Big Government Bureaucracy Canadian Politics Conservatarians Politics Self reliance The left Uncategorized US Politics

In the First Place

Dave 07Last week I blogged about the differences, as I see them, between left and right. The next day I received my copy of Imprimis, a monthly publication of Hillsdale College. It features an article by the college President, Dr. Larry P Arnn, entitled: A More American Conservatism. This week I was going to publish some back-and-forth online conversations that I’ve had with friends from the left but instead I’m going to encourage you to read Dr. Arnn’s article. Because whatever your nationality, or political persuasion, it deserves at least one read-through.

Dr. Arnn observes that: “Things in the past are like things in the present; they must be judged.” In other words, just because it worked in the old days does not necessarily mean it still works. Think about that, conservatives.

But he goes on to say that we know that: “things that have a good reputation for a long time are more trustworthy than new things.” In other words, just because it’s labelled “progressive” doesn’t guarantee its value. Such arguments are neither left, nor right.

Dr Larry Arnn.jpgHe says: “Laws are made now chiefly by regulatory agencies which combine, in themselves, all three powers of government.” He means that the bureaucracy now behaves as if it has the power of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, all put together. His point is beyond dispute.

And this: “Every employer, every school, many clubs, and family life itself are now the subject of rules too complex for the layperson to grasp.” That’s also beyond dispute and is the reason that ordinary people, left and right, throughout Western democracies, feel they have very little say in their own governance.

Dr. Arnn’s personal style couldn’t be farther from that of Donald Trump, yet he is hopeful about the new US administration. Because, as he points out: “Trump ran in utter defiance of the (debate stifling) political correctness that enforces this new system of government.” Bracketed words mine. Any person who believes that open debate helps lead us to the best ideas must find that hopeful!

All in all, this is an exceptional article, and I would recommend it to everyone interested in thoughtful public discourse. And I urge you to subscribe to this publication, called Imprimis. It means: In the first place, which is always the logical place to start.

Best to each of you!

Dave

P.S. I think quite a few of you know that Danny Hozack has been a force in thoughtful conservatism for a long time. For the past several years he’s organized an annual conference called Essentials of Freedom, which alternates between Calgary and Edmonton. This year it’s in Calgary.

Be sure to mark Friday, March 17 and Saturday, March 18 on your calendar. And think about bringing your children, and grandchildren. More information next week.

Categories
Politics Uncategorized US Politics

No true conservative could vote for Donald Trump

Dave 07

Donald Trump is no conservative and never has been. In addition to his myriad other non-conservative views and actions in the past, Trump has flat out said: “I love EMINENT DOMAIN!”

 Now, the legal definition of eminent domain is a (government’s) power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character.

 Expropriation of land through the application of eminent domain has always been understood to apply to major projects such as railways, major roads, public facilities etc. that will benefit a wide spectrum of the public.

 But Trump loves eminent domain because he can use it to force private individuals to sell him property on which to develop his casinos and golf courses. In other words, Donald Trump loves that the government will help him run over fellow citizen’s property rights so he can expand his entertainment empire. 

Trump Casino
Trump Casino

 That is the very antithesis of conservatism. NO TRUE CONSERVATIVE CAN SUPPORT THIS.

 If you want more detail, here’s a start. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/265171/donald-trump-and-eminent-domain-robert-verbruggen

 Another hallmark of common-sense conservatism is being practical, and realistic. Trump’s stated goal, to round up 11 million illegal immigrants and their American-born children is pure fantasy. Logistically, legally, and practically, it cannot be done.

 Sure, they’re illegals, but don’t give me the crap that simply because they entered the United States illegally, they are therefore, serious lawbreakers.  Anybody out there ever slow down in an area where you know that photo radar is common, and then exceed the speed limit in areas where you’ve never see a cop? Laws that are unenforced are obviously not very important, and people act accordingly.

 National borders should be secured, and American administrations and congresses to date have completely failed to do their job. If securing the US borders is important, then vote for politicians that believe it’s important, but that also have a practical solution.

 And once the borders are secure, there must be a way for hard-working, law-abiding, immigrants to achieve legal status, maybe by five years of law-abiding, and hard work.

 And finally, send a message to the small percentage who do commit serious crimes, (and to dopey municipal governments like San Francisco’s), by imprisoning them, and then, without fail, shipping them back to their country of origin with the guarantee of a massive prison sentence if they return.

That’s probably only a few hundred thousand people, and deporting that many may actually be doable. In fact, many might even self deport if the penalties for illegals breaking the law are stiff enough.

 Donald Trump is a windbag, albeit one who has performed a valuable service for America by putting serious issues on the table, however clumsy, obnoxious, and completely unrealistic his solutions are.

Trump waves goodbyBut this November’s election is critical, and it’s time for The Donald to fade from the political landscape, and for Americans to focus, not just on issues, but on realistic solutions to those issues.

 Trump’s “Unfavorable” ratings in national polls suggest that in the general election, he would lose. But the alternative being Clinton or Sanders, Republicans would be forced to get out and vote Trump, to at least try and stop an ever more damaging experiment with “Progressivism”.

 True conservatives will never put themselves in that position.

 Anyway, that’s the view from across the Northern Fence.

I’m Dave Reesor, in Calgary Alberta.

 

 

 

Categories
Big Government Bureaucracy Canadian Politics Politics Socialism The left

The Liberal Legacy or déjà vu all over again

Dave 07The last blog was about how the NDP’s socialist ideology works in practice, rather than in theory. It doesn’t, at least not for young people or for job creating entrepreneurs. But for bureaucrats and the unions, it’s Fat City! This blog is in video at https://youtu.be/oJc3txLOHyU

But what about the Liberals? In my lifetime I’ve lived under mostly Liberal governments, and the one I remember best is Pierre Trudeau’s.

Liberal name tag or not, Pierre Trudeau was a socialist, and a close friend of Marxists like Fidel Castro.  Pierre Trudeau was also an admirer of Communist China, – as is his son – and when he took office in 1968, he put his ideology into high gear claiming that it wouldPET and Castro result in what he called: “The Just Society.”

What we actually got was The Broke Society. Government programs sprouted like weeds, and for the next 25 years, so called “progressive” governments routinely spent more than they took in. Debt became acceptable, even to so-called conservatives.

By 1993, the accumulated deficits, or debt, had reached 420 billion dollars. But of course, we were getting all that free stuff from the government!

But of course, it wasn’t free. Our free stuff was paid for by other taxpayers, and, their free stuff was paid for by us.  But in the middle was the bureaucracy, and the lenders, and they made out like bandits!

Taxpayers were squeezed, and when governments can’t squeeze any more from taxpayers, they borrow, just like Justin Trudeau intends to do.

From 1867 until the debt crises in 1993, our federal debt had grown

to 420 billion dollars. Of that, only 37 billion was borrowed to actually fund government programs.

That means that over 90% of that $420 billion debt had been borrowed just to pay interest on previous borrowing.

We’ve paid over $1 trillion in interest since 1990, and we’re still paying over 3 billion dollars a month! Justin Trudeau wants to borrow money for infrastructure. $1 trillion would look after all of Canada’s infrastructure needs.

Finally, after more debt was incurred – insisted on, incidentally, by the NDP and Liberals – dealing with the worldwide recession that began in 2008, Canada’s back in the black; running surpluses, and the economy is growing.debt-ball-and-chain

Yet Justin intends to borrow again, run deficits, and grow the debt. Is our debt the legacy we want to leave to our children and grandchildren?

Many Canadians have come down with an emotional condition called Harper Derangement Syndrome. Visit some online discussion sites and it’s like reading the script from One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

It’s quite true; Harper’s not warm and fuzzy; he does whatever is necessary to get his legislation passed, and he controls his caucus.

But in the past year, Justin Trudeau has summarily fired all his Liberal Senators, and even blocked qualified Liberal candidates in favour of his handpicked choices.

And he’s actually told Liberals who don’t agree with his position on abortion that: “You can’t be in the Liberal caucus.”  That’s the Trudeau style.

But that’s also irrelevant. Elections shouldn’t be about personalities or style but about experience and proven ability.

Our budget is back in surplus, our economy is growing, and, most importantly, we can reduce the size of the debt that our children will inherit.

How about that for a legacy?

According to the New York Times, – which incidentally is a very liberal newspaper – Canada’s middle class has become the world’s wealthiest.

And opposition and Ottawa Mandarin’s claims to the contrary, the world’s regard for Canada has become so positive that for two of the last six years, Canada’s bee2015-country-reptrakn ranked as the second best place in the world to live.

The other four years – including this one – Canada’s been ranked number one.

How’s that for a legacy?

I know we live in a postmodern society, but on Monday, shouldn’t we vote with our heads, and not our emotions?

If you believe in smaller government and common sense politics, we invite you to join Let’s Do It Ourselves, an online community at ldio.org

I believe you’ll feel very much at home!

As mentioned,this blog is in video at https://youtu.be/oJc3txLOHyU   Tell us what you think!

Categories
Big Government Bureaucracy Canadian Politics Conservatarians Socialism The left

Socialism doesn’t Work.

Dave 07

We’re in the final days of a very important federal election campaign, and we need to get this one right. Maybe it’s because of my age, but I’m convinced it’s usually a good idea to look back, before moving forward.

Thomas Mulcair and the new Democrats certainly make a point of looking back to Saskatchewan’s 17 consecutive balanced budgets under NDP rule.

Unfortunately, independent financial analysts have suggested that those balanced budgets were sometimes produced by fiddling with accounting practices. But that’s not what’s important.

I grew up, and farmed in Saskatchewan during those NDP years, and those balanced budgets – real or not – were a rare bright spot in a chronically depressed, opportunity-lacking economy.

When Meritha and I pulled up stakes and moved our family to Alberta in 1975, we bought a home in a cul-de-sac. There were 10 homes, 6 of them occupied by economic refugees from Saskatchewan.

Comparing the paths the two provinces took tells us why.

At the end of World War II, Alberta elected a pro-business government; Saskatchewan elected an, incentive stifling, anti-business government. And for the next 60 years their economies headed in very different directions.

By 2005, Alberta’s population had more than tripled to 3.2 million, while Saskatchewan’s stagnated at 1 million. Under socialism, there was an exodus of businesses to Alberta, BC, and Ontario, and predictably, for 60 years, Saskatchewan’s sons and daughters followed.

The black humour of the time suggested that for Saskatchewan’s youth, the most appropriate graduation gift was a set of luggage.

Youth with no futureSocialist policy always, sooner or later, results in diminishing opportunity, particularly for young people. In Social Democratic (socialist) Europe, youth unemployment currently ranges from 15 to over 50%.

Of course, the left argues that Alberta had resources, particularly oil. But Saskatchewan obviously had plenty of oil, and it’s now being developed. What it lacked was a business friendly government.

In fact, just a few years before they were turfed from office, the NDP abandoned some of their socialist dogma and lowered business taxes. To their surprise, tax revenue jumped!

But it was too late for the NDP.  Brad Wall’s government took over and lowered taxes even more, and tax revenue soared. After 70 years, Saskatchewan is growing again, but in spite of abundant evidence that lowering taxes raises revenue, Trudeau and Mulcair want to raise them.

Sadly, Canada has another example of socialist folly. For decades Ontario was pro-business, and, Canada’s economic powerhouse. But in 1990, Bob Rae’s NDP took office and started implementing socialist ideology. As could be predicted, many businesses stagnated, or headed for the exit.

Then, when the Liberal party took over, they governed like socialists, and now, almost inconceivably, Ontario has become a have not province.

Economists compare Ontario’s finances to those of bankrupt Greece, and tragically, youth unemployment is approaching European levels.

Until this June, Alberta’s PC party governed like Alberta was their personal playpen and bank. With oil at $100 a barrel, they threw money at every problem, and seemingly, at every crony capitalist friend.

Four months ago the NDP took over but nothing’s changed. Union cronies have simply taken the place of the PCs corporate cronies, and they’re all securely seated on the gravy train.

And the socialists are governing like, well, socialists. Because if you’re a socialist you’ve just gotta do some socialism, so over the next three years they’re raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

We need jobsBut here’s the reality. What they are actually telling Alberta’s youth is that if they can’t find someone willing to train them, and pay them $15 an hour, they can’t enter the workforce. Read that again.

So erosion of the Alberta advantage accelerates, and the exodus back to Saskatchewan will continue.

There are plenty of things to dislike about Stephen Harper, although Harper Derangement Syndrome has become so absurd that in some cases it probably qualifies as a mental illness. I am not joking.

Harper isn’t warm and fuzzy; he does whatever he feels is necessary to get legislation passed, and he tightly controls his troops.

But can you really argue that Justin Trudeau isn’t controlling? For starters, ask the would-be Liberal candidates he forced aside to get his handpicked candidates in place for this election. Or ask any pro-life Liberal.

Thomas Mulcair is warm and fuzzy? Okay; he is quite fuzzy on how he’s going to spend tons more money, and still balance the books.

And I’m old enough to remember both Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau. They were both ruthless and totally opportunistic politicians.

But elections shouldn’t be about personalities, (or even the Niqab.) The bottom line is the economy, and in a world that’s spent the last seven years struggling out of a major recession, Canada has done exceptionally well.

Unlike most other developed nations, our books are back in balance, and the economy is growing.

Canada’s taken a pragmatic approach to the millennia-old problem of climate change; a controversial and still clearly unsettled issue if there ever was one.

(Millennia-old you say? Certainly. Google, Vikings in Greenland. Or Doggerland)

I believe that Canada has taken a rational approach to the Middle East refugee crisis, balancing compassion with prudence.

2015-country-reptrakAnd as for all the hand-wringing about Canada’s place in the world, here’s a reality check. For four of the last six year, Canada’s been ranked number one as the best place to live. The other two years, Canada was ranked second.

Is there another country in the world where citizens would want to terminate that success by changing government?

Categories
Canadian Politics Social Issues

The Politics of the Niqab

Dave 07

It’s hard to believe that a head covering can become an issue in an election campaign, but the Niqab has managed to do it.

Newspapers carry a couple of articles each day, usually opposing the Conservatives in their opposition to wearing the Niqab during the Canadian citizenship ceremony, and it comes up in every party leader’s debate.

Earlier this week, Barbara Kay wrote an excellent National Post article on 10 reasons to ban the Niqab, and I agree with most of them. However I’d like to propose an overriding principle that suggests we should allow the Niqab, and that principle is tolerance.

I wrote a blog last Canada Day called: “Pursuing Tolerance, or why I believe in the Niqab. http://iwuz.me/2015/07/01/pursuing-tolerance-or-why-i-believe-in-the-niqab/ A few months of reflection has made me realize that the second phrase should have read: “or why I’m prepared to put up with the Niqab.” I am quite aware that that stance will still put me offside with the vast majority of Canadians, including a whole lot of Muslims. So be it.

Many people in our society understand tolerance to mean affirmation of an idea or practice, when in fact it simply means putting up with them. As a Canadian, I’m prepared to put up with, or tolerate, many ideas or practices that I find stupid, ill advised, indefensible, obnoxious, or even, intolerant. I view wearing the Niqab and Burqa to be all of the above.

And as such, I believe they are a valuable reminder to all Canadians of the inferiority of Muslim societies to Canadian society. That’s why most Muslims move here.

But that’s not the main reason I support allowing a woman to wear a face covering during the citizenship ceremony, provided, that she is identified, open face, by a court official prior to the ceremony, as is the current practice.

It’s because I too have some beliefs and associations that some would and do find obnoxious, and some actually find intolerable. Here’s just one illustration.

Most of our eight grandchildren have, at one time or another attended a Christian Charter school. I support that, and I also support public education dollars following the students to those schools.

Our children pay provincial education tax, exactly like the family next door. Yet some people – including some politicians – insist that our children must pay education taxes to support the public school system, plus pay the full cost of educating their own children. That’s discrimination built on a foundation of intolerance.

Christian schools approach education from a particular philosophical worldview, but then, all schools do. The schools our grandchildren attended are open to all students of any or no religion, and they adhere to the provincial curriculum. Studies also show that most faith based schools produce at least as well educated and socialized students as regular (secular) schools.

Unfortunately, there are many more glaring examples of intolerance in Canadian society. Think of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s barring – by fiat – all those who do not agree with his pro-abortion stance, from running as Liberal candidates. Canadian universities now routinely bar speakers whose views do not accord with the (usually) left-wing stance of the administration or the student council; and some Canadian law societies feel they have the right to dictate the social values of law schools.

I’m not prepared to spend moral capital by refusing to tolerate the Niqab when there are far more fundamental battles to be fought.

NiqabSo far in Canada, the Niqab has been little more than an eyesore. But I want to be perfectly clear, that the moment that a Niqab or Burqa is used as a disguise in the commission of a major violent crime, or a terrorist act, the game will have changed.

By having tolerated the Niqab for 30 seconds during a citizenship ceremony, Canadian society will have amassed the moral capital to ban it outright should it be found to present a danger to society.

And finally, we don’t need to provide the radical fringe with martyrs. Forcing a tiny minority of Muslim women who choose to wear a religiously unnecessary bag over their heads, to uncover, is a waste of our time.

Let’s tolerate them, but throw our open and strong support behind the vast majority of Muslims who are just patriotic Canadians.

Categories
Alberta Politics Big Government Bureaucracy Canadian Politics Politics Socialism The left US Politics

Socialism Observed I

Dave 07August 29, 2015

When Albertans in Calgary Foothills go to the polls this Thursday, September 3, Alberta will have had four months of NDP, or, socialist government. As Dr. Phil puts it: “How’s that workin for ya?”

** Americans reading this need  to reflect on eight years of economic and diplomatic chaos, and then start to reflect carefully – not emotionally – about the next election.

Since the socialist NDP took over Alberta’s government, corporate / business income tax has gone up by 20%. And they have set about raising the minimum wage by an economically insane, (but ideologically pure) 47%. $15 an hour has apparently become North American socialism’s ideologically correct number.

Now this may be a mystery to Rachel Notley and the NDP, but that money won’t come from the legal structures called “Companies.” A company, or corporation, is nothing more than a legal entity that allows a group of investors to pool their capital in order to finance larger business ventures than they could as individuals.

Taxes and wages ultimately come from someone’s pocket, and since companies don’t have pockets – either literally or figuratively, the money will come from the pockets of people like you: employees, job-seekers, investors, and shareholders.

Some businesses can operate with a certain percentage of entry-level workers. They start them at a low wage; spend money training them; and those with aptitude, and, a good attitude, move up quickly. Or they move on to different types of businesses that can afford to pay more.

But if you’re unskilled and looking for a job, the socialists are busily building a huge barrier between you and employment. Higher taxes and arbitrary minimum wages are always a barrier to employment, but especially for the unskilled. To you, the NDP/socialists are essentially saying: “Stay where you are and continue living on your parent’s benevolence, or welfare.”

Or to make it more personal, what they’re saying to my unskilled grandchildren and your grandchildren, your children, or any unskilled person who is trying to get into the workforce is; “You might be willing to go to work for nothing to start while someone trains you, but we won’t allow it. If you can’t find someone willing to pay you $15 an hour, you can’t work.” This is government gone crazy, yet it’s become socialist dogma.

And it will eventually lead to more automation.It’s already happening.McDonalds-Machines

Yet lower wage employees and the unemployed are the people that socialists claim to want to help. If governments actually want to help low income and unemployed citizens, they simply need to create a tax and regulation environment that will encourage people to form and expand businesses. It’s not complicated, but few politicians get it Or, efficient government may conflict with their own political ideology, or they may be stymied by unionized bureaucrats who fight them every inch of the way, because efficient government certainly conflicts with their interests!

Higher taxes and wages also mean that less money will reach the pockets of those who invested their time and money in the business. In turn they will spend less at other businesses like restaurants and shops. Yet perversely, higher wage and tax costs eventually lead to higher prices, when companies are forced to increase prices to prevent losses. This fuels inflation, and inflation eventually takes money out of everyone’s pocket.

Pension funds of all kinds invest in publicly traded companies, so they will be negatively impacted. Even most union pension funds are invested in public companies, so higher taxes will inevitably end up in less money for everyone, including union members when they retire. Think about that!

So everybody loses? Well, not everybody. Because in fact, unions will benefit. They will insist on maintaining the differential between the minimum wage and their negotiated wage and they will also insist that their wages keep up with inflation.

So, socialist governments jacking up wages and taxes is no surprise when you realize that a socialist government’s core supporters are unions; and socialist governments largely consist of ex-union, or union connected politicians and staffers.

In fact, it’s likely that none of this is really a mystery to Rachel Notley and the NDP. It’s just them being true to their ideology, and “dancing with the ones who brung them.”

But there’s one more long-term danger to implementing higher taxes and jacked up minimum wages. That is, that they send a powerful signal to potential investors that a jurisdiction is no longer business friendly.

I’ve watched it happen over the past 40 years in British Columbia. When the socialists are in power, mining and forestry decline. When they are turfed out, businesses cautiously begin to return.

Saskatchewan’s socialist government sent that negative signal 70 years ago, and then, sadly, Saskatchewan’s families spent the next 60 years watching their sons and daughters move to Alberta, and British Columbia, and Ontario, each of which – at the time – had more business friendly governments.

More recently, under the socialist/NDP government of Bob Rae, and the subsequent socialist/Liberal governments of Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne, Ontario’s once powerful economy has been decimated. Almost unbelievably, Ontario has now joined socialist Manitoba, Québec, and the Maritimes, as an officially “have not province.”

If you have children or grandchildren entering the workforce, think about that!

When the voters of Calgary Foothills go to the polls on September 3, whoever wins is not going to change Alberta’s government for the next four years, but voters do have an opportunity to send a signal.

They basically have three choices.

  1. Vote for the candidate of a party with a long history of entitlement, and, if examined dispassionately, incompetence.
  2. Vote for the candidate of a party ideologically committed to higher taxes, ever-expanding government interference in the marketplace, and, in every other aspect of your personal lives.
  3. Vote for the candidate of a party who – ideologically at least – favours smaller government, lower taxes, market driven wages, and more individual and community self-reliance.

If you are a resident of Calgary Foothills, please think about the issues carefully, courageously and completely. Then be sure to get out and vote!

Categories
Uncategorized

Socialism remembered II

Dave 07I hadn’t planned to do another blog until after the Alberta election, but there’s been such an overwhelming response to SOCIALISM REMEMBERED that I felt that I needed to make a couple of comments today.

First of all, a profound thank you to all of those who forwarded the links to this blog by email, and on Facebook, and Twitter. Our purpose of course is to stimulate thinking and conversation, and it succeeded.

We have a separate website at www.ldio.org which is the beta version for an online community called Let’s Do It Ourselves, or LDIO™. For those who are from Alberta, or Western Canada, it’s purpose will be to promote exactly what happened in High River and Calgary immediately after the flood of 2013, and before the government got involved. People came together by the tens of thousands and did it themselves. The government showed up to help and we know how well that worked out.

We hope to be ready for a roll-out of the new look and new videos by late May. In the meantime you can JOIN LDIO™ on the website, and it would be a tremendous help to us. http://www.ldio.org/join-ldio/

We’re getting a lot of feedback on this blog; most positive, but some negative. We are accused of ignoring the damage that some so-called conservative governments have done to provincial, state, and federal economies. Point taken.

But I would suggest the reason they failed is that, first of all, all governments are run by human beings, and they are all subject to letting greed and arrogance and pride get in the way of principles. But on the economic front, so-called conservative governments fail when they go whoring after votes. They all do it, because the only way they can have influence is to get elected, or re-elected. The competition in an election often boils down to making promises rather than promoting sound ideas.

It has also been suggested that I didn’t make the case to get rid of the PC’s strongly enough. That wasn’t the focus of the piece, but I did say that Alberta doesn’t need another four years of unremitting scandal. I am interested in sound principles, and in this present election I think that on every metric, Brian Jean is the best leader available.

But my belief is that a minority Wildrose or NDP government would be best at this time. The one thing that they would agree on is that priority one is to “clean out the corrals.” After 44 years of PC cronyism, that task will keep them busy for at least a year or two, and then we can have another election.

But an NDP majority would be a catastrophe.

However, the long-term solution lies with us; we must work nonstop at changing the entitlement culture between elections. For the older crowd that still reads, it can be done with blogs. For the younger set, the concepts must be transmitted via short, engaging videos delivered on smart phones and tablets.

Videos and social media are incredibly efficient ways to transmit ideas. On present trajectory, this blog, Socialism Revisited, will approach 100,000 views in three days, and we didn’t spend one penny for printing or postage.

Once again, you can support our LDIO™ community project at www.ldio.org. An email link is on the website.

And if anyone can help us with responding to emails and updating mailing lists, please let me know. It can all be done online. Several very solid references will be required.

Thank you all!

Dave Reesor

Categories
Alberta Politics Canadian Politics Politics

Trying to fix health care is stupid??

Dave 07

A few days ago I wrote a blog criticizing the Calgary Herald’s unbalanced coverage of the party leaders in the Alberta election; particularly the fact that the Herald apparently believed the Wildrose had pretty much dropped out of the race. Six or eight of you sent me a note saying you had contacted the Herald, and several of you apparently threatened to cancel your subscriptions.

The change was immediate. The Herald has since done several spreads on the Wildrose, complete with location photos. (This speaks volumes about the effectiveness of working together to bring about change.)

But the editorial page is a separate department of the paper, and yesterday’s editorial was a complete hack job on the Wildrose. It’s not signed so I can’t be sure, but It appears to have been written by Naomi Lakritz. I’ve had many back-and-forth’s with Naomi on the subject of healthcare, and she is adamantly opposed to any hint of choice in healthcare delivery, even when it means patients waiting in months long lineups to get their hips replaced or their arteries bypassed.

The Wildrose has said that if we can’t get these procedures in a timely manner, we will be allowed to have the procedure done at a local private clinic, or alternatively, seek help elsewhere, and Alberta Health Services will pay what it would cost to have it done at a government owned hospital in Alberta. PC Health Minister Stephen Mandel predictably called the Wildrose plan stupid, and the Herald editorial concurred.

The editorial claims that the Wildrose plan will only work for the rich because the cost of travel, room and board during recovery etc., etc., will be beyond the reach of low income people. The editorial ignored the fact that if a hip replacement is done in a local private clinic, there is no extra cost for room and board, or travel.

In the 20 years since Ralph Klein undertook a complete overhaul of the health care system, what have the PCs done to improve delivery? Whatever they’ve tried, it must have been stupid because lineups are just as long as ever. What is their smart plan to get it done now? If they were to put forward a believable plan, why would Albertans have any reason to believe they would know how to implement it?

The Wildrose plan points out that it doesn’t cost any more to do a hip operation within a month of diagnosis than it does to do it six or eight months later. This is stupid? I would go further and say it costs much less to do it more quickly because you have fewer visits to the doctor; and the patient endures less suffering. I know this from personal experience because of what my mother went through with a hip operation. Fewer visits to the doctor would mean less cost to the system and less suffering. This is stupid?

I don’t think the Wildrose plan is meant to be permanent, but surely it is not stupid to initiate a conversation that might lead to a genuine fix of our healthcare system. Because most industrialized countries around the world – even those that are avowedly Socialist –  have rationalized healthcare by introducing competition into its delivery.

The largest hospital in Malmo Sweden, the country’s second largest city, is privately owned. But if you suggest that privately operated hospitals might be something for Canada to consider, the Friends of Medicare, and left-wing fundamentalists like Naomi Lakritz light their hair on fire and hyperventilate about our imminent descent into a US style healthcare system. The horror! Truth be told, I’d  be horrified by us adopting US style healthcare, but how about adapting the best from Sweden and Finland and England and Germany and Singapore and Australia and New Zealand and the 25 or so other developed countries whose healthcare systems rank ahead of Canada and the United States?

Considering that our system and the American system are ranked second last and dead last  in the developed world, the left’s opposition to any idea that will move the discussion forward seems to be based purely on ideology rather than a desire to actually improve the situation for the suffering.

And that to me seems cynically cruel, or maybe even stupid?

.

Categories
Bureaucracy Politics US Politics

WANT CHANGE? LET’S DO IT OURSELVES!

IWUZ reading my last blog which I suppose is quite narcissistic. It’s just that I’m going to be 70 next birthday, and I don’t want to start repeating myself. But, (to repeat myself), here’s what I said at the end of my last blog.

“So, if in fact what America does need, is someone who understands that a change in direction is critical; and someone who might actually have the know-how to accomplish it; then, on November 6 American voters could not have a clearer choice.”

Now, in spite of an outcome promising more of the change that 48% of Americans don’t believe in, (nor do I); I’m thinking that maybe it’s for the best.

Simply changing the occupant of the White House is a bit like installing new tires on a badly damaged car. Unless you intend to rebuild the whole thing it’s a pointless expense. That’s the message of the “six billion dollar blizzard of BS” election campaign; “No significant change from Washington.”

I think it’s pretty clear that forcing a movement towards smaller government must come directly from individuals and families; communities and businesses; who can say to all politicians, with one voice; “Stop! We will not mortgage our children’s and grandchildren’s futures any further”. But how do you get the voices together?

For the past year I have been working on a project called “The Let’s Do It Ourselves Movement”; (LDIO™.org). LDIO™ will be dedicated to encouraging and celebrating stories of self-reliance as practiced by individuals, families, and communities.

LDIO™ will also spotlight, and call to account; politicians who create laws and bureaucracies that run roughshod over the rights, aspirations, and bank accounts of ordinary citizens. Our objective is to provide a platform from which the encroachment of the nanny-state can be halted, and reversed.

With the vast array of communication tools now available; we can educate, encourage, and empower those who already believe that a rollback in the size of government is overdue. We can also inspire others to join us who may be apathetic, or just discouraged.

We used to just assume individual and community self-reliance; our ancestors certainly did. They accomplished important tasks by working together – with no government advice or financial assistance required! Millions still aspire to do the same; and we want to nurture and assist them, and celebrate their accomplishments.  

Einstein said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Our definition of insanity is: Complain- but do nothing, and hope for change.

We have our web designers working on Phase 1 of the website, www.ldio.org and we are currently aiming for a January roll-out  More details coming in the next blogs.

Let’s go back for our future!

Dave   

There is some interesting post-election analysis in this New York Times piece by Ross Douthat. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/opinion/sunday/douthat-The-Liberal-Gloat.html?_r=0