Being right wing does not mean all your decisions are wrong.  When Premier Michael Harris of Ontario amalgamated Toronto into a single city, many of us on the left of politics stood to cheer.  While Harris might have done it for the wrong reasons, the action was right.  It is also for the wrong reasons that the Ford boys might cause Toronto to get its first full service (legal) Casino.

Given the right blend of circumstances—such as the desperate search for revenues and a minority provincial government—the city could end up with as many as three casinos over the next five or six years.  The hypocrisy of the Liberals over casinos can give way to reality if the Ford boys push the issue.  The Ford’s want the revenues to end up in municipal coffers and it will be interesting to see how Horwath’s provincial NDP handle the issues involved.  While Hudak’s opposition Conservatives can out-hypocritize the Liberals any day, he will have to hold out for a larger share of the gambling pie.

While some savants are betting on just a single casino to rescue the dying Ontario Place down in the lake off the Exhibition grounds, there is really a need for three casinos.  You have to recognize the primary position of Woodbine Entertainment in the equation.  Ontario Lottery and Gaming has to fight for Woodbine’s right to a full casino.  There are also the strong arguments for Ontario Place being a centre for family entertainment.  To turn Ontario Place into a purely adult entertainment area can raise many objections.

Mind you there would not be anywhere near as many objections to tearing down the west end of Exhibition Park and building a new and modern casino in that location.  That would be urban renewal at its best.

In case you are wondering about the third casino, you might not be aware of the strength of the Chinese lobby in Toronto.  A Chinese-themed casino would fit perfectly in North Scarborough or in Markham.  The police will tell you that something has to be done about the illegal casino’s in that area and it is time people recognized the simple solution.

The only serious objectors to this will be those greedy people in Niagara Falls and Rama.  They have been taking advantage of Toronto gamblers for too many years now and Toronto needs the revenue.  So suck it up!

-30-

Copyright 2011 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

Every time we see a bumper sticker on some redneck’s truck, asking us to end the Long-Gun registry, there is an urge to T-bone the vehicle.  We just drive on because we realize that the person is probably ignorant of the usefulness of the Canadian Firearms Registry and why rifles and shotguns (long guns) should continue to be registered.  And maybe we are annoyed because so few people understand the issue.  We also recognize that our annoyance over this is based on knowing that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is really going to waste the money already spent on adding long guns to the registry.  That action by the Tories is unconscionable.

It would be like the Ontario Government killing the e-Health program because of the typical government waste involved in reinventing technology for computerized patient health records.  Those computerized patient records will save lives.  They will also, in the long run, save a great deal of money.

But killing the Long-Gun registry has nothing to do with the cost of creating and maintaining it.  This action is based on a corrupt ideology.  It is catering to ignorance.  It is something Conservatives use to divide rural and urban Canadians.  It is based on pandering to a lunatic fringe of conservatism.  Stephen Harper should be embarrassed that these people are his supporters.

When we found out that the former police chief in Babel was opposed to including long guns in the registry, it told us a great deal about the quality of policing in this city.  That guy was one of the very few police chiefs in Canada who did not praise the registry for its usefulness in helping police serve their community.

What is also annoying is that the Long-Gun registry is a compromise on top of an accommodation.  Nobody is the slightest bit concerned about the varmint rifle a farmer might keep handy in the back kitchen.  Nobody cares.  If you use the weapon against another person, it is quite unlikely that the police would suggest adding a fine for not registering the weapon to the more serious charges.  Nobody is harassing farmers about their long guns.

By the way, despite the hysteria of Toronto television stations, the highest murder rate by population in Canada is in Saskatchewan.  And, even then, only about a third of Canadian murderers use guns.    There is no problem in this country with having guns for hunting, varmint control and target shooting, or even in being a collector.  No politicians are suggesting that this is wrong.

Wasting the money spent on the registration of rifles and shotguns is something Mr. Harper and his people will have to answer for.

-30-

Copyright 2011 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

British Columbia candidate for the NDP leadership, MP Nathan Cullen, has a back door approach for his party to have an accommodation with the Liberals.  It is simple.  He wants the local ridings to decide if they will run a Liberal or NDP candidate.  When the parties agree on who will run against the Tories, the other party will not run a candidate there.  It is a suggestion that likely sets him far apart from fellow candidate Brian Topp.  It is also likely to meet ridicule and derision from a few of the people who like to think they run the Liberal Party of Canada.

While this writer sympathizes with what Cullen is attempting, it is not really a practical solution.  As things stand, the leader of either party has the power to negate such decisions by appointing a candidate for the electoral district over any objections from the local party members.  This very undemocratic state of affairs obviously never bothered Jack Layton when he was leader.  (Who do you think appointed all those unusual NDP candidates in Quebec earlier this year?)

Changing the constitution of both parties in time for the next federal election would be a daunting task.  Both parties have people with a vested interest in the status quo.

While the unions have been gradually losing their influence in the NDP, there are still union members of the party from the old school of socialism.  These socialists are not social democrats in the understood use of the label.  They are people who still see their role as that of carrying on the class struggle.  To them, Liberals are the enemy.

Of course, there are also Liberals who want a piece of the action in that confrontation. These are Liberal Party members whose views are much closer to those of the Conservatives.  Liberal philosophy is based more on the rights of the individual in society than a dogma of the left or right.

The clash Liberals have with Conservatives is the right wing lack of concern for the individual in favour of property rights, their subjugation of women and concern for the conservation of wealth.  Conversely, Liberals have less and less conflict with social democratic philosophy which has greatly softened the socialist emphasis on the rights of the collective.

Those of us who take the left-of-centre position in the Liberal party come from a position of a strong social consciousness.  We recognize that we cannot claim equality for the individual in our society until health care, education, shelter needs and employment opportunity are truly equal for all Canadians.  We have a long way to go.  We can only start by ensuring that all who share our dream can work together.

-30-

Copyright 2011 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

They call it gall.  If they did not invent it, the Americans certainly improved on it.  It combines the wiliness of the Yankee trader with the open faced theft of the Midwesterner and the ‘Gee-shucks’ cornpone of the southerner and the brashness of the Californians.  U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Jacobson has got it in spades.  He actually said that the ‘Buy America’ conditions of President Obama’s $447 billion economic proposal currently before Congress are good for Canadians.

In his briefing when he became ambassador, they should have told Mr. Jacobson that Canadians have a basic understanding of the trickle-down theory of economics.  To that, it should be added that Canadians really do not like being pissed on.

Canadians have this idea that when you make a deal with somebody, you try to live up to your side of the bargain.  Consider a deal such as ‘Free Trade.’  It does not mean free trade when it is convenient.  It does not mean, you can change the conditions whenever you feel like it.  People expect you to keep your word.

Like it or not, free trade ties economies together.  The economies of the participants sink or swim in the same pool.  They can grow and flourish together.  They can go down the drain together.  The idea is that they are bigger together and can withstand more set backs and can share the successes.  Free trade can be a very successful arrangement.  It has also proved a very unsuccessful arrangement when one or more partners in such agreements unilaterally screw around with the deal.

Canadians are being told that President Obama cannot get his economic rescue package past the ignorant Republicans in Congress if he does not have a ‘Buy America’ clause included in the package.  Here we always thought that Republicans understood free trade and helped promote it.  If they cannot pass this bill and still keep their commitments to free trade, screw ‘em.

Mind you, since Prime Minister Harper let U.S. Steel buy Stelco so that they could shut down our steel production, we are having a hard time seeing how a clause about only using American steel in projects sponsored by this package can matter.

-30-

Copyright 2011 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

The wise men of Babel know when to cast their bread on the waters of Kempenfelt Bay.   It was mentioned in the blog of September 17 this year that city council gave Impresario Brown the Molson Centre for free to promote himself.  Well, the boy is back with the moola!  He showed up with $5.8 million of taxpayers’ money for Babel Transit.

And any charity that thinks it is also entitled to the Molson Centre for free had better note that return on investment.  The curling club, for example, can hardly expect the Molson Centre to waive fees of $15,000 just because the Ontario curling finals might bring a couple million in revenue to Babel hotels and restaurants during the Ides of February. The going rate is now $2.9 million payback for every $5000 from Babel Council.  The wise men of Babel are tough bargainers.

Imagine Impresario Brown’s chagrin when a giant pumpkin beat him to the front page picture in the Babel Backward.  He had to settle for page three.  They let the mayor drive the bus for the picture.  The three people in the picture are showing so much teeth that you would think the photographer was in fear of being bitten.

But before we get carried away by such good news maybe we should note that the $5.8 million was still our money.  It was good money that we taxpayers sent to Ottawa to run this country.  If we had been asked, would we have volunteered it for the purpose of a local Conservative looking good through this largesse?

And besides, who says that this $5.8 million is going to a good cause?  Has anyone really thought seriously about Babel Transit?  The drivers of those buses are the people who recently voted to go on strike against the private company that runs Babel Transit for the city.  And, do not forget, the wise men of Babel have set aside another $17 million to build a nice warm garage to keep our large smelly diesel buses comfy on winter nights.

But what we cannot figure out is why, for the next 20 years, are we going to use big, smelly diesel buses?  Hybrid and straight electric buses are becoming much more popular for use in smaller cities.  And it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that one size of bus does not fit all routes.  We will come back to this subject in time.  The wise men of Babel need a wake-up call.

-30-

Copyright 2011 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

Without leadership, the red sky illuminates the occupying movements in our cities that can only dissolve into anarchy.  The 99 per cent will fracture itself into the multitude.  Malcontent, frustrated, rudderless, adrift in an incomprehensible economic storm, we continue to struggle with currents taking us into the unknown.

But the question remains: what do we want?

What does anyone want?  Stability and opportunity come first to mind.  Love and fulfilment are very personal goals.    The intellect must be fed along with the body.  And shelter for our Canadian winters.  We are human, so we always want more.  What the occupying movement indicates is that it wants fairness.  Grossly inflated wealth for a few is a problem when others are paying the price.

But if the much maligned one per cent gave all of their wealth in equal proportions to the 99 per cent, we would all be poor.  That is not a solution.  Why not promote fairness?  Does the chief executive officer need to be paid millions when workers get minimum wages?  Do executives deserve bonuses when the workers cannot get a raise?  We do not need to dictate fairness, we need to understand it.

Do we, as a society, ensure opportunity?  Higher education is for those who can use it.  No person should be denied that which they are capable of doing.

Health care is a right.  A clean environment must be our heritage.  Child care is for all, the most precious of society.

There will be pessimists who will sound the alarm, saying this is not attainable.  It might not be today but, if we work together today, it might be attainable tomorrow.

Leadership says that this is the direction in which we want to go.  Leadership is asking people to share in the task of getting us where we want to go.  It is not a direction that takes us over the backs of others.  It is a direction in which we can all share.

And we must share equally.  In sharing, we are equal.  In sharing, we have direction.  Our goals come to realization.  And our sky is no longer burning.

-30-

Copyright 2011 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

Most of us have heard the saying about a red sky at night or a red sky in the morning but few can sleep under a sky that remains red throughout the night.  A fire has lighted the sky and the animals of the forest know to run from it.  We humans seem to lack the instinct to tell us which way to run.

It was a fire that was lit in the Arab countries and we called it the Arab Spring.  For all we know, it could also portend an Arab Winter.  Fools rejoiced at the revolution but how could they know the intent of the emerging rulers.  NATO helped the revolutionaries of Libya but who has vetted these new rulers?  What is their future?

The Greeks rioted over the inequities of their government trying to collect oppressive taxes.  Imperious Americans and Canadians told the Europeans to fix their financial house of cards.  And yet, like the vaunted Oriental stability, our economies are built on the shifting sands of greed and the dictates of those who gain from our mistakes.

The red sky has come to the Americas.  People are protesting.  They are setting fire to Wall Street, to the streets of America.  They are lighting a fire among the supposedly acquiescent Canadians.  They want the rich to pay but know that will not solve the problems.  They know that the 99 per cent they claim to be are not blameless.  It is their frustration that is palpable.  They lack demands because they have no answers.

We listen to the experts and we know even less.  One expert says the world’s systems are collapsing and another expert says we are on the edge of accelerated growth.  And the bankers demand the police protect them from the anarchy of the masses that make no demands.  Even the anarchists are at a loss because anarchy has failed them as a cause.

Each of us has our frustration.  Our investments have failed us.  Costs keep rising.  The politicians promise answers and deliver confusion and posturing.  Those who raise the prices on the commodities we need use the money to pay themselves more.  We cannot see tomorrow.  All we see is the red sky.

There is no leadership in the red sky.  It disquiets.  It threatens.  It frustrates us. It begs leadership.  And the leadership will come.  It might not be the leadership we want.

It will not be the rhetoric of an Obama.  The American right wing has eviscerated Barrack Obama.  He rescued General Motors and Wall Street and earned the enmity of his constituency.  Canadians are faced with four years of a Stephen Harper who won  office by crudely attacking his opponent and lying to Canadians.  Canadian liberals are leaderless and lack direction.  The NDP are lost in a revolution which their philosophy cannot comprehend.  There is no succour in sight.

Only a new politics can put its arms around the needs of the red sky.  Only new thinking can overcome the fire that burns through the night.  We must speak out for the people.

-30-

Copyright 2011 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

There is a time in people’s lives when they come of age.  They do not see it or feel it but they mature and their life changes, hopefully for the better.  In Babel, a city so dominated by the Christian Council, we would expect that with that maturity comes a sense of charity—of love and respect for our fellows with whom we share this wonderful city.

Is that a faint hope?

We have just come through the second hard fought election campaign in this year.  We had a federal election in May and then the provincial election in October.  Neither local result pleased this writer.  Despite the result, we respect the right of any individual to vote as they wish, to show their allegiance with a lawn sign or by working for this or that candidate.  That is democratic.

When we first came to Babel we were surprised at the minimal smattering of signs for candidates.  We were surprised at the seeming lack of activity for political candidates.  At first we thought of it as small town reserve.  We realize now that it is a lack of political maturity in this city.  Babel needs to grow up.  It is time to realize that politics is neither a tea and crumpets game decided over croquet in East Babel nor is it a game for hoodlums wherein they can freely destroy people’s property.

We all have a responsibility to make sure that hoodlums who disrespect people’s right to vote as they wish are punished.  For them to target the Little Avenue home of Colin Wilson, the Liberal candidate in the federal election, and do thousands of dollars in damage to vehicles on his property is a serious criminal act.  Colin and others who showed that they cared about who runs our country and province were exercising rights we all share.  To deny that right to a few is to deny the rights of all.

No candidate for political office—who knows the cost of signs and the efforts required to have them placed—would ever condone hooliganism such as we saw here in Babel in this month.  And it was too targeted and wide-spread to be just a teenage prank.  This is not the type of thing over which we can just roll our eyes and say ‘Kids will be kids.’

Babel needs to grow up.  These hoodlums need to be punished.

-30-

Copyright 2011 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

Yesterday’s spoof on the monarchy was a bit premature.  Since then, Prime Minister Harper has agreed with changing the 1701 Act of Settlement and the Toronto Star has waded into the issue.  It must be more important than anyone thought.  Obviously, we should not be making light of it.

Yet, it is hard not to think of all the foolishness as being played out in the boardroom of a very expensive marketing firm.  It is a basic marketing problem.  It is like when they got the Queen to look all serious and kindly towards Princess Diana after she was killed.  The people who produced that funeral event—right down to the surly brother—deserved academy awards.  The Queen’s bit of acting was definitely a starring role.

Today’s royal pain in the ass is Charley with his bride Camilla.  All the marketing people can do is keep the focus on Willy and Kate.  They are not only much better looking, they are more regal and more acceptable.  The visuals of dowdy old Camilla going around cutting ribbons and opening livestock fairs is not only repugnant to Commonwealth countries who use the monarchy for their own purposes but hardly sits well with the Brits.  The Brits have to live with the Royals on a daily basis and the tabloids are not about to let them forget that.

But, never fear, the Toronto Star has come to their rescue.  In a secondary editorial today, the Star said that it would be a bit of alright if women’s liberation came to the law of primogeniture.  The editorial writer agreed that the eldest child—boy or girl—should inherit the throne.  What was interesting was that the Star writer also agreed to the suggested change that would allow a British monarch to marry a Roman Catholic.

What the Star is sticking its oar into there is the problem that the British monarch is not only the titular head of 16 countries (including the United Kingdom) but is also titular head of the Church of England.  If Prime Minister Cameron can get around the religious bigotry in his own country, it will be a breath of fresh air.

But none of this changes the fact that we all look like silly asses supporting a relic of the past such as the monarchy.  Let us be rid of it!

-30-

Copyright 2011 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

The Brits must be desperate.  Prime Minister David Cameron in the U.K. is hoping to get all the colonials to agree to a change in the law of succession to the British throne.  He wants to revise the law of primogeniture.  What he really wants is the women’s vote.

The English interpretation of the law of primogeniture has always been that it meant the eldest male offspring was the one to inherit all estates, wealth and titles when the father died.  This has been the way Britain has tried to prevent the dissipation of wealth for the landed gentry for more than 2000 years.  And the Brits really do like their traditions.

But times are changing.  Cameron can hardly continue to piss off British feminists who recognize the insult to women inherent in the male-only provision of the British Act of Settlement that was passed into law in 1701.  Cameron also has to recognize the problems created by Charles and Camilla, as they have first dibs on the throne when Elizabeth dies.

What makes revising the succession laws a problem is that the Commonwealth nations, the ones who share the British monarchy, have to agree to the change.  That means that 16 nations (out of 54 in the Commonwealth) have to agree.

Canada is no problem.  While he has already said he does not want Canadians to have an open debate on the issue, a monarchist like Prime Minister Harper will hop to and do the proper thing: agreeing to the change.   After all, it is sort of a motherhood issue!

The change means that the weight of the empire falls on poor Kate.  This lady is expected to produce an heir who will be number three in succession to the throne.  That is a lot of weight for her to carry.  If she does not get pregnant soon, the monarchists will be looking to younger brother Harry to prove that he is virile.  Such are the trials and tribulations of monarchy.

-30-

Copyright 2011 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]