Starve'em that'll Learn'em

Last week I sat in disbelief when I read in the Calgary Herald that our Minister of Education addressed the Calgary Chamber of Commerce and suggested to one of the largest business owners groups in Canada to shun high schooldrop-outs.

Dave Hancock suggested that the best way to motivate high school drop-outs to return to school is to just not hire them. He suggests that business owners can help Alberta lower its drop-out rate. “You can help by refusing to hire anyone without a high-school diploma,” said Hancock.
Punish the drop-out, that will teach them! Starve them out! If you have a drop-out working for you tell them to quit and get an education! If your son or daughter dropped out, whether it was recent or even a decade ago, put them on the unemployment line and make them think!

Is this the thinking that our former Attorney General, the ‘peoples attorney’ has? If it is I would suggest that his leather chair in his government office is too soft, and his vision is blurred by heavy cigar smoke. Does he not realize that in Alberta’s recent economic boom that the workforce has been shorthanded? In the past few years some small businesses have either shut down because they can’t hire help, or worse, the long-term employees are breaking their backs doing the work of two people. Not hiring the people who really need a job is not good advice for the Alberta economy.

I was expecting to read responses from journalists all over the province challenging Hancock for his gross short-sightedness. But the issue only got cursory coverage at best. Apparently high school drop-outs have no advocates.

What Hancock may not be aware of is that people drop-out of school for more reasons that just peer pressure or laziness. People have historically been forced from school due to family crisis such as the death of the bread winner, unplanned pregnancy, nervous breakdowns to name only a few.

Hancock’s speech only identified the reasons for a drop-out as greed. He suggests that they are tempted by our oil boom, citing that people are leaving school because they only want the big bucks that Alberta’s Oil Boom will bring. He suggests that after the money fervour is over with the high school drop-out is somehow unworthy of future employment.

I am not advocating people to not finish high school, quite the contrary, but those that have left school find themselves really needing jobs. There are those people, who after experiencing 5 years of reality suddenly find life harder than those who went onto a college or university. As a matter of fact, in Alberta, someone with only a high school diploma is treated much like someone who left school at grade 10.

I would think that a man like Hancock who formally had the position of ‘grand public defender‘, and now has the education interests of our Albertans as a portfolio would come up with a better piece of advice.

His reason for suggesting the shunning was that Alberta has the lowest high-school completion rate in all of Canada. Yet, Statistics Canada reports that Alberta’s drop-out rate has decreased from 15.8% reported in 1993 to 12% reported in 2005, with a national average of 10%. This is a similar trend experienced by all provinces.

Shunning is not what our provincial government should be suggesting. We live in the richest province with the greatest potential. What is needed is dynamic problem solving that would see funding and effort go into retraining programs for adult students. Give business owners incentives to hire those who need the jobs and at the same time motivate those businesses to be flexible with their employees when dealing with workers that are upgrading their educations. What is needed is for Albertans to work together and lift each other up, not tear each other down as is suggested by Hancock.

Do yourself a favour. Hire the person who needs the job. They are the ones that work hard and give you company loyalty. They can also be the type who will not be looking over the fence at every opportunity.

Geez… Edith, stop encouraging Meathead

Everybody sing! 1, and a 2 and a 3..."Boy the way Glen Miller played, songs that made the hit parade, guys like us we had it made, those were the days, and you know where you were then, girls were girls and men were men, mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again, didn't need no welfare states, everybody pulled his weight, gee our old Lasalle ran great, Those... were... the... days!"

Did you hear it? Just like “All In The Family” those days have come back. No kidding! CBC has scheduled a Canadian version of the 70’s era show “All in The Family”. The pilot episode will air two evenings. It starts October 1st with the second part on October 2nd. Don’t miss it!
Yes, Archie Bunker, Michael Stivic ‘Meathead’, Gloria Bunker the ‘the Little Girl ‘and Edith Bunker the ‘dingbat’ will all be there. My inside sources tell me that they have been casting that show for nearly three years and have made the selection. The role of Gloria was up-in-the-air because they had a tiff among the cast members whether she should be included. But the arguments from Meathead and a change of heart from ‘the dingbat’ made Archie concede. I am so excited!!

If you remember All in the Family, it was amazing. It was shameless in its political incorrectness. Archie was the power broker of the household. He would come up with some family policy, call a meeting in the living room in front of the TV, and tell everyone where the ‘bears#$% in the buckwheat’ is. We would watch as Gloria, ‘da little goil’ burst in emotions flailing her arms, Meathead seeing an opportunity to berate Archie echoes her sentiment. Archie would tell Gloria to shut up and Meathead would yell at Archie citing freedom of speech under the protection of democracy. “It’s a free country Arch.., you know that!” Sitting in the corner is a confused ‘dingbat’ one hand at her lips, top two teeth exposed with a deer-in-the-headlight look saying, “Who’s going to clean up this mess?”

Yep, they are back, and I will not miss an episode. I love Canada!

Can you see it?
The leadership debate will air Oct. 1st, Stephan Harper is cast as Archie, Michael Stivic is played by Stephane Dion, Gloria Bunker is amply played by Elizabeth May and of course in the corner is Edith Bunker brilliantly played by Jack Layton. What a family it is!

The events of last week was as embarrassing and funny for Canadians as Archie’s family was for Americans. The Conservatives didn’t want May in the debate, because they would marry up with the Liberals only to gang up on Harper. Always holding the balance of power and not knowing what to do with it was Layton supporting May’s exclusion from the debate. The feathers ruffled, and arguments ensued. Edith’s eyes glaze over and after an emotional plea, she sides with meathead and ‘the little girl’.

But rightfully so, the Greens, being a recognized federal party had a right to have their leader participate. All Canadians, whether they like the narrow focus of the Greens or not, knew that it was wrong not to have her there. But the fact that such drama had to occur at the planning stage for CBC is embarrassing to Canadians. The whole thing played out on TV, Radio, and newsprint for all to see. What is going on? What happened to fair play? Why are the people that we hold out as being worthy of our representation acting like a sitcom?

But when it comes to the actual debate it will be a must-see. The concerns of the conservatives and the initial position of the NDP relating to May, I believe, will come true. Anyone that has ever witnessed May speak, knows that she is extremely passionate about the environment to the point that she tends to get emotional. Her emotions can be detrimental to the Greens because she says things that will hurt those candidates running throughout the country. On CHED radio this week they played a sound byte of May referring to Canadians as ‘stupid’. This response was to a question on why there was so little political will for a carbon tax. What is not clear is if she was referring to other politicians thinking Canadians were stupid. There has been some allegations that the sound byte may have been tampered with, but even so, emotions tend to make her use words that can be taken out of context, and as a result, peppers her participation in a debate. We should be all looking forward to interesting moments on CBC.

It will be interesting to see if Harper can deal with three opponents challenging him on his enviromental policies, because with May in the mix, I suspect that the climate of the debate may get off track from time to time. (pun intended)

In any light, the federal election is getting up to speed and by the time the debate is on we will be in full swing. In the end, it really does not matter who wins the debate as long as Archie Bunker goes on to his spin-off. See you all in “Archie Bunker’s Place.”

Hey Steve... Wazzup?

Two weary travelers en route to a dinner engagement walk along a path, seeing a turd before them stop to examine it. After a careful investigation which included verification of its appearance, texture and aroma they satisfy themselves that it is indeed a turd and replace it exactly were it lay, and continue their journey. Thus is a parody of our expectations in the Canadian political landscape.

So I ask, Mr. Harper… Wazzup?
Don’t get me wrong when it comes to my feelings regarding the Federal Conservatives and Mr. Harper I really believe the man has stepped up to the plate. He has made good on promises and has carried himself well before the liberal bias press and the people. He has stood the ground when harangued by the opposition and the nay sayers. In essence until last week I have been proud of Mr. Harper.

With every person that we put on a pedestal the bubble must burst. Bill C-16 which was introduced by Harper, received Royal Assent in May of 2007 putting into place a fixed election date which was intended to prevent a ruling party from manipulating the election process. Did Harper violate this new law?

Bill C-16 as passed, legislates that Canada will have elections every four years and that the people will go to the polls on the second Monday in October of the fourth year. This in essence set the next scheduled election for October of 2009.

It will prevent elections from being called later, like the situations of the past where the ruling party could hold power to five years at a time or even longer. It ensures that we the people can toss out our government every four years. However, it does not prevent the government from calling an early election which is what took place this week. Canada is going to the polls, with under three years of running this country under Mr. Harpers belt. How did he do it?
Well, Bill C-16 provides for the non-elected Governor General the ability to dissolve the government for such things as non-confidence and of course at the request of the Prime Minister which is what actually happened. On Sunday Mr. Harper convinced the Governor General to dissolve the government. Ok, so Bill C-16 is a ‘Fixed Flexible Set Election Date’ law.
We pick it up, check it’s texture, give it a sniff and put it right back into its place. It is what it is.....

Did Mr Harper break the law? No.

Did he do something illegal? No.

Was it the right thing to do? That depends on which side of the fence you are on. But my feeling is no, it wasn’t the right thing to do. Just because an act is legal does not necessarily make it right. The very law that was to be part of the accountability package still did not prevent the ruling party from calling an election to the benefit of that very party. The opposition from the NDP, Liberals and Greens rightfully hollered .. Nay.. Nay!

I, a right wing quasi-redneck born-in conservative voter has to call it as I see it. As much as it hurts me….. “Harper, your off-side!” By all appearance and by all polls, Stephan was getting the confidence of the people. He was making strides in the east, and for the first time since the MulroneyCampbell debacle we have a ‘right winger’ in the office that the people can trust.
Trust is the only thing a leader has when it comes to preventing the grumblings of the people. It is the very thing that makes or breaks political divisions. Trust is the characteristic in human beings that either keeps the peace or the lack of, fires the first volley! Stephan, you have our trust, stop @#$%^&* with it!!

What the federal conservatives did was not so grievous that they cannot get the votes to win the next election. Take a look at what we have to choose from. Each party has its good points and by opinion it’s bad points. So if you are able to vote for the party alone, what the leader of the party does rarely causes a voter to change their colours. But in the case of the swing votes, they are usually based on the popularity factor.

To choose from we have the Liberals lead by Step-on (here comes the green shaft) Dion, the NDP is lead by Jack (just talk to the terrorists) Layton, and the Green Party, Elizabeth (include me in the debate) May. As odd a bed fellows as those four are, and I include Harper in the count, they appear to be a good mix for conducting our business. But what Harper did by calling this early election, thus painting himself with the same brush he painted the Liberals with, is give a foothold to his opposition whether official or otherwise.

So on October 14th when I go to the polls as disappointed as I am, my political colour will not change. But as the many who feel the same way I do, I believe the chink in Harper’s armour, will change the political landscape on October 15th.

And to all the candidates hoping to represent us here locally, I wish them good luck and God speed!

Throw the Bush down the well.

The scene is simple. Clutching the podium with both hands the ‘Dis-cid`er’, as in one who decides, addresses the world on CNN and tells Russia – ‘git out of Georgia!’. ‘We don’t want yur kind here’… "Psst.. George, it’s Georgia, not Georgia," chides his Press Secretary.. "Oh yeah, we’ll get out and respect the freedom of yur neighbors" Bush gives his double neck thrust, you know the ‘I have spoken nod’ and stages left.

‘Throw the bush down the well…..so our country can be free’ should be the new South Ossetia Anthem. As reported in the media, the headlines read, "Bush tells Russia to get out." At first my eyes crossed in disbelief at the sheer hypocrisy.

The masher of Baghdad is giving ethical advise to their old Cold War adversaries, Russia.
But let us not forget that the Russia of today is not the Soviet of yesterday, and the conflict that prompted Russia to enter South Ossetia was first sparked when Georgia attacked, resulting in Russia’s intervention. Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili, invaded, knowing full well that
South Ossetia would resist and knowing that his forces would have to take on Russian peacekeepers already installed.

South Ossetia was once formally the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast with the Georgian
Soviet Socialist Republic, which broke away in the 1990’s after the fall of the Soviet Union. It declared independence from Georgia during the Georgian-Ossetian conflict.

Unfortunately the United Nations have never recognized its independence from Georgia,
which is why the Russian peacekeepers were installed there in order to force South Ossetia
autonomy which they clearly desire.

So why is Bush siding with Georgia? Politics make funny bedfellows. Mikheil Saakashvili is a good politician, a master manipulator.

Gifted in English, French, Russian and Ukrainian, with some command of Ossetian and Spanish, he is a man of international influence. He was born in the former Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1967, he received a fellowship from the United States State Department in 1993, and a Masters of Law from Columbia Law School in 1994. The following year he took classes at The George Washington University Law School. Then in 1995 he returned to Georgia and ran for public office and won a seat in the parliament as a party member of the Union of Citizens of Georgia. By 2001, he would resign from his position in government, declaring his former colleagues corrupt, and formed the United National Movement, a left of center political party similar to the Social Democrats in Europe. By 2004, he was elected President by 96% of the votes cast.

Since his election, he has sought to be a strong ally with the US by supporting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, with troops. Further, he is actively seeking membership in NATO and the European Union. He has also made movement in reducing former corruption in Georgia and is seen as a social reformer, which is greatly applauded by the US. However, in a speech in January of 2004, two weeks after taking power, he directed his Justice Minister "to use force when dealing with any attempt to stage prison riots, and to open fire, shoot to kill and destroy any criminal who attempts to cause turmoil. We will not spare bullets against these people."

But the man who is known as the youngest national president in Europe, a social reformer with a public distain for old corruption, is quick to pull the trigger when it comes to foreign policy. Before Georgia attacked South Ossentia, U.S. officials warned Saakashvili not to provoke Russian militarily by sending Georgian troops into South Ossetia. Further, the U.S. and Russia have been involved in a struggle for influence in Eastern Europe, which at first glance calls into question the
motivation of the U.S. support of Georgia.

These two positions seem to be in opposition with each other since Georgia’s military entry into South Ossentia was motivated by Georgia’s desire to completely control both North and South Ossetia. If successful, U.S. allies would have gained a greater influence of Eastern Europe through the acquisition of territory.

But when is comes to the foreign policy of our neighbours to the south, we have seen them fulfill their intention through military action. They have publicly bragged that their intelligence community is active in the manipulation of political and social structures of other countries.

These actions usually precede escalated policy implementation. We saw this during the Iraq war and suspected it in the Vietnam Conflict, Mogadishu and other miltary actions. So what is the U.S. supporting Georgia in this conflict?

George Bush has publicly opposed a new US friend by requesting Russia’s removal from the G8 and has publicly ordered all Russia’s troops out of South Ossetia. He has chosen a relationship with Georgia over what can been seen as a more internationally stable relationship with Russia. In doing so, Bush has sought international support for the man, Mikheil Saakashvili. This moves seems fool hardy and maybe even dangerous. One must ask, what does Mikheil Saakashvili have
that Vladimir Putin doesn't?

Answer: American education and American grooming.