Mr. Harper is in heady company.

January 27th, 2012 by plowry

It must be the rarefied atmosphere in Davos, so high in the Swiss Alps. It could also be the company of so many of the world’s leaders, political, industrial and academe. With his toupee firmly in place, our Prime Minister is ready to read the riot act to the World Economic Forum. He gently chides the world leaders for their economic bungling.  He tells them that in Canada, we know just what to do. Canada can penalize those who cannot fight back.

Why Mr. Harper chose such a remote forum in which to announce that he would take more money from impoverished seniors, was not clear. He was certainly safe from having enraged Canadian seniors rising up and rendering him into a crushed mass on the floor of that august stage. Not many Canadian seniors can afford the lift fees at Davos at its peak season.

But if you think Canadians back home are puzzled at Mr. Harper’s choice of topics for these world leaders, the world leaders are equally puzzled by him. He has no message of interest to them. He barely gets polite applause.

The Prime Minister and his staff seem to have no clear understanding of what the World Economic Forum in Davos is about. That breaks a cardinal rule for people giving speeches and their writers: you have to know your audience. These people have not come to hear the old conservative economic bromides. They are here to be challenged, to hear new ideas, to see if there are solutions.  They are deeply concerned about the world economic situation and have no interest in the same old conservative ideology.

The Davos participants must be shocked by the threat from Mr. Harper to force through the pipeline to Canada’s British Columbia coast from Alberta.  This twinned pipeline is to take oil-sands crude to ocean tankers for shipment to the Far East.  To threaten to ram this pipeline through the Rockies and native lands to the coast, without proper consideration or precautions, comes as a shock to any caring person.

Mr. Harper needs to look out the window of his Davos hotel suite.  He needs to see the majestic beauty of the  Alps, the challenging ski runs on the Junkerboden and the fact there is a world out there where people care about people, not ideology.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  peter@lowry.me

Posted in Federal Politics, New, World Politics | Comments Off

Can America restore its greatness?

January 26th, 2012 by plowry

Watching American President Barack Obama deliver the State of Union address the other day, we could not help but relate some of the early part of the speech to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  FDR was already President of the United States when we were born.  He, more than any other American, was the leader who brought America to greatness in the world. We can only reflect today on how that greatness has been trampled.

Roosevelt said it as far back as May 1932 when addressing a commencement at Oglethorpe University.  Three years before, the greed of Wall Street had taken the nation’s economy into a tail spin and FDR said: We need to correct, by drastic means if necessary, the faults in our economic system from which we now suffer.

FDR was working to correct those faults when interrupted by World War II.  He had to set that work aside to provide the leadership to help win that war.  In the process, he made an imperfect America the strongest nation on earth.

Addressing much the same issues as FDR, Obama laid out a smorgasbord of ideas for Congress the other evening.  He talked about his nation’s military might, America’s ability to solve problems, the need for ideas not ideology and the need for people to work to common goals. Yet you looked at the faces of the Republicans that the cameras scanned throughout the chamber and the feeling of depression grew.

America is a nation that has forgotten humility. It has become a nation without compassion. It is a nation that commits aggression of raw, brutal economic power. It believes it owns the world and lets business abuse it. It stands proud against the evil empire of communism but fails to win in the rice paddies of Vietnam. It treats the Middle East countries as pawns while building their hatreds. America fails as a peacekeeper because it threatens war.

You can only admire the effort that Barack Obama is putting into restoring some of that greatness, restoring the ideal that can be America.  For, in many ways, America has been built on ideals.  In the land of the free, the ‘Occupy’ movement rose against the top one per cent of Americans who controlled 40 per cent of the nation’s income last year. This is a land of spacious skies where people fly on wings of paranoia.  Where people wrap themselves in a brave flag and go to a tea party for the lunatic fringe.

Regrettably, Barack Obama is no black Franklin Roosevelt.  The world has gone through too much since FDR addressed the issues.  Now it is President Obama’s turn.  We can only hope he wins.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  peter@lowry.me

Posted in American Politics, New | Comments Off

Babel’s MP sends urgent news to the cognitive.

January 25th, 2012 by plowry

While working on a story concerning President Obama’s State of the Union address, we had urgent communication from Babel’s Member of Parliament.  It seems that the young gentleman has claimed the honour of being among one of the first parliamentarians to have cross-platform (software that works on different devices with different operating systems) instant communication with his constituents and twits who follow him. Not content with just Facebook and Twitter and similar social media, Babel’s MP can now instantly harass his faithful and, maybe, respond to their pleas for assistance.

If you are not too sure just how something like this can work on both Apple and Rim products at the same time, it is best you have a smart 12-year old explain it.

The information on the breakthrough was not communicated via our iPod but through the pages of the Babel Backward.  This is the twice-weekly grocery ad wrap published in Babel by an offshoot of the Toronto Star.  The golly-gee-whiz story featured a nicely contrasted black and white photograph of the Babel MP’s special assistant.  (This might be because the MP is somewhere else. It also might be because the special assistant is better looking, speaks more eloquently and is probably smarter than the MP.)

As exciting as this information might be, it is not complete.  The reporter forgot to ask some quite critical questions.  Or, maybe she asked them and forgot to include them in her story.  Excited fans of the Babel MP deserve to know where they can also buy this remarkable bit of software for their own followers. And where can they get someone to do the layout of the application with appropriate pictures and logos. Considering that it needs to work on two different operating systems, it probably involves at least eight lines of well-written code.

The reporter thoughtfully included some of the advertising copy supplied by the special assistant.  This included information such as the number of followers the MP has on Twitter: 2803 and ‘friends’ on Facebook: 4944—some of whom live in Babel.

But to make up for possible limitations in her article, the reporter closes on the promotional line: Pass on the news about how Patrick is making a difference in Ottawa. We would, if we could just stop laughing at the idea.

The important difference will be when he stops spending so much of our taxes on self-promotion.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  peter@lowry.me

Posted in Federal Politics, New | Comments Off

Liberal Party is not about who leads but where.

January 24th, 2012 by plowry

In discussing the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, it is easy to name contenders but the more complex question is to determine where the party and its leader want to go.  The one thing the recent biennial conference proved is that the party is searching for that direction.  Silly resolutions about the monarchy and marijuana are hardly the stuff of resolving direction.

The questions that the party needs to address will hardly be conceived at a policy convention.  Directions require slow and careful development.  These questions need to be tested, vetted and developed before being brought forward for party debate and decisions.  They are questions that will define the party for many years to come. They are questions that will cause Liberal Party members to re-evaluate their beliefs.  They are questions about the future of our country that Canadians have to consider.

The first need is to redefine liberalism for Canadians.  The ongoing myth within the party of “The Big Red Tent” is foolishness. It is defeatist. If liberalism represents the rights of the individual in our society, we have to believe in it.  If we believe in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have to stand firm against the collective chains of socialism and the stifling oppression of conservatism. We have to recognize that the ultimate freedom of the individual can only be achieved under the aegis of a liberal and social democratic type governance.

Canada’s New Democratic Party has no lock on the left nor does the union-dominated party have any right to claim social democratic status.  That was the positioning of the NDP in the 2011 election that enabled the party to win big in Quebec. It is a position that belongs to the Liberal Party of Canada and the true Quebec Liberals need to claim their right to the position.

The Liberal Party of Canada has to show its colors. It has to be proud of what it represents. It has to show what a truly liberal government can do for Canadians. It has to be a government that cares about national standards for Medicare and can expand Medicare services across Canada as Canadians can afford it. It has to have a national strategy to increase opportunities for education. It has to have rules that bring corporations, foreign-owned or domestic, to act as good corporate citizens. Employer or employee, there has to be equality under the law.

Liberalism is a cause that fights for the rights of the individual in our society. Could we ask for more than that?

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  peter@lowry.me

Posted in Federal Politics, New | Comments Off

Mr. Harper’s agenda.

January 23rd, 2012 by plowry

We could be so wrong about Stephen Harper. He might not be the devil incarnate.  He could be just a sweet, lovable family guy with a toupee who likes to take his little boy to his hockey games. And, if we let him, he will forever change the nature of our country.  It will be a Canada we might not like.

People worry about his conservative social agenda but that is, hopefully, not the problem.  He has clearly indicated that he wants to stay out of arguments about capital punishment, abortion, same sex marriage and other social issues.  They are not his thing.  He panders to the religious right because he needs their votes but knows that bringing up social concerns will just inflame passions on both sides of the issues.  And when have you seen him passionate about anything?

Stephen Harper is an economic conservative.  He has more empathy with the Libertarians in his party than with the social extremists. He believes in a government reduced in size, restrained from interfering with business, puts property rights ahead of human rights, the rich ahead of the poor and would rather incarcerate malefactors than reform them.

While our Prime Minister basks in the approbation of the G20 countries, he is turning the world against Canada where his foreign affairs approach is bruising our reputation for fairness and for peace keeping.  He reflects the American right-wing’s distain for the United Nations and, to please the religious extremists, denies third-world countries birth-control assistance and the support they need against AIDS.

His most invidious act to-date has been the denial of the taxpayer support for Canadian political parties.  This funding was established by the Chrétien government to try to bring some balance to the political scene and end corruption. By closing this avenue of support, Harper is trying to silence his opponents’ ability to respond to his attack advertising.

He would prefer the American situation where the Republican Congress has opened the doors wide to corporations to fund the politicians and third parties that do what they want.  The political corruption in America has created a sharply divided and vicious political climate that sets no limits on the extremists.  The American Tea Party, for example, is a Looney Tunes faction that feeds on hatred and we will hear more from them in the current American political quagmire.

Harper is so dishonest that he claims those nasty foreign environmentalists are trying to stop Canadian tar-sands oil from reaching the west coast from where the crude oil can be shipped to China.  At the same time, he ignores all the native bands, fighting desperately to stop the pipeline from potentially destroying their traditional lands.

This man does not care for people.  He proves that every day.  He does not care what Canadians think.  He is an ideologue. And that is the devil of it.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  peter@lowry.me

Posted in Federal Politics, New | Comments Off

Has the Liberal leadership race started?

January 22nd, 2012 by plowry

The news media is panicking.  They are concerned that the Liberal Party of Canada has no contenders for its upcoming leadership convention scheduled for sometime in 2013.  They figure Bob Rae is the logical winner because he is the interim leader. When Rae took on the interim leadership, he promised to not run at the upcoming convention. Do they think the Liberal Party would want someone who did not keep his word?

There is no question but Bob Rae is doing a good job as interim leader.  He is keeping the caucus focused, he is speaking out effectively for the Liberal Party and he has kept the party in a position of de facto opposition while the official NDP opposition fights its own leadership contest.  He has impressed a lot of people with his skill at the interim job.

But that is all it can be. There is a solid core within the Liberal Party who would never accept him as full-time leader.  It is not just the fact that he was NDP Premier in Ontario in the 1990s but he showed a serious lack of political sensitivity back then and it is not something that people can really learn. You have got it or you have not got it.  Bob, nice guy that he is, has not got it. He makes a great interim leader.  That is as good as he gets.

Bob Rae sees himself as a career politician. And he is. In that regard, he is very much like Bob Nixon, Leader of the Ontario Liberals back in the 1960s and 1970s. Bob Nixon was Treasurer in the Peterson Government in the 1980s. He brought the same love of the political scene to his work for the party as Bob Rae. The difference is that Bob Nixon is probably the best Premier of Ontario that we almost had.

When the media think that Bob Rae has some kind of a lock on the Liberal Party leadership, they just show how little they know about the party. Do they really think that Martha Hall Findlay is out for the count? She is one of the smartest and most determined women in Canadian politics and if she ever gets the kind of political management of her campaign that she needs, she could be almost unbeatable for the leadership.

If the media people have never heard of MP Dominic LeBlanc from New Brunswick, their research on up and coming Liberal leadership prospects is sadly lacking.  LeBlanc needs to spread his wings and get out and meet his party more often but he carries large credentials and four winning elections in his party pack.

And we have not even considered MP Justin Trudeau, who is wisely holding himself off from being a contender.  A lot can happen in the next year and many Liberals are waiting for him to answer the call.

We could keep going and come up with five or six good potential candidates.  The leadership of this party is no small prize.  It is a party Bob Rae is helping to rebuild and he will earn our approval for that—just not the leadership.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  peter@lowry.me

Tags: , ,
Posted in Federal Politics, New | Comments Off

Who do you trust?

January 21st, 2012 by plowry

There seems to be a universal inability to trust these days.  We have come a long way from the politics of trust.  We can forget the former grandfatherly images of the sage politicians who would look after our interest. Today we look at politicians as no-holds-barred fighters in a cage.  Politics has become a survival of the fittest contest as the savaged and bleeding winner earns the title by being the last person standing.

As usual it is American politics that leads the way.  Who is Mitt Romney and why is he ordained to lead anyone, anywhere?  And why is President Obama so relaxed and laughing while it is the Republican’s turn in the cage? Is Newt Gingrich that funny? And did Rick Santorum (who?) really win in Idaho?  And does it matter? Can the Tea Party recover in time to win South Carolina and save the nation from Romney?

Stay tuned folks.

The question is not who is going to win, but why. The United States of America is practicing the politics of hate and if you hate, you no longer trust. And that is the growing concern of political observers across North America.

In Canada we are already reaping the fruits of Conservative hatreds.  The formerly docile pet poodles of Stephen Harper’s Conservative caucus are growing fangs and demanding the raw meat of vengeance on their left-wing opponents.  Harper is still looking at the long-haul strategy and is trying to keep them penned.

But enough of their hatred for the liberal left spills through to keep the tensions high.

In Ontario, Premier McGuinty is about to exact his revenge on the electorate for reducing his caucus to a minority government.  When he plotted this, he must have thought he was going to lose.  He hired a banker, Don Drummond, to plan his revenge.  The not very secret Drummond report is soon to be released. The fact that McGuinty is still there to present it presents him with a conundrum. This is not chicken soup he is bringing to the electorate. It is a political expectorant. In bringing up the worst of the detritus of government, he is likely to have coughed himself right out of office.

Meanwhile, back in the United States of Hysteria, the Republicans continue to savage each other to prove who is the most pure, the most religious, the most hate filled—and who can defeat that abominable Obama.  The election is in November.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  peter@lowry.me

Posted in American Politics, Federal Politics, New, Provincial Politics | Comments Off

Why we write what we want?

January 20th, 2012 by plowry

Somebody asked recently why we sometimes write articles critical of individuals here in the city we call Babel. The person understood the criticism of Conservative politicians. He thought they were fair game. The concern was about people in Babel who might be upset about something written about them.  The question asked was, “Don’t you want those people to like you?”

This took some explanation.  First of all, the questioner needed to be reminded of why we write this blog.  Nobody pays us to write it.  It is written for fun and it is a sample of our writing skills. It produces an occasional writing assignment. We do not run advertising as we easily cover the cost of the blog and we like the cleanness of the appearance of Babel-on-the-Bay. To be effective in this, the material has to be a bit controversial. It has to be edgy. It needs to be noticed.

And anything written in this blog is written as what is called ‘fair comment.’ We are well aware of—and quite respectful—of the laws related to libel and slander and have kept abreast of recent rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada that have reduced the ability of people with lots of money to use what is called ‘libel chill’ to keep people from questioning some of their public actions. A former Canadian, publisher Conrad Black was quite expert at that until he ran afoul of a Chicago prosecutor who put him on the sidelines for a while.

And, yes, we do care if some public people in Babel are not pleased with our comments. They have our telephone number and are welcome to call us anytime to discuss what we have written with which they might disagree. We are also more than willing to discuss the terrible state of journalism in this community. It is quite shocking.

But we have more questions to ask than just about people’s feelings about our blog.  We would dearly love to hear from some of our readers in Beirut as to why we have had a twelve-fold increase in readers in that part of the world. (It could be a relay point for some recent spam.) Heck, we have never figured out why we have more readers in Kitchener/Waterloo than we do in Montreal.

The analytics that are available to bloggers are quite fascinating but the reality for the work we do on Babel-on-the-Bay is how much work we get from it. We rarely blow our own horn but we have been known as one of the best speechwriters in Canada for many years.  There are still a few companies that would not have any other writer work on their product catalogues. There is not much demand for literate newsletters in Babel but that was one of our mainstays for many years and we would love to do more.

That is one of the beauties of the Internet. It hardly matters where the customer resides.  We have easy and fast communication. We can be paid through PayPal and never worry if the cheque is in the mail.  We love to write. If you have the need, try us.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  peter@lowry.me

Posted in New, Uncategorized | Comments Off

Playing the monopoly card with Olympics.

January 18th, 2012 by plowry

Bell could not wait. They had practiced their high-handed monopoly tactics on Canadians for years. Now they are taking on the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the team owners of the National Hockey League. Bell had learned the tactics in the years when it was the only game in town.  Mind you, the previous management of CTV, that knocked the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation out of the Olympic ballpark for the Vancouver and London games, was no slouch at the monopoly game. Now Bell owns CTV, it invited the CBC in on the game and then low-balled the IOC.

For the package that included the 2010 Games in Vancouver and the London Games this year, CTV bid and won with its very generous offer of $153 million. They did not expect any profit on Vancouver and, with $100 million in production costs, CTV and Rogers are reported to have lost more than $20 million.  They expect to lose more on the London games this coming summer.  It is no wonder Rogers has bailed out on the Olympics for the next round.  Now that Bell owns CTV, it decided to invite the CBC back and play in a field in which the taxpayer-owned corporation had particular skills.  Canadians still remember the excellent job the CBC has done on international sports over the years.

The IOC officials were the ones in for a shock when they opened the one bid from Canada for the next set of games.  These will be the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi, Russia and the 2016 Summer Games in Rio de Janeiro.  The new Canadian consortium offered less than half of the Vancouver/London bid.  It is estimated at just $70 million.  The IOC took its marbles and went home in a huff.  They would rather take nothing.

The broadcasters will go back with something, eventually, but what they really would like to know is if there will be National Hockey League players on the men’s hockey teams in Sochi.  That makes a huge difference in the size of the Canadian audience and the profit from the commercials.  The networks could be in for a long wait to find out as the NHL is playing its own game. The NHL team owners want a share of the profits that their players produce and the IOC does not believe in sharing. This means three powerful monopolies are locking horns and seeing who blinks first.  To complicate matters further, the team owners have to negotiate with the players later this year and the players will also want some of the profits from their participation.

Unless somebody breaks the chain by acting reasonably, there will either be no NHL players in the Sochi Olympics or no Olympic coverage except from an American television network or the CBC could be trying to do the whole thing on the cheap itself without government support. Nobody really wants any of those scenarios.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  peter@lowry.me

Posted in New, Uncategorized | Comments Off

Why surprise at Toronto casino?

January 17th, 2012 by plowry

The ‘maybes’ as opposed to the former ‘no ways’ in regards to a Toronto casino should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the hypocrisy of the Ontario government over the years.  In an October 24 posting last year, this blog postulated that there really might be three casinos in the Toronto area.  That could be pushing the envelope but the Toronto Star now reports that Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan says the province ‘may try its luck with a Toronto Casino.’

It had to happen.  The province needs the money.  The city needs the money.  It is a match made in heaven.

The fiction over the years was that the government wanted to capture tourist dollars with its casinos. That was the supposed plan until easy access across the U.S. border became a thing of the past. A higher Canadian dollar made the casinos on the U.S. side of the border more attractive. And Ontario’s restrictive smoking and alcohol laws had already turned off many American gamblers. It makes it time to admit that the only market that can turn a substantial profit for the government is Toronto. All the government has to do is admit what we have always known: Toronto is the tourist destination preferred by most visitors to Ontario.

Mind you, Toronto Councillor Michael Thompson speaks for many Neanderthals when he says: “I wouldn’t want to hear about families losing their house or their life savings.”  Obviously, Mr. Thompson and like-minded people out of Ontario’s puritan past should have stopped Niagara Falls, Rama, Windsor, Sault Ste. Marie, Skugog Island, Brantford, Gananoque and the National Capitol area’s Lac Leamy from taking the hapless gamblers’ money.  That horse has been out of the barn far too long.

The only conflicted Member of the Legislature will be MPP “Tiny Tim” Hudak, Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition.  He will not only be against anything the government is for, but just think of the number of people in his provincial riding who work at the Niagara Falls casinos.

The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation’s study on “land-based gaming”—whatever that means—will be coming out soon and it will say whatever the Ontario government wants it to say.  The only thing that might be a surprise will be a move by Ontario into Internet gaming.  The government needs the money.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  peter@lowry.me

Posted in Municipal Politics, New, Provincial Politics | Comments Off

« Older Entries