Meant To Benefit Canadians

Let's hear that again? Canada a potential destination for medical-tourism? That's a stretch, isn't it? Universal medicare and hospitalization within Canada is already stretched to its outer limits. And Canada is not in the business, like countries whose economies are struggling, in the business of making a reputation, let alone money, off the avails of surgical-medical expertise, therapies and state-of-the-art, precision equipment.

Canada has long waiting lists for certain surgical procedures. There is a shortage of medical experts in some quite particular disciplines. There exists, relative to other wealthy and developed countries of the world, a relative paucity of expensive diagnostic and surgical equipment. All complicated by the inexorability of a steadily aging population, requiring more hospital admissions and critical care.

But then, there are some that present the situation and the possibility that Canada might indeed open up to a different kind of medical-surgical treatment offered to foreigners suffering from unfortunate medical conditions. Apart from the occasional temporary visas issued to young children urgently requiring life-saving surgery or organ transplants from undeveloped countries through pure charity.

There are those who contend that simply because Canada is so relatively well endowed with the expertise of surgeons who have mastered new life-saving techniques in organ transplantation and surgical advances, that there is an obligation to share with others less fortunate than Canadians who may take advantage of such opportunities.

It's an argument that fails somewhat to convince, since in all instances, save for charity being extended to poor sufferers from abroad, non-Canadians seeking advanced medical-surgical treatment in Canada must pay their own way, and that way tends to be exceedingly expensive. Medical tourists going to countries like India and China experience a good level of satisfaction with their outcomes.

But costs associated with travelling there and other countries offering superior medical treatment in facilities not normally offered to their own populations, are relatively cost-effective to the medical tourist. It has become an industry, one that the travel and tourism industry itself has become lucratively associated with.

There are currently up to fifty countries of the world involved in offering medical tourism, where people may with relative ease, as long as they can pay the freight, receive joint replacement, cardiac surgery, dental and cosmetic surgeries, and surgeries that haven't been approved in their own countries like the MS 'liberation' procedure.

People willing to travel outside their own countries at a special rate tied up with surgical procedures must consider that the regulations and professional medical-school training may not equal the standards demanded in their countries of origin. That follow-up treatment and the drug protocol may prove to be problematical on their return home.

In Toronto the University Health Network representing multi-organ transplants appears to feel that since the medical professions' ultimate role is life-saving, it hardly matters whose lives are being saved, and the option to seek life-saving treatment should transcend borders. Doctors and patients from diverse places on the Globe make contact with the Toronto General for transplants, with patients bringing with them living donors.

But Canada's hospitals, its doctors, its medical-teaching universities are taxpayer-subsidized. There is a universal insurance plan for all Canadians paid out of general tax funds transferred to the provinces by the federal government, and individual provinces exact additional fees from families by way of an added tax in support of universal medicare.

Institutions and the benefits that flow from them are meant for the well-being of Canadians, acknowledging the odd exception for humanitarian purposes.

Even if a foreign patient is prepared to pay the entire cost of travel, the medical-surgical procedure and the follow up requirements, expert time and attention is taken away from Canadians, and operating rooms and hospital beds - already in short supply - are used for foreign, non-tax-paying individuals.

In the end, were this to be ome common practise in Canada, there is nothing particularly humanitarian about offering services to people from abroad. In essence, the services would be offered only to those who have the financial wherewithal.

It might benefit the health professionals by giving them more experience and enabling procedures to be streamlined, but this would occur under normal circumstances as procedures become more widely available.

Canada has, like most other countries, a problem acquiring enough donor organs to service the long waiting list of Canadians awaiting life-saving transplant operations. It makes little practical sense to complicate the issue even further by extending to non-Canadians the opportunity to travel on a visitor's visa for the purpose of acquiring surgery.

The issue is, if not a rare commodity, then at least one that is sufficiently difficult to obtain that its acquisition should be available to a narrow spectrum of beneficiaries; those who are citizens of the country, and who have paid their taxes in support of a universal education and medical care system meant to benefit Canadians.

A Socially NDP Canada

We preparing for a clean sweep this time around? All the devoted followers of the NDP set to shout in unison: "Prime Minister Jack Layton!" And all the newly engaged suddenly seeing in nimble Jack - who can turn any perceived advantage on a dime toward the NDP and his personal cause to steer the country- the social progressive we've been waiting for all these years.

Middle-class families (who even knew the NDP cared beyond the low-waged, the welfare recipients, entitled trade unionists, and oh yes, the odd academic here and there, and hard-put-to-pay-tuition students?), the retired, small business, UNIONS (sorry, didn't mean to shout it out), Quebec nationalists (separatists, that is) and (disaffected) Muslims.

Joining them in a hugely enthusiastic group hug, none other than Bloc organizers who are now encouraging those who might normally vote Bloc to transfer their allegiance to the NDP, so they can have a real voice in Parliament, a federal party which is prepared to give Quebec everything it hankers after.

Gilles Duceppe may be feeling betrayed, may have his nose slightly out of joint with disbelief at the traitorous turn of events, but if Pauline Marois obligingly steps aside he can always vent his outrage at the helm of the Parti Quebecois and learn to love partnering with Prime Minister Jack Layton who will be most pleased to grant all his demands, in spades.

Inclusive of waving 'bye-'bye, when Quebec decides finally it's time to shove off. They'll do it, taking with them those parts of the province that don't want to go, would prefer to stay with Canada, but then they're just aboriginals so who gives a damn anyway? They'll also manage to keep a comfortable level of transfer payments because being on the dole is so addictive.

And here's another constituency falling all over itself to endorse the NDP and get out the vote. It's the Holocaust-denying contingent of the Canadian Muslim community who don't much like Stephen Harper and his corrupt, perverted view of justice and morals, standing in solidarity with Israel's right to defend itself against the ongoing attacks by Hamas against Israeli citizens.

Welcome to the fold, all. Of course the NDP's extravagant plans to alter Canada's vision of itself, and to irremediably change the economic landscape resulting in a gangbuster of a green economy and bruised corporate interests, and a failing job market and steeply rising taxes, and failed investments, and a very happy Quebec, will alter this country beyond recognition.

Canada, the country that deserves to hobble along the same track as the failed Italy, Greece, Iceland, Spain, Ireland; we'll be in noble company.

Jack's Boundless Energy

Like the frustrated bridesmaid determined to finally become a bride, after having worked so hard to attain bridesmaid status following a very long period when she was merely a guest, here is Jack Layton bringing the New Democratic Party into the home stretch of either the official opposition or, unbelievably, the new government of Canada. He's sounding breezily confident of late, although perhaps slightly more guarded in his statements to the press since suddenly what he commits to may come back to bite him.

They will certainly - all of his promises, should he ever attain power, either through himself attaining a minority government, or finagling one by finessing a coalition-that-isn't-a-coalition with himself at the helm - come back to bite the voting public. Who may themselves take to biting their fingernails in frustration at the sudden flight of foreign investment, the moans of corporations stung with higher business taxes, and the agony of resulting higher unemployment figures, as fall-out leading to the economy staggering back into enfeebled recession.

Let alone all the expensive new commitments to the Province of Quebec which will call in all of its suddenly-discovered needs which Jack expansively guaranteed his government would be only too privileged to pay for, to keep Quebec happy. Because Jack believes in asymmetrical federalism, in the unique nationalism of Quebec, in the entitlements of Quebec to be its unqualified deserving self with little-to-no-interference from the federal government.

There are, after all, in the grandly-released, and little-focused-on election platform 205 policy promises as a starter as 'first steps' recognizing the needs of Canadian families in the process putting Canada on the highway to a soaring debt that will make the current one look attractive by comparison. A lovely new green plan will be unveiled to finally do justice to all the deserving environmental programs that have been ignored.

A new publication just released has some nifty little details the public can cue into for future prospects in that department. Little tidbits like the conclusion that Spain's efforts to be green resulted in "2.2 jobs (destroyed) for every job created", coming to us courtesy of Kenneth Green and Ben Eisen, writing for the Frontier Centre, explaining "while the capital needed for one green job in Italy could create five new jobs in the general economy". And that researchers at the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos released data that the cost of each "green job" in 2009 Spain costed in at $791,597.

Green is a lovely colour, but it's an excessively expensive one to paint the economy with. Spanish researcher Gabriel Calzada Alvarez and company discovered that each "green" megawatt of energy installed "destroys 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in the economy". Leading Spain finally to the conclusion that its bold new environmental venture into sustainable renewable energy alternatives were simply economically unsustainable.

In Italy and Germany, as in Spain, rampant corruption spread through the exciting new green corporate world of sustainable energy. Everyone eager to take advantage of this splendid new direction in business opportunities. "In Italy, however, rather than having numerous individuals defrauding the government, the Mafia is involved", while in Germany utilities are required by law to purchase solar energy at 59 cents per kWh, whereas conventional sources range from 20 cents to 3 cents.

But the thing is, no one is interested in boringly irrelevant details. The interest lies in the attractiveness of 'doing the right thing' since, after all, there is an environmental crisis at hand; the world is using up non-renewable energy sources at an astounding rate, and in the process adding further to the degradation of the environment. Add to that the fact that as the world's population rises and more people are demanding the privileges seen in the industrialized wealthy world, depletion becomes more assured.

There will certainly have to be some manner of functional address to be realized to this very real problem, simply not necessarily one reflective of proven failures, administered by rookie governments with no past experience in all the areas that the NDP is so eager to dip its fingers into as a purely social-welfare dedication to solving difficult problems. Layton has promised $20-billion for new green initiatives to be paid for by a cap-and-trade system yet to be devised.

But that amount represents only a fraction of the entire projected new spending commitments which come in at about $69-billion, in an economy which is still struggling to fully compensate for the downturn before full confidence can be assumed, and with it new jobs. Higher taxes can be assured with a newly-installed NDP government, but taxes alone won't be sufficient to pay for all the promises, let alone address the deficit and debt.

Canada will become more indebted, over and above the already burdensome amount that resulted from addressing the emergency of the downturn. And this is what Canadians are getting set to vote for? Reason appears to have floated into the upper stratosphere, beyond recall, as people are mesmerized by the picture of a courageous, scrappy populist, who faced down cancer surgery followed by a hip fracture, and still hobbles about tirelessly, and pugnaciously out there, capturing admiration.

Should the impossible come to fruition, we will begin to live in interesting times.

The Patient? Surviving

Updates on Afghanistan from NATO and from the U.S. military paint a glowing picture of societal and military success. The country is brimming with opportunities for its people. Children are finally being educated. Women are free to be themselves, to stroll outside their homes, to acquire jobs, free from persecution.

The country is being ably administered by a democratic government. NATO is training the national police and the military and conscripts are growing in numbers and doing very well.

Corruption is endemic, seen in every walk of life, a reflection of the situation is in the government itself. But this is traditional, and Afghanistan is on its way to recovering its pride and its dignity and will deal with such irrelevancies in due time.

Except that the political opposition in the country feels that the corrupt voting that confirmed Hamid Karzai firmly back as president with former war lords back in parliament represents a signal failure. Abdullah Abdullah knows what democracy should look like, and it should not be a corrupt organ of a corrupt government.

All is not exactly how it seems, evidently. Families in Afghanistan are in fact less well off economically than they were years ago; they are struggling to access elemental needs. 42% of the Afghan population live below the poverty line. The unemployment rate is near 40%, but indigent foreign workers are brought in by international organizations to work (for them) as food servers, guards and cleaners.

Billions in foreign aid were spent in the country yet accountability is somehow not there. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction found poor construction methods used on building sites due to corruption, or incomplete structures. For all the children who are being educated, far more will never see the interior of a classroom. Child mortality rates remain high.

Young girls of twelve are still arranged into marriages with old men. And those who manage to survive childbirth will soon take on the mantles of old women, worn down by bearing children, caring for them, burying them, and working tirelessly in the home. Their young male counterparts will continue to answer the appeal of the Taliban for there are no other jobs available.

Government infrastructure, authority and security does not extend beyond the large provincial cities. Threats and violence, intimidation and obedience to the Taliban are imposed without intervention. Fear ensures that villagers remain complicit with the Taliban for fear of vicious reprisals. Violence is rising and there seems no end in sight.

When NATO departs the scene the niggling question of how a country as poverty-stricken as Afghanistan will ever be enabled to pay for its own security needs will present itself as a problem. The cost to the U.S. government alone yearly for its security presence in Afghanistan stands at $113-billion. According to World Bank estimates Afghanistan's GDP is $12-billion.

The much-vaunted value of provincial reconstruction teams that makes NATO members feel so proud of themselves for establishing model villages has ensured that the teams have a feeling of accomplishment, but the impact on institution building reflecting Afghan government involvement is absolutely nil.

These are all some of the conclusions sadly reached by Nipa Banerjee, one-time head of Canada's Kabul aid program from 2003 to 2006, who frequently returns to Afghanistan, and writes in Policy Options magazine, while teaching international development at the University of Ottawa.

Lessons In Disrespect

Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe is on a roll. He's content with his role in life, too. Highly supported by the province's electorate, he's comfortable with the knowledge that none of the national parties have anything approximating his edge. French-Canadians seem to enjoy seeing the rest of Canada squirm. Why else would they keep electing to Parliament, a party and a leader whose only function is to keep thumping away at the public consciousness that Quebec must be sovereign?

Of course, the pundits would have it otherwise, that most Quebecois have no intention of supporting sovereignty; that ship has long since sailed with an empty cargo hold. What they like is that Gilles Duceppe is so adept at holding the feet of the ROC to the fire of uncertainty. Everyone wants to make Quebecers happy.

Particularly Gilles Duceppe, whose concern as party leader is not with the well-being of Canada, but that of Quebec. And whatever he can squeeze out of Canada to benefit Quebec he will.

Relentlessly he blasts and blames Canada for not doing enough for Quebec. That Quebec is entitled to far, far more than she currently extracts from the rest of Canada. The 'equalization' transfer payments that Quebec has relied upon for far too long, permit the province to live in a manner unseen by the other provinces, even those whose largesse pays for Quebec's standard of living. It is never quite enough, however.

It never occurs to Gilles Duceppe and his caucus that there is something irritatingly immoral about an openly-separatist party being permitted by a democratic society to sit like a canker on the body politic, grating and nauseatingly entitled to receiving all the taxpayer-funded emoluments required to sustain it, to allow it to run campaigns that slur the country, along with election campaigns, convincing Quebecers to support separation.

That the federal government recently promised to guarantee $4.2-billion in loans for the Lower Churchill Falls energy generation project and delivery lines, angering the province that considers that action a "slap in the face" to Quebec is rather rich, given Quebec's unwillingness to re-visit an historic agreement with Newfoundland that enriches Quebec, ignoring Newfoundland's equal entitlements.

And when a Conservative candidate for the 2011 election campaign made mention of the fact that is is 'normal' for federal money to flow more heavily toward Conservative-held ridings, Mr. Duceppe denounces that as "disrespectful" to Parliament. Unsurprisingly, most onlookers would be amazed to witness Gilles Duceppe being "respectful" to Parliament.

For stating an obvious, if unfortunate truth, to be labelled "completely stupid" and "disrespectful" is pretty rich, considering its source.

Ah, Those Entitlements!

The idea that people working in certain professions must be entitled over and above their earned salaries to charging on the taxpayer's dime expenses relating to professional garb, entertainment, and all manner of trifling things like taxi charges, parking fees, hairdressers, laundry and dry cleaning, is one of those hard-to-swallow entitlements.

Some recent publicly-aired revelations that Elections Canada is routinely solicited to approve payment of such entitled charges for reimbursement relating to shoes, clothing, parking tickets and other like items through campaign charges is enlightening. And infuriating. Reminiscent of some types of employment, like the diplomatic corps, having just about everything subsidized by the taxpayer.

Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that in Canada all political parties engage in padding their expense claims with items that they should be expected to pay for themselves. Not that Canada is alone in this; fairly recent revelations that in staid old Britain members of Parliament charged illegally for thousands of pounds of entitlements having nothing whatever to do with their positions are a reflection that this is a universal human failing.

Which doesn't make it any more acceptable. Paradoxically, when charged expenses were scrutinized a while ago of all Members of Parliament, it was discovered that two members of the NDP out-charged and out-expensed all others; the leader of the NDP and his wife, Olivia Chow. When, at the time, she was asked about her conscience, she shrugged the enquiry off, stating that what she charged was perfectly "legal".

It may be legal, but is it ethical and morally acceptable? But then of course, MPs elected in 2008 who attempted to charge their personal grooming, wardrobe expenses and other tidbits as personal expense claims to Elections Canada represented the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois, the Conservatives as well as the NDP. Of the thousands expensed and for which reimbursement was sought, however, Elections Canada sturdily permitted a standard $200 reimbursement for expenses incurred.

They're all rank amateurs, however, still on a learning curve, compared with recently-retired Senator Raymond Lavigne, who blithely called upon his entitlements to charge to the weary taxpayer $32,391 in expenses for a period of three months just prior to an Ontario Superior Court finding him guilty of fraud and breach of trust.

This former Liberal, appointed to the Senate, swiftly retired from the Chamber of Sober Second Thought anticipating a Senate vote to remove him from office, stripping him of both his salary and his hefty pension. Since he precipitated his own retirement just days before the Senate vote, he is still entitled to receive that pension, $79,000 annually.

Even while he was barred from taking part in all Senate proceedings while he was under RCMP investigations since 2007, he managed to spend $315,355 for office expenses and travel on top of his annual $132,300 salary. If enough people expressed enough outrage, it might be conceivable that some legal way could be found to strip the man of his pension; he has certainly earned public censure.

As an expression of justice he should be stripped of his pension, and should be required to pay back the bulk of what he expensed and was paid for through Senate expenses, even while he was not permitted to participate in Senate proceedings while under investigation. On the other hand, the man's sentencing hearing takes place in one month; May 10.

At which time he could be facing up to 14 years in prison for his very particular brand of malfeasance. Just hold your breath.

Paying For The Privilege

Canadian universities are restive. At least some of the student populations within those universities are, markedly so. Led there by many of those who teach there, and by trade-union examples. Carleton University appears to be vying with the University of Western Ontario and York University as presenting as the most volatile, institution-defying, socially-rejecting, intellectually biased Israel-bashers.

The academe-and-student-body-related 'international-social-conscience' imperatives revolving around the unquestioning support of the Palestinian 'cause' by the simple expedient of slandering and isolating Israel through calls for investment-divestment and boycotting of Israeli scholars and merchandise production has been adopted with remarkable gusto.

The lib-left have lost some of their otherwise-directed campaigns in support of gay rights and farm workers rights in Latin America, so they have turned their activist righteousness and sanctimony on Israel. It helps tremendously that Israel is a nation which, while not comprised exclusively of Jews, is meant as a haven for Jews.

It is the Jewish-element of Israel that abrades the ethics-challenged social consciences of the highly hysterical left who find it fits very well with their world view of Jews in general and Israel in particular as piranhas feasting on the flesh of poor Arabs who want nothing more than what every other national group has achieved; a homeland of their own.

Which they historically slammed when it was offered as the UN passed a historic 1948 resolution to partition the geography, giving Israel its tiny island of heritage in a sea of Muslim nations who wasted no time in marching in a bellicose war of annihilation that failed. That failure with one war after another where Israel remained resolutely ensconced, did not result in accommodation to her presence.

The Palestinians have attempted to resort to any and every method conceivable to dislodge Israel and regain the territory they once, and continue, to consider theirs and theirs alone. And there the stalemate rests, with the Palestinians vowing to oppose their aggressor, the Israelis vowing to surmount their existential threat, and young intellectuals of Western orientation linked solidly with the perceived underdog.

To which an invited honoured guest speaker at Carleton University, addressing the student body, rests on his own celebrated laurels as a renowned intellectual and speaker, one whose distaste for Israel and for his own country the United States is legendary. Noam Chomsky gave his virulent critique of Israel a rest this time around, made no mention of having launched the original boycott actions against Israel.

But did go to great pains to remind the fervently-adoring student body that they have the right to be anarcho-intellectuals. That it is a shame that people such as they - seeking to fill their minds with scholarly ideas while disseminating their rigid ideas on social morality - must be forced to pay for the privilege. "When you trap people in a system of debt ... they can't afford the time to think", he advised them.

Which goes a long way to explaining how it is that reason and reasonableness is absent from their particular debate; their minds have become too fatigued by the intolerable burden of having to pay their share for their already-subsidized educations.

The Issues, Gentlemen, and Lady

So what's gnu with the electioneering gaffes and lavish and costly promises with the leaders of the major Canadian political parties, during the 2011 election campaign? Well, a lot of people, viewing and hearing the election advertisements have got really turned off by their content. As though they weren't more than sufficiently irritated by the unneeded election, to begin with.

Let's see, Jack Layton is popping up here and there, hobbling with his trusty cane while recovering from hip repair surgery, even as he recovers from prostate cancer therapy. Going on about the critical inadequacies of Canada's universal health care system.

He, on the other hand, was fortunate enough to receive sterling care for his two maladies. Which is why he is up and about, here and there, hither and yon, castigating the Liberals, the Conservatives, their platforms and promises, while recuperating, thanks to the quality of care he received.

Michael Ignatieff is enjoying himself blasting the Conservatives for their corporate tax reduction which the Liberals first started, and for the looming acquisition of F-36 stealth warplanes and the prison and judicial-reform program they have launched. Which the Liberals also signed off on.

But one issue that the Conservatives refused to touch, at real risk of alienating Quebec voters and losing important votes, the Liberals promise to fund: Quebec City's professional-league sport arena. Along with a whole slew - in excess of $8-billion tax dollars - of other promises, all guaranteed to paint Canadian families' futures pink.

Canada's shame in supporting, or at least not wishing to upset Quebec on another issue, by passing legislation to disallow asbestos mining on Canadian soil - which still includes Quebec - has been addressed by Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe. All asbestos, even chrysotile which Quebec's industry lobbyists claim is 'safe' is carcinogenic.

But Mr. Duceppe duplicitously claims that asbestos can be produced and used safely within Quebec. "If (asbestos production) is done in a responsible way, then it's safe", he insists.

One must, then, assume, that even in Quebec the extraction process and installation is not done safely. For a new report has been issued suggesting that many construction sites in Quebec contain asbestos levels at or above provincial norms. This study was released by Quebec's Public Health Department.

Yet Quebec insists its asbestos industry is safe, despite air samples felt to be sufficiently elevated to present as an elevated risk for asbestos exposure. And this is the asbestos that is routinely exported to countries like India where workers there are exposed to cancer risks in a country far less concerned with workplace safety than Quebec.

And, it would appear, Conservative campaign workers have been going out of their way to produce situations certain to be of embarrassment to their leader. While Stephen Harper unveils one benefit after another for the Canadian electorate, highlighting the modest-but-appreciated goodies contained in the rejected budget, heavy-handed vetting by campaign workers, outing and ousting campaign-event attendees with connections to the Liberals in a show of undemocratic nastiness erupts.

As for Elizabeth May, long may she stew. She may not have the opportunity this time around to be present during the televised major party leaders' debate. Evidently it was largely felt last time around she added nothing of value to the debate; rather that her presence was detrimental in the exchange of ideas and information-values.

Her hubris in running against the Conservative-safe seat of Peter MacKay in Nova Scotia last time is only relatively reflected by her insistence that she is prepared to win the Saanich-Gulf Islands seat, and finally take her place in the House of Commons, from where it will be a short leap to the PMO.

What a collective performance. Yawn.

Power To Power

Quebec is pathetic. It signed a historical energy deal with Newfoundland decades ago that proved to be costly to Newfoundland, while ensuring that Quebec reaped the benefits. It refused to re-negotiate the pricing that Newfoundland signed on to with Joey Smallwood thinking the was doing something positive for his province, not realizing the shark instincts of Quebec's entitlements.

And there the matter stood, with resentment emanating from Newfoundland over the unfairness of it all, and Quebec feeling complacently entitled to its profits. And then Newfoundland found its own provincial energy source and became a "have" province, much to Quebec's chagrin. And discovered with its own bold determination it was capable of surmounting Quebec's claims to pre-eminence in hydro energy.

"This is a day of great historic significance to Newfoundland and Labrador as we move forward with development of the Lower Churchill project, on our own terms and free of the geographic stranglehold of Quebec which has for too long determined the fate of the most attractive clean energy project in North America," said Premier Williams. "The benefits of this project for our province will be enormous, including thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of economic activity. From day one, our government has taken a long-term, strategic approach to developing this project. Our priorities have remained steadfast; that is to achieve maximum benefits for our people, and to secure stable rates and markets with a good return for the people of this province. This agreement achieves these goals and also solidifies a mutually beneficial partnership with Emera Inc. and the Province of Nova Scotia. Today marks the beginning of a new era of Atlantic Canadian cooperation and together we are telling the marketplace both in Canada and the United States that badly needed competition in the hydroelectric marketplace is on the way."

The Lower Churchill hydroelectric project, an agreement between Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia for a new energy consortium that would benefit the Atlantic Provinces and cut into Quebec's revenue source quickly became a source of belligerent irritation between the provinces. Newfoundland and Nova Scotia sought backing from the federal government for loan guarantees for the $6.2-billion project, against Quebec's protests.

And finally, on the re-election campaign trail, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has given his support for the project, promising loan guarantees to the Newfoundland government in support of the Lower Churchill. "We will consider financial support to projects that are of national or regional importance, have economic and financial merit and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We will do this in a way that is equitable across every region of Canada."

Well, hurrah!

But this doesn't suit Quebec, its nose is definitely out of joint, anticipating lost revenues from its customers who now have alternate energy-source options. The government of Quebec has issued warning it will impact on the federal election campaign should the federal government dare offer funding for the Lower Churchill. "Our government has always been clear we will not let the federal government interfere to offer financial support for the construction of transmission lines", Premier Jean Charest addressed his legislature.

But it's set to go. The project will, on completion, send power from Labrador's Lower Churchill River to Newfoundland, then on to Nova Scotia through underwater cables across the Gulf of St. Lawrence. And Quebec can go gnash its teeth in frustration. Its attitude is an affront to Confederation.

What a Rich Province!

Ontario at one time was the most productive, wealthiest province of Confederation, considered the engine of the Canadian economy. It has fallen on hard, really hard times. With smoke-stack industries shutting down, unable to compete with the cheap production and equally cheap products coming out of China. With jobs declining steadily, and an economic downturn that has taken more than its share out of the province's economy.

And just incidentally, with Liberal-government-led policies that have permitted the cost of governing to rise exponentially, ensuring that public sector employment grew healthily while the private sector declined. And as the public sector employment bargained through its long established unions to clarify the valuable contributions to society of its paid work force, even while the private unemployed languished in near-poverty, expenses rose.

And continued to rise, as government made one loopy decision after another, investing great chunks of the provincial treasury into initiatives like ehealth and environmentally green energy choices that were so costly while rendering back nothing of real value that taxes had to rise, even though a health tax was seen as anathema and even while a pre-election promise was shattered.

Leaving the province with an unhealthy deficit and an even sicker debt. How does a deficit of 16.3-billion sound, and a debt of 241.5 offer encouragement for the future? Imperilling, as it happens, the province's international credit rating.

The costs of hospitalization and medical and drug costs soared, as did education costs and other primary services to a large population, growing larger through immigration with its equally burdensome settlement costs. And the yearly 'sunshine list' of public employee salaries and entitlements continued to cause gasps of astonishment that salaries so large on the public tax base could be feasible with an overtaxed provincial treasury.

Public sector employees in the province earning over $100,000 blazed into the stratosphere with a record number of high-earning civil servants coming in at 71, 478 out of a total of 1.2 million people employed in Ontario's public sector. The province's total population is just over thirteen-million. So that one in eleven of the population is employed to service the remaining eleven, and paid handsomely for it.

Doesn't that seem rather excessive?

Political Interpretation

The NDP scorns the Conservatives' determination to lower corporate tax rates as "corporate hand-outs". The Liberals, who before they lost power, incrementally lowered the federal corporate tax rate under the Chretien government from a high of 30% to 23%. They were lowered subsequently, and when the Conservatives came to power they stood at 19.5%.

Under a Conservative plan to continue lowering the corporate tax rate to make Canada more competitive, the rate was steadily lowered to its current 16.5% which became effective at the turn of 2011. The Liberals now claim that if they win the election they'll raise the corporate tax rate back to 18%. Which will give them enough revenue to pay for some of their expensive electoral promises.

The Conservatives promise that if returned to power they'll further reduce the rate to 15% by 2012. The Ignatieff-led Liberals consider this to be absolutely revenue-ruinous. When Stephane Dion led the federal Liberals he pledged to cut corporate taxes below the then-proposed Conservative rate of 18.5%, arguing that lower rates represented powerful incentives for investing and job creation.

It would seem that leading economists believe that Canada is heading in absolutely the right direction lowering corporate tax rates. The co-ordinated plan between the federal and most provincial governments is to have a much reduced total corporate tax rate; combined to 25%, which would render this country an impressive investment opportunity.

The plan is considered to be revenue-neutral in its result of expanding the tax base. Some experts appear to estimate that $50-billion in new investment would be attracted in the space of seven years, helping enormously to grow the Canadian economy. Which means more employment opportunities and more Canadians back to work.

What is really paradoxical is the polarizing opinions of the Ontario provincial Liberal government and that of the federal Liberals. These are considered to be "competitive business taxes" by the Ontario Liberals, not "handouts for Canada's wealthiest corporations", as the federal Liberals characterize them.

The federal Liberals contend that cutting the corporate tax rate while the country is in deep deficit is insane. Contrarily, the provincial Liberals, while carrying a multi-billion deficit consider slashing the corporate tax rate, good business sense. "A more competitive business climate is creating more jobs and higher incomes for people", claimed the just-presented Ontario budget.

Which also adds that the improved business climate has directly led to a 7.4% increase in private-sector investments in infrastructure, machinery and equipment from 2009 to 2010. More than validating the Ontario government's decision to reduce general corporate income-tax rate to 12%, scheduled to be cut to 10% by 2013.

A move, claims Ontario's Finance Minister, that "will position Ontario as one of the most attractive jurisdictions in the industrialized world for new investment. Increased business investment will lead to more jobs and higher incomes for Ontarians."

So which is it then, great fiscal management into the future, or "corporate tax giveaways"?

Protesting Austerity

European countries suffering downturns in their economies, and struggling to surmount those difficulties have seen loud and violent protests launched against parliamentarians who have attempted to introduce austerity measures geared to meet those fiscal challenges. Such measures raise the ire of their constituents. No one wants to see their entitlements cut back. Certainly not the unions, on behalf of their members, who have fought long and hard for their entitlements.

The European Trade Union months ago when the protests first began to get serious estimated that 100,000 trade unionists across Europe came out in force. We've seen the kind of violence that erupted in Greece. Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Lithuania, Latvia, Germany and Ireland all experienced their large-scale union protests, with people marching to demonstrate their unwillingness to share the pain for the eventual gain.



And then, staid old Britain had its week-end of protests that turned into an anarchical rampage through the streets of central London, with hundreds of thousands of people marching to protest government cuts. Once people have been advantaged by union-bargained entitlements they are understandably loathe to see them fractionated, to become once again disadvantaged. They are not interested in hearing that their sacrifice is for the greater public good.

That want to retain what is rightfully theirs through the precedent of honest union bargaining and societal acceptance of their due. A peaceful, orderly march. That swiftly descended into an anti-capitalist show of force. Among the peaceful union marchers appeared black-clad figures intent on demonstrating their contempt for order and good government. Their own demonstration was inclusive of setting fires, smashing into banks, hotels and high-end shops.

They tossed whatever was handy at police. And what was handy began to include light bulbs filled with ammonia. Over 4,500 police were tasked to maintain order for the march. It was well enough known that anarchists would be present since they made no effort to shield their planned activities from public knowledge, preparing their action on Facebook and Twitter, making no bones about their violent intentions.

But the government promised retailers in London's main thoroughfare that their enterprises would be well protected; more than sufficient police would be on hand to ensure adequate control of the crowd. The police, often enough accused of a heavy-handed response to peaceful protests had their work cut out for them, attempting to control the hundreds of anarchist goons.

It took five hours of battling before things simmered down. Before which, banks were broken into, shop windows were smashed in New Bond Street, battles took place on Pickadilly; the Ritz hotel was attacked with paint; a "Trojan horse" set afire in Oxford Circus; Fortnum and Mason was "occupied" by protesters who smashed windows and looted merchandise. A fine time was had by all.


-- by paulµ43, on Flickr

What Message Is That?

Does it speak contempt for Parliament, and for the people of Canada that the leaders of our Parliamentary opposition parties cavalierly and with malice aforethought disdainfully flicked away the contents of the 2011 Budget presented by the Finance Minister? It certainly seems that way. There was no thoughtful consideration of what the budget contained since no one among the opposition actually read through the details of the budget.

If a non-committal response was the order of the day as often occurs, before opposition leaders made their ultimate determination to support or withhold their support for the budget in favour of voting it down, precipitating a no-confidence vote in the government, it made sense in the past to scrutinize the contents carefully, to ensure that it was fully understood what they were agreeing to, or denying.

Without knowing all the details how is it possible that it could be dismissed out of hand, other than to indicate that nothing would satisfy the hounds baying for dissolution of Parliament? It is clear enough that when Prime Minister Stephen Harper met privately with NDP Leader Jack Layton weeks ago, he took careful consideration of the demands of the NDP.

It is clear that this was done because Finance Minister Jim Flaherty took some of those issues and included them in the budget. With great deliberation, and with the hope that in serving the public the NDP demands would also be served. There was no wholesale acceptance and adoption of the entire NDP demands, not should there have been, in consideration of the country's economic recovery and deficit position.

But there were items that went a good way to satisfying some of the NDP demands. And a recognition as well of the Liberal budget demands. A reasonable attempt was made to placate the opposition, to try to stave off an election. But it was done in vain, despite good intentions. As a fairly surprised Finance Minister discovered when as soon as he presented his budget oppositional opinion flared.

"Our plan does not say 'yes' to every demand. It does not contain massive new spending, because that's not leadership", Mr. Flaherty explained reasonably enough. But he did attend to some vital issues, making GIS funds available to low-income seniors, to families with children, for family caregivers, for volunteer firefighters, for home energy retrofits, for graduating doctors and nurses willing to locate rurally.

All three opposition leaders jumped to announce their opposition to the budget, leaving no time lapsed between Finance Minister Flaherty's last words in his budget speech in the House. Jack Layton claimed the budget didn't offer enough assistance to middle-class families. There's a good one; since when has the NDP been interested in the welfare of middle-class families?

"Nothing in this budget has persuaded me that Mr. Harper has changed his ways and is prepared to work with others in Parliament to give middle-class families a break", pontificated Jack Layton. Who exactly is it that is not dedicated to working with others in Parliament? And the simple fact appears to be that a larger percentage of the voting public is not interested in governance change, nor having Mr. Harper "change his ways".

It is the mealy-mouthed hypocrisy of the opposition leaders that has demonstrated where the fault lines in Parliament lie. And with that in mind, as voters end up going to the polls, we can only hope that a definitive response will result, clearly indicating to the opposition that their fixation on opposing rather than setting aside partisan plaints to help govern this country has not been appreciated.

And Now?

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has brought down his latest budget. Prior to that the newspapers were full of some of the items that would appear in the budget that would have popular approval among the electorate. Logically, because some of these items were specifically ones that NDP leader Jack Layton expressed favour toward in his pre-budget conference with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the thought was that the Conservative-led minority government would not be brought down by an opposition lack-of-confidence vote.

Among the items of interest was an extension of government subsidies for home renovations geared to cut energy costs. Along with forgiveness of student loans up to $40,000 for graduating doctors, and $20,000 for nurses prepared to practise rurally. And another one that increased financial assistance to the elderly who live under the poverty line. A few of the more costly items that Jack Layton envisioned the Conservatives committing to in favour of NDP support of the federal budget were not seen to be fiscally prudent.

Before the presentation of the budget, Mr. Layton gave the impression that there would be a likelihood that his party would support the budget, and thus help to avert bringing down the government. Other items such as assistance in job opportunities to Canadian Forces veterans in transition to civilian life, new research funding, and aid to families whose children are enrolled in music programs, speak of a modest but progressive budget.

There are quiet negotiations ongoing between the Quebec government and the federal government on an agreement to transfer $2.2-billion to the province to pay for the HST initiative that Quebec has long been expecting and the Bloc Quebecois demanding to see in the budget. Although Gilles Duceppe has declared that if he does not see the $2.2-billion transfer reflected in the budget he will vote it down, he may yet reasonably modify his stance and help avert a spring election.

Which, as matters stand now, since a bloody-minded Jack Layton has decided that he and his party cannot in good conscience support a budget that the Finance Minister declined to stuff with all of the NDP's demands, looks as though a May election may be imminent. Given the current standing of the Conservative-led government in the minds of the electorate which chose it handily over the opposition in recent polls for its superior handling of the economy and for trustworthiness, public opinion will not celebrate an election the public has no wish for.

And the one party that worked the hardest to bring down the government by shrill demands that it live up to the expectations of the opposition, by hysterical denunciations of its unwillingness to provide it with all the details and figures of costing initiatives for the prison program, for the purchase of new fighter jets, will gain not one iota from the process. Michael Ignatieff, leader of the Liberal Party, so eager to attain the seat of government, has not enthused the voting public.

His awkward attempts at ingratiating himself with the electorate, his impassioned declarations of love for Canada, his impatient and negligent performances in Parliament, forever accosting and accusing the government of under-handed, inefficient and inappropriate conduct will only come back to haunt him, so sublimely descriptive as they are of his own performance.

Most Trusted, Most Votes

Well my, that is an interesting revelation. And under the circumstances, a welcome one. That there are enough Canadian voters who are singularly unimpressed by the hot air being vented continually by Michael Ignatieff and his cohorts in the Liberal Party, along with the NDP, the Green Party, and the rather pathetically-self-obsessed Bloc Quebec to haul the Conservatives from power in Parliament.

Insufficient voters are impressed with the presentation of Michael Ignatieff as a potential future Prime Minister of Canada. They appear to be rather satisfied with the performance of the current prime minister, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper. Perhaps they believe that Prime Minister Harper is honourable in intent and practise and Mr. Ignatieff is not, measurably.

Whatever the reason, Prime Minister Harper's ongoing performance has the support of a significant portion of the electorate. Voters, in a recent poll conducted for Global National and Postmedia News by Ipsos Reid, indicate unequivocally that they believe the Conservatives are in the best position to continue leading the country. And that the incumbent prime minister is their choice for that office.

The poll offered Canadians two choices to determine what they believe is the most important election issue. Fully 63% claimed that "electing a party and leader that will provide honest, open and trustworthy government" trumps "electing a party and leader that will make sure that our economic recovery continues", which was chosen by 37% of those polled. But on both counts Stephen Harper and the Conservatives had the upper hand.

The irony here of course is that the Liberals, the NDP, the Greens and the Bloc all contend that the current Conservative-led government is untrustworthy and dishonest. Obviously a contention not shared by the electorate who have witnessed the quality of performance of this government and found it greatly to their liking.

As for the country's economic situation, 37% believe the Conservatives are more capable of performing well at "making sure our economic recovery continues". There is a track record, after all, where Canadians have observed this government at work. And when it comes to keeping taxation tolerable, 36% believe that the Conservatives can be trusted to "keep taxes under control".

How utterly inconvenient for the opposition.

Whose Cheap Partisan Purposes?

A simple and honest reading of the international economic recovery teetering on the brink of falling back into disarray with the fiscal weaknesses of Ireland, Iceland, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Belgium and others trying to nudge their economies back into health, would inform anyone with an interest that those countries whose economies have picked up can still spiral backward.

The horrendous shock that the third largest economy of the world has suffered through a triple misfortune should serve as a lesson in the potential for disaster that can befall the most prepared through a single act of Nature compounded by serial fall-outs. Stock markets around the world followed the impact of the stupendous quake, the tsunami and the failure of nuclear safeguards now assailing Japan.

The price of all manner of basic goods will be affected, as will be currencies around the world. Stability in production and consumption through the faltering of one very impressive economic engine falling into a state of huge disrepair will impact the entire world economy. While the world rushes to desperately attempt to deliver aid to the fearsomely fallen giant that Japan is, there is also no guarantee that an ultimate disaster will not eventuate.

So when Prime Minister Stephen Harper cautions that now is not the time to shed one government that has proven, despite its minority status, that it has the ability to govern well and has the approval of a substantial percentage of the voting public, he is entirely correct. The opposition parties in Parliament have an agenda to one way or another destabilize the government and bring on an election the public has no wish for.

Most particularly at a time when stability is required in the face of dire upheavals throughout the world. In characterizing the Prime Minister's sober reflection on the situation, the opposition states it to be reflecting "cheap, partisan purposes". It is not. For there is nothing to be gained by bringing down this government through a decision made to reject the upcoming budget sight unseen.

And there is much to lose by launching the country into an election at such a time of global financial uncertainties. Canada has weathered the recent global economic downturn relatively unscathed, although we are still not in solid fiscal shape and our deficit and debt represent a far less healthy economy than obtained before the downturn.

"It does not take very much to make us all - not just in Canada, the United States all around the world - to make everybody very worried about what's coming next in the economy. We've been through a difficult time. It's getting better. It's still quite fragile. So I don't want to predict how that's going to unfold. I think the Japanese will find their way of coping, but the fact of the matter is this should be a wake-up that we cannot afford to take our focus off the economy and get into a bunch of unnecessary political games. Or, as I said, an opportunistic, unnecessary election that nobody is asking for." Prime Minister Stephen Harper

He is quite right in that assessment. On the face of it, the Conservatives are right now higher in the polls by far than any of the opposition parties. There is a distinct possibility that were an election to be called the Conservatives, based on their performance the past six years as a responsible minority government, would receive a slight majority vote. They have gained the confidence of the voters.

What have they to lose, after all, in the event of another election? Leading in voters' minds, they stand to gain again, either as a minority or a majority government. While the opposition parties gnash their teeth in constant frustration over their inability to unseat a government that has shown itself capable and worthy of trust.

What do they add to the value of governance with their constant critiques of the Conservative-led government? Other than to illustrate in full living colour their blatant and continual partisan bickering and back-stabbing? Their lack of commitment to the public weal.

Their unwillingness to pull together with the government when clearly the voters have no wish to install them to replace the Conservatives.

Austerity Protest Fever

A labour objector, protesting against the state government in Wisconsin attempting to deal with the large and mounting deficit posed himself on a ledge off the capital building in Madison. Threatening to jump in support of his impassioned position on the sanctity of labour contracts. People defending their turf, unwilling to give up anything in favour of the larger perspective of balancing the state's financial books.

As though a page was hastily torn out of recent history, emulating the frustrated agitation of the young Tunisian fruit-seller Mohamed Bouazizi, whose self-immolation sparked an ever-growing protest in North Africa and the Middle East autocratic governments; against heartless bureaucratic interference in free enterprise.

Or, as though Americans were closely watching the violence of the belt-tightening protests in Greece.

However they have been inspired, American trade unionists will not stand for austerity measures hitting and belittling their entitlements. Even though, in the face of reasonable accommodation, those entitlements far surpass the wages and incidental entitlements - through successful union bargaining - that most Americans, particularly obviously, the unemployed can count on.

A recent poll showed, rather surprisingly, that most Americans - despite their straitened circumstances and the still-struggling economy that is wresting itself out of a deep depression, albeit with remaining high unemployment figures - support union collective bargaining entitlements. After all, the state succumbed to the rigorous bargaining set forth by the unions.

Except that the cumulative effects of all those weak-kneed legislators agreeing to some really exceptionally unworkable perquisites turned out to be unworkable. In that the state, even in good times, found it increasingly difficult to maintain contracts that had salaried workers paying little-to-nothing for their own medical and retirement plans.

It is also surprising to hear of the poll results, given that in the country many of the states pride themselves on being "right to work" states. Which, translated, means low-wage, non-unionized states, where union busting is a state sport, and workers take the jobs that are available and lump it, sans benefits.

President Barack Obama is squarely on the side of the unions, in a growing fever of blow-back across state lines. He would be, as a liberal-minded president, concerned with the state of his country's lower and middle classes, the working poor to the working entitled. Besides which, during his run for the presidency he had huge union support.

He could hardly now, in their time of need, desert those who had so enthusiastically supported him. And he has not. In his speeches while making note of the dire economic times and the circumstances that have impacted so deleteriously on state finances, the federal government has not been exempt from the same pressures.

"I don't think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified or their rights are infringed upon. We need to attract the best and brightest to public service. These times demand it", he emphasized in a televised address. But these times also demand stringent actions to tame the runaway deficit and resulting debt.

And it is not outside the realm of reasonability that the governor of Wisconsin has sought to have state government workers take on some of the responsibility for their own health care and pension benefits to more closely resemble a balanced picture. Limiting collective bargaining rights for most public employees represents a step back in time.

It's those who bargain with them who need a little more backbone. The need to do so should cut across party lines. The Democratic legislators who fled across state lines to stall the inevitable are only imperilling the financial fortunes of the state, aside from behaving in a childish, even illegitimate manner to protest what they hadn't the guts to pull off.

Clearly, the President of the United States is not prepared to pick up a picket sign and join the union protest. He took his own necessary steps not all that long ago. He recognized the need to reign in costs to the taxpayer in light of the fact that the taxpayer is already groaning under an unsupportable burden. Aside from the fact of huge unemployment.

"I recently froze the salaries of federal employees for two years. It wasn't something I wanted to do, but I did it because of the very tough fiscal situation we are in. I believe that everybody should be prepared to give up something in order to solve our budget challenges. I think most public servants agree with that. Democrats and Republicans agree with that."

But do they? Does he?

Photo: Ray Cunningham

Elementary Diagnosis

Omani police fired rubber bullets at stone-throwing protesters demanding political reform on Sunday, killing two people, and demonstrators set government buildings and cars ablaze, witnesses said. Hours after the violence, Oman's ruler, Sultan Qaboos, gave an order to create 50,000 jobs for citizens in the Gulf Arab state of 2.7 million people. Witnesses said more than 2,000 protesters had gathered for a second day in a square in Sohar demanding political reforms, more jobs and better pay before police tried to disperse them, first with tear gas and batons and then rubber bullets. Reuters

The monumental struggle for regimes in the Middle East and North Africa to contain their citizens' unrest has emerged front-and-center as the single most momentous, precedent-shattering series of events in modern Islamic history. Islam, which exerts such an especial covenant with its worshippers, exhorting them to submit in prayer five times daily, and which delineates every aspect of the lives of the faithful, has failed to teach its political leaders due respect for their populations.

While the mullahs, the clerics, the ayatollahs pound the lessons of the Koran into the malleable minds of Islam's faithful, further influencing them to obey and to submit to the prevailing order in each of their countries governed by dictators, theocratic despots, benevolent monarchs, oil-rich sheiks, and monstrous tyrants, the fundamental needs of those vast numbers who are unschooled, indigent and yet produce new mouths to feed year upon year, go ignored.

From Algeria to Yemen, Bahrain to Sudan, Qatar to Morocco, the average of each of those regimes' appearance on the human development index as judged by all civil, health, education and income indices are miserably low. On the consumer price index, the availability to these people of basic consumer goods, gives a result on average reflecting another failure. On the corruption score, most of these countries with rare exceptions have an unfortunately dismal rating.

On the index of freedoms for the people inhabiting countries like Libya, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, among others, the result is intolerably low. But modern technology has impinged on all of these countries, from use of the Internet enabling access to social network sites, to cellphone use. As a result, it has become impossible for autocratic rulers to keep their populations ignorant of the freedoms available to people elsewhere in the world.

Freedom to vote in fair elections, freedom to join political parties other than the dominant one, freedom to dress as they wish, to consume music, to dance; freedom to purchase goods and services because they are available in societies where trade is seen as a positive element in the growth of a country's GDP. They also become aware that other countries' populations live under far fewer religious and political strictures.

Above all, they see that although unemployment exists universally, it does not exist to the degree that it does in Africa and the Middle East where the economy is far more stagnant and resistant to positive change, than elsewhere. The unemployment rate among educated and lesser-educated rural youth in Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, among others, is staggeringly high. And young people become restless.

They begin to agitate for their rights, not seeming to understand that their rights are totally dependent upon the whims of those who govern, and happenstance of their countries' economic performance. And there is just so many government jobs to go around in any country, before it begins to collapse in upon itself through the weight of poorly-functioning, non-producing jobs that do nothing to further the financial security of the country.

If there is a lack of enterprise and entrepreneurial spirit and opportunity, if industry and investment in production other than the extraction of naturally-endowed fossil fuels are not present nor encouraged, there is a limit to the number of jobs that can be made available. If people are not employed they cannot purchase even those foods that are available. And when there is a global food shortage bringing up the price of basic food and energy, it is highly concerning.

The very elemental formula for dissent and complaint, for protest and insurrection, for demands and resorting to violent rhetoric, descending into violent action is there: a bulging unemployed youth demographic, food scarcity, lack of fundamental civil freedoms.

The New Generation of Revolutionaries

Saudi Arabia has known for a very long time that it has a problem on its hands. One it shares with all its neighbours, for the most part. Too many shiftless young people. It is not the women, who are strictured not to be seen in public unless clad in all-encasing garments and even then escorted by male family members who are of concern. It is the young men with too much idle time on their hands because there are not enough jobs to employ them gainfully.

What Saudi Arabia has been aware of is that without gainful employment for all these young men, marriage is not quite possible. Marriage softens the rough edges of virile young men, it keeps them out of trouble. The responsibilities that come with marriage, and raising a family ensures that young men will not become restless, will not agitate for change, will not become likely recruits for Islamism and jihad.

Which is paradoxical given that Saudi Arabia's very fundamentalist style of Islam, Wahhabi-style, has been responsible throughout other parts of the world in training young men who become susceptible to the allure of wild adventure in religiously-motivated, violent jihad, through their investment in madrassas. But then, it is one thing to export fundamentalist Islam, and another to welcome a threatening variant of it into one's homeland.

The aging royalty of the House of Saud recognizes its problem. But it has hundreds of billions of dollars in profit from its kingdom's fossil fuel extraction, and in that country money really is no problem. King Abdullah can return home from recovery from surgery and in celebration magnanimously hand out tens of billions of dollars to continue to buy the loyalty of his subjects. Which subjects, with rare exceptions, it seems, are more than happy to continue living under his rule.

Not for King Abdullah the migraine-inducing pain suffered by Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt, and the unspeakable Libya. All government employees will be enjoying a 15% pay raise. Social welfare programs, housing and education will receive stiff infusions of cash. There will be financial aid for an entire year for the unemployed, including presumably, those steaming youth who cannot find employment thus cannot purchase a home and a car, and go looking for a wife.

Of the 19 million citizens populating Saudi Arabia, 47% are age 18 or younger. And roughly 40% of all Saudis who are between 20 and 24 years of age are unemployed. So oops! There are activists in the country calling for economic reform and the creation of more jobs. They're also assuming that their combined voices may be instrumental in leading to freedom for women, free elections and political reforms.

But Saudi Arabia is a quietly efficient place where dissent is not brooked nor anticipated. And people really are fond of their benevolent monarchy. So it would be a real eye-opener if the social activists hoping for a better future for themselves and their youthful countrymen could amass enough support even from within their own demographic to mount a meaningful campaign.

Still, as one Middle East expert mused: "The new generation of revolution is surrounding them from everywhere."

Beware Greeks Bearing Grudges

Europe is not a happy place, lately. Austerity measures are no more popular there than anywhere else in the world. There have been protests against belt-tightening everywhere in the world; strikes and protests and union demands, from Israel to the United States, Europe to the Middle East. People are angry as they see food and energy prices rise while their incomes do not.

And they don't want to take it anymore.

There's a big difference, however, between angry strikes and anarchic protests. Between civil disobedience and violent disorder. Once again Greeks have gone on a rampage to let their government know they have no intention of quietly submitting to the austerity measures it wishes to impose upon them at the demand of the International Monetary Fund.

The European Union and the IMF have extended a $150-billion rescue loan to Greece, after all, and understandably they would appreciate the assurance that Greece is serious about undertaking financial reforms, for they would like to be repaid eventually, thank you very much. The IMF is pressing George Papandreou to speed up structural reforms.

And the Greek populace is responding by raging against the recession and the imposition being placed on the normalcy of their lives and their expectations. Tens of thousands of workers, pensioners and students marched in protests, the hell with the debt crisis. Riot police were out in force at Athens' central Syntagma Square letting loose tear gas.

Bahrain has its Pearl Square, Libya its Green Square, Tunisia its Mohammad Bouazizi Square, Egypt its Tahrir Square, and Greece has its Syntagma Square. Where protesters marched to express their disgust over the prices of food and goods not matching their ability to purchase, and where they expressed their unwillingness to be governed by those who ignored their fundamental needs.

In Wisconsin, the Democrats in the Indiana House of Representatives fled the state to deprive the Republican majority from a quorum required to pass a bill restricting worker's rights to collective bargaining, in an effort to bring the state's finances under control. In Greece protesters are out in force flinging stones and firebombs, vandalizing transit stops, and setting fire to trash bins.

A wholesale rejection of the government's economic policies in the wake of the country's near bankruptcy. In attempting to reduce its debt of over $400-billion, the government thought to lease state assets: "We want the government to drop all these measures, to abandon plans to sell property!"

The union-led strikes paralyzed maritime traffic and train services, disrupted the capital's urban transport and flights and resulted in a news black-out. Hospitals and schools were affected, and public administration offices and banks shut down. The population generously assisting its government in coming to grips with the country's debt crisis.

Very civilized.