Posts
Good news from the Conservative government. They have decided to scrap the mandatory long answer form for the 2011 census. This is only a partial move, since the shorter form will still be mandatory. But at least the government is getting rid of the most intrusive part of the census.
Critics say that by making the long form non-mandatory it will make the census information less reliable. This is an issue because this data is used to assign government services. The truth of the matter is that the census was never good at calculating demand. The only way to truly know the level of demand is to look at market signals through pricing, and government simply can’t do that.
All that the census is, and I say this as someone who once worked for Census Canada, is an intrusion into the privacy of the individual. So I applaud the government for at least taking this small step towards ensuring greater privacy.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Germans want to ditch the Euro
As a direct result of Germany being forced to bail out Greece, the German people now want out of the Euro. Before the Greek crisis two thirds of the German people supported the European currency. Now only thirty percent support the Euro and fifty-one percent want to abandon the Euro. If this attitude continues in the long term, this could represent a huge shift in Germany’s relationship with the European project.
It may not be easy to leave the Euro and return to the Deutschmark, but I suspect that it will not be impossible. The real question is if the political elite, who are married to the idea of European integration, will be willing or able to respond to this new demand. Will political parties be able to change their message and grab hold of this new anti-Euro sentiment?
It may not be easy to leave the Euro and return to the Deutschmark, but I suspect that it will not be impossible. The real question is if the political elite, who are married to the idea of European integration, will be willing or able to respond to this new demand. Will political parties be able to change their message and grab hold of this new anti-Euro sentiment?
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Gather your armies, or is that too much?
Terrence Watson of Western Standard posted this American political ad:
The most remarkable thing about this is that the actor was able to say "gather your armies" with a straight face.
The most remarkable thing about this is that the actor was able to say "gather your armies" with a straight face.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Does the G20 deficit agreement go far enough?
Good news from the G20 meeting. The member nations of the Group of 20 have agreed to cut their deficits in half by 2013 and to stabilize their debt. Such a move is so obviously needed that you could say that this is basically people agreeing to acknowledge the existence of reality. But considering the track record of some governments for ignoring reality, I would say that this is a positive step.
My question is: what happens after 2013? Will the governments of the G20 be satisfied with having achieved this goal and go no further? Will a similar consensus be reached to when member countries should have no deficit at all?
Half of a deficit is a good thing, in the same way that dying of cancer in a year is better than dying in 6 months. You are still screwed in the long run but it will take a little longer to get there. That is to say, that a smaller deficit is better but a deficit is still bad.
My question is: what happens after 2013? Will the governments of the G20 be satisfied with having achieved this goal and go no further? Will a similar consensus be reached to when member countries should have no deficit at all?
Half of a deficit is a good thing, in the same way that dying of cancer in a year is better than dying in 6 months. You are still screwed in the long run but it will take a little longer to get there. That is to say, that a smaller deficit is better but a deficit is still bad.
You are not an anarchist, you are a thug
As I sit here in my scholarly exile in Edinburgh, I find myself deeply concerned for the safety of my brother-in-law and my friends who live in downtown Toronto (thankfully my sister and her two year old fled the city before the violence started). I also feel a deep and fiery disgust for the idiotic self centered fools that are terrorizing an entire city. Make no mistake, these people are not anarchists. I sincerely doubt that many, if any, of the violent protesters have an intellectually consistent world view.
I have met many anarchists in my day (for some reason we tend to go to the same parties). I have not met a single one that was violent or irrational. In fact the whole basis of their ideology is founded on ideals of non-violence and rationality. True anarchists believe that we can all live peacefully without the coercion of the state. True anarchists would feel every bit as disgusted at these protesters as I do, perhaps more because they are corrupting a word that they hold dear.
I don’t think that anarchism would work for reasons that I won’t get into now. My point is that anarchism is not only a valid philosophical position, it is also rooted in ideals that are completely contrary to the behaviour of these so called anarchists in Toronto.
Smashing up a coffee shop and burning cars does not make you an anarchist warrior, it makes you a thug.
I have met many anarchists in my day (for some reason we tend to go to the same parties). I have not met a single one that was violent or irrational. In fact the whole basis of their ideology is founded on ideals of non-violence and rationality. True anarchists believe that we can all live peacefully without the coercion of the state. True anarchists would feel every bit as disgusted at these protesters as I do, perhaps more because they are corrupting a word that they hold dear.
I don’t think that anarchism would work for reasons that I won’t get into now. My point is that anarchism is not only a valid philosophical position, it is also rooted in ideals that are completely contrary to the behaviour of these so called anarchists in Toronto.
Smashing up a coffee shop and burning cars does not make you an anarchist warrior, it makes you a thug.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Why are there so many rent seekers?
Rent seeking is a term used by some social policy scholars to refer to special interest groups that lobby the state for special privileges or subsidies. A less polite term would be parasite. A rent seeker is someone that uses the coercive power of the state to gain economic advantage. They are takers not makers; they take from the productivity of others. They take a share of what Frederic Bastiat referred to as plunder.
To live by forcing others to pay for you is clearly immoral, and as Brian Lee Crowley recently argued in his book Fearful Symmetry, it is also detrimental to a person’s happiness and sense of self worth. So then why do so many people do it? Even people that would otherwise be inclined to be self sufficient often hire lobbyists and try to win favourable treatment. No matter how wrong someone may think it is, rent seeking is usually a necessity in the modern economy.
Mr. Crowley provides three reasons why someone would become a rent seeker:
If you are a business man and all your competitors are getting an advantage it is hard to remain virtuous and refuse government assistance. For this reason I never look down on businesses or any special interest group that gets government assistance. Ultimately it is not their fault.
The fault lies with government for allowing a culture of rent seeking to flourish. If the government had refused to hand out tax dollars or make regulation designed to protect particular interests then there would be less of a reason to rent seek.
At the end of the day the reason that so many people become rent seekers is because the government gives out the rent.
To live by forcing others to pay for you is clearly immoral, and as Brian Lee Crowley recently argued in his book Fearful Symmetry, it is also detrimental to a person’s happiness and sense of self worth. So then why do so many people do it? Even people that would otherwise be inclined to be self sufficient often hire lobbyists and try to win favourable treatment. No matter how wrong someone may think it is, rent seeking is usually a necessity in the modern economy.
Mr. Crowley provides three reasons why someone would become a rent seeker:
- Free money: the reward of seeking government subsidy is so high that it is practically free money. The cost of paying high taxes is already lost and if you do not get the subsidy someone else will.
- Competition: if you are the only one that isn’t getting government support you are at a severe disadvantage. It is practically self defence to ensure that your interests are heard when the government is handing out the loot.
- A sense of fairness: people have a sense of fair play, and some individuals being given an artificial advantage is almost always seen as unfair. In that spirit you may seek your own advantage from the state so that the playing field can be more level.
If you are a business man and all your competitors are getting an advantage it is hard to remain virtuous and refuse government assistance. For this reason I never look down on businesses or any special interest group that gets government assistance. Ultimately it is not their fault.
The fault lies with government for allowing a culture of rent seeking to flourish. If the government had refused to hand out tax dollars or make regulation designed to protect particular interests then there would be less of a reason to rent seek.
At the end of the day the reason that so many people become rent seekers is because the government gives out the rent.
We should cut down on the number of G8/20 meetings
Polls show that Canadians feel that the cost of the G8 and G20 meetings are too high. At the same time the polls show a general support for the international clubs as well as support for Canada hosting the meeting. Evidently the Canadian people don’t mind being the centre of global negotiations but reasonably feel that the price tag should not be too high.
This eminently reasonable position is undermined by a report made by Kevin Page that the cost of the summit is not ‘out of line with other countries.’ It appears that the numbers that have been used to compare the cost in other countries are not measuring the same factors. The Americans, for example, only reported in 2009 the cost of overtime and visiting military and police forces. The $19 million reported cost is hardly comparable to the more complete accounting of the Canadian government.
As Dr. Roy points out on his blog, Kevin Page is hardly a hack of the Conservative Party. I think it is therefore fair to say that Mr. Page’s report is accurate. There are some painfully obvious places that the government could have saved money, but the overall cost of having these meetings is still demonstrably high.
The question then arises, is the advantage of face to face meetings among the most important global leaders worth this cost?
It is hard to measure the benefits of the G8 and G20 meetings. The meeting that took place during the 2008 economic crisis is often cited as calming the market, but the long term benefit of that meeting is doubtful. The policies that are announced after these meetings are often laughable and usually ignored by the same governments that supported it. Often these meetings feel like nothing but an excuse for foreign travel and for anti-capitalist protests.
Some have claimed that the solution is to have the world leaders video conference with each other. Really that would be pointless. It isn’t like the heads of governments don’t already talk on the phone on a regular basis. That isn’t the point of the meetings. If there is a benefit at all the benefit comes from the face to face discussions between high level officials. There just isn’t anything that can replace being next to the person you are talking to.
Perhaps the solution is instead to not make G8 and G20 meetings a regular event. If the meetings are restricted to times of a clear need for discussion, such as some global economic crisis, then the member countries will not have to bear the cost of so many meetings. This would also bring more value for money because it will cut down on the pointlessness of some of the G8 meetings we have seen in the past.
If we assume that there is indeed a point to having these meetings at all, then for the sake of the taxpayer’s money, leaders should ensure that they actually have something important to talk about.
This eminently reasonable position is undermined by a report made by Kevin Page that the cost of the summit is not ‘out of line with other countries.’ It appears that the numbers that have been used to compare the cost in other countries are not measuring the same factors. The Americans, for example, only reported in 2009 the cost of overtime and visiting military and police forces. The $19 million reported cost is hardly comparable to the more complete accounting of the Canadian government.
As Dr. Roy points out on his blog, Kevin Page is hardly a hack of the Conservative Party. I think it is therefore fair to say that Mr. Page’s report is accurate. There are some painfully obvious places that the government could have saved money, but the overall cost of having these meetings is still demonstrably high.
The question then arises, is the advantage of face to face meetings among the most important global leaders worth this cost?
It is hard to measure the benefits of the G8 and G20 meetings. The meeting that took place during the 2008 economic crisis is often cited as calming the market, but the long term benefit of that meeting is doubtful. The policies that are announced after these meetings are often laughable and usually ignored by the same governments that supported it. Often these meetings feel like nothing but an excuse for foreign travel and for anti-capitalist protests.
Some have claimed that the solution is to have the world leaders video conference with each other. Really that would be pointless. It isn’t like the heads of governments don’t already talk on the phone on a regular basis. That isn’t the point of the meetings. If there is a benefit at all the benefit comes from the face to face discussions between high level officials. There just isn’t anything that can replace being next to the person you are talking to.
Perhaps the solution is instead to not make G8 and G20 meetings a regular event. If the meetings are restricted to times of a clear need for discussion, such as some global economic crisis, then the member countries will not have to bear the cost of so many meetings. This would also bring more value for money because it will cut down on the pointlessness of some of the G8 meetings we have seen in the past.
If we assume that there is indeed a point to having these meetings at all, then for the sake of the taxpayer’s money, leaders should ensure that they actually have something important to talk about.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Canada needs a Ron Paul
According to this Financial Post article, stimulus spending has lost support in the USA. Polls show that the public do not feel that it has created jobs and the White House is having trouble passing increased spending that was introduced in February. Even the rhetoric of President Obama has shifted from a need for stimulus to a need for fighting the looming debt crisis.
This mirrors much of what is happening in Canada. Here too the Canadian people are doubtful of the benefits of the stimulus package. Economists are likely to debate the validity of this doubt for years, but that is no surprise considering that the pros and cons of government stimulus have been debated for a century. Ultimately, from a politician’s point of view, it doesn’t matter what the economists say, the voters don’t think it worked.
The main difference between the political situation in America and Canada is that in the US there is a small cadre of politicians that always opposed the stimulus plan. Politicians such as Ron Paul and Jeff Flake can stand up and say that they were right all along. Now that public opinion has shifted their way they can reap a political reward for their principled opposition.
In Canada you will have trouble finding a politician that openly opposed the government’s spending. The opposition parties lack credibility on this issue because their main criticism at the time was that the government wasn’t spending enough. There was also a lack of provincial premiers rejecting the money the way that some Republican state governors did in the USA. And of course even if some Conservative MPs didn’t like the stimulus package, the oppressive nature of our political culture would have prevented them from saying so anywhere near cameras.
This means that as the country loses faith in the Keynesian strategy there is no one for Canadians to look towards as the proponent of the alternative. There is no Ron Paul for Canadians, and it cannot be said that there is no appetite for someone who will shake up the debate. Stephen Harper receives the best marks in polling data for being trusted with the economy, but even his grade is pretty low. The people just do not trust the current political leadership on economic issues.
The fundamental problem here is not that there is not dissenting opinion among Canada’s political class. The problem is that the political culture stifles debate. Without a healthy and full debate about our economic future, the Canadian people are left with no options when they tick their choice at the ballot box.
This mirrors much of what is happening in Canada. Here too the Canadian people are doubtful of the benefits of the stimulus package. Economists are likely to debate the validity of this doubt for years, but that is no surprise considering that the pros and cons of government stimulus have been debated for a century. Ultimately, from a politician’s point of view, it doesn’t matter what the economists say, the voters don’t think it worked.
The main difference between the political situation in America and Canada is that in the US there is a small cadre of politicians that always opposed the stimulus plan. Politicians such as Ron Paul and Jeff Flake can stand up and say that they were right all along. Now that public opinion has shifted their way they can reap a political reward for their principled opposition.
In Canada you will have trouble finding a politician that openly opposed the government’s spending. The opposition parties lack credibility on this issue because their main criticism at the time was that the government wasn’t spending enough. There was also a lack of provincial premiers rejecting the money the way that some Republican state governors did in the USA. And of course even if some Conservative MPs didn’t like the stimulus package, the oppressive nature of our political culture would have prevented them from saying so anywhere near cameras.
This means that as the country loses faith in the Keynesian strategy there is no one for Canadians to look towards as the proponent of the alternative. There is no Ron Paul for Canadians, and it cannot be said that there is no appetite for someone who will shake up the debate. Stephen Harper receives the best marks in polling data for being trusted with the economy, but even his grade is pretty low. The people just do not trust the current political leadership on economic issues.
The fundamental problem here is not that there is not dissenting opinion among Canada’s political class. The problem is that the political culture stifles debate. Without a healthy and full debate about our economic future, the Canadian people are left with no options when they tick their choice at the ballot box.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Obama the anti-immigration President?
Alex Nowratesh of the Competitive Enterprise Institute is arguing that Obama’s reputation of being pro-immigration is undeserved. In his article he points out that the Obama administration has increased restrictions and costs to legal immigration as well as increased bureaucracy targeting enforcement of the migration laws.
This is despite Obama’s opposition to Arizona’s recent immigration reforms as well as his support for an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Significantly, the Obama administration is setting new records for expelling immigrants.
I suggest you read the whole article here, or Reason Magazine’s summary of the article here.
This is despite Obama’s opposition to Arizona’s recent immigration reforms as well as his support for an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Significantly, the Obama administration is setting new records for expelling immigrants.
I suggest you read the whole article here, or Reason Magazine’s summary of the article here.
Sun TV News: Conservative or conservative?
Now that the new potential news station has a name, Sun TV News, we can thankfully stop calling it ‘Fox News North.’ The problem with the constant comparison with the American conservative network is that it has led to a lot of pre-judgement of what the new network will be like. It is doubtful, if indeed impossible, for it to be exactly like Fox News. So it would be more sensible to wait and see what Sun TV News will be like, rather than jump to conclusions.
Perhaps the most important question is if this news station will be ‘Conservative or conservative.’ Meaning: will it merely be a mouth piece for the Conservative Party or a true vehicle for conservative thought?
It seems that some have already assumed that the man in charge, Kory Teneycke, is a Harper stooge. There is a lot in his background that suggests that this is entirely possible. After all, he not only worked as the Harper government’s communication director, he has also worked for various political parties his whole life. If he has working experience outside of partisan politics I have not heard about it in any of the extensive articles on the man and his mission.
Still, I think people are jumping to conclusions. It doesn’t really matter how friendly Mr. Teneycke is with his former employers. His main mission is to make a successful business venture, and frankly even partisan hacks would get bored watching a network that did nothing but repeat Conservative Party press releases.
Mr. Teneycke’s attitude was partly revealed in his interview with Maclean’s:
“Do I think that the market space for political commentary is more oriented toward conservatism for the most part? Yeah, I think it probably is. But I think that’s for the same reason that talk radio in Canada tends to orient itself more toward conservative opinion than not: because it’s a jumping-off vote for a brasher, less politically correct discussion of issues.
“Do I think that there will only be conservative views represented? Absolutely not. It’d be bad television, it would be uninteresting for anyone to watch.”
The first and foremost mission of Sun TV News will be to make money.
Thus I suspect that it will be more conservative than Conservative, but I think we should all reserve our judgement until more is known.
Perhaps the most important question is if this news station will be ‘Conservative or conservative.’ Meaning: will it merely be a mouth piece for the Conservative Party or a true vehicle for conservative thought?
It seems that some have already assumed that the man in charge, Kory Teneycke, is a Harper stooge. There is a lot in his background that suggests that this is entirely possible. After all, he not only worked as the Harper government’s communication director, he has also worked for various political parties his whole life. If he has working experience outside of partisan politics I have not heard about it in any of the extensive articles on the man and his mission.
Still, I think people are jumping to conclusions. It doesn’t really matter how friendly Mr. Teneycke is with his former employers. His main mission is to make a successful business venture, and frankly even partisan hacks would get bored watching a network that did nothing but repeat Conservative Party press releases.
Mr. Teneycke’s attitude was partly revealed in his interview with Maclean’s:
“Do I think that the market space for political commentary is more oriented toward conservatism for the most part? Yeah, I think it probably is. But I think that’s for the same reason that talk radio in Canada tends to orient itself more toward conservative opinion than not: because it’s a jumping-off vote for a brasher, less politically correct discussion of issues.
“Do I think that there will only be conservative views represented? Absolutely not. It’d be bad television, it would be uninteresting for anyone to watch.”
The first and foremost mission of Sun TV News will be to make money.
Thus I suspect that it will be more conservative than Conservative, but I think we should all reserve our judgement until more is known.
Landowner Association president running for nomination in the PC Party
According to an article that appeared in the Ottawa Sun on June 17, Jack Maclaren, president of the Ontario Landowners Association, is looking to get the nomination to run in the next provincial election as a Progressive Conservative candidate. If he is anything like Randy Hillier, the founder of the OLA, I think that this is great news. The more advocates that we have for property rights in Queen’s Park and the PC caucus the better.
It appears that the riding association Carleton-Mississippi Mills is uncomfortable with his candidacy, which is understandable considering that part of Mr. Maclaren’s strategy is to take control of the riding association’s executive. This has been characterised by the sitting riding president as being ‘bullied out.’ Personally I would call it democracy.
I’ve seen it happening a few times, and I’ve heard of it happening a dozen times; a new up and coming politician wants to put people who are personally loyal to him or her in positions of trust in the riding association. If the existing executive can’t mobilise the membership to safe their position, then well, that’s politics.
Of course there are always tricks up the sleeve of an incumbent to stave off a potential threat, especially in the rough and tumble of local politics. One of these tricks is being applied by the Carleton-Mississippi Mills current executive. They are putting off holding an AGM pass the constitutional deadline. The hope it seems is that Mr. Maclaren will either go away or the executive can use the extra time to put up a decent fight.
With a reported 600 new members signed up by Mr. Maclaren it doesn’t seem like either eventuality is likely. The members of the current executive should instead be thinking ahead for ways that they can best work with the new team.
It appears that the riding association Carleton-Mississippi Mills is uncomfortable with his candidacy, which is understandable considering that part of Mr. Maclaren’s strategy is to take control of the riding association’s executive. This has been characterised by the sitting riding president as being ‘bullied out.’ Personally I would call it democracy.
I’ve seen it happening a few times, and I’ve heard of it happening a dozen times; a new up and coming politician wants to put people who are personally loyal to him or her in positions of trust in the riding association. If the existing executive can’t mobilise the membership to safe their position, then well, that’s politics.
Of course there are always tricks up the sleeve of an incumbent to stave off a potential threat, especially in the rough and tumble of local politics. One of these tricks is being applied by the Carleton-Mississippi Mills current executive. They are putting off holding an AGM pass the constitutional deadline. The hope it seems is that Mr. Maclaren will either go away or the executive can use the extra time to put up a decent fight.
With a reported 600 new members signed up by Mr. Maclaren it doesn’t seem like either eventuality is likely. The members of the current executive should instead be thinking ahead for ways that they can best work with the new team.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Sex and the City did not ruin you
Yesterday this article came out claiming a connection between the famous television show ‘Sex and the City’ and the destructive spending habits of some women. The idea is that Sex in the City showed a life style that was beyond the realistic financial reach of most women, but they still wanted it. So to try and attain the life of their unrealistic cocktail drinking heroes, women from all over spent more than they had and crippled themselves with debt.
This is a load of crap.
Television did not make those women do anything. They were not manipulated, tricked, brainwashed, or otherwise coerced by any sitcom to behave in any way. They made their own choices and blaming a fictional reality for their bad decisions is only an attempt to try and avoid any sense of responsibility.
Dexter has not turned me into a serial killer, the Wire has not turned me into a drug dealer, and Rome has failed to turn me into an ancient Roman soldier. This is for the same basic reason that Sex and the City has not turned anyone into a ‘shopping addict’:
You are in charge of your own choices.
Take responsibility for them.
This is a load of crap.
Television did not make those women do anything. They were not manipulated, tricked, brainwashed, or otherwise coerced by any sitcom to behave in any way. They made their own choices and blaming a fictional reality for their bad decisions is only an attempt to try and avoid any sense of responsibility.
Dexter has not turned me into a serial killer, the Wire has not turned me into a drug dealer, and Rome has failed to turn me into an ancient Roman soldier. This is for the same basic reason that Sex and the City has not turned anyone into a ‘shopping addict’:
You are in charge of your own choices.
Take responsibility for them.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
I don't care if candidate for Senate died in Vietnam or not
Frankly I find it hard to believe that Senate candidate Chris Wilfred died fighting in Vietnam. The facts as presented by his Republican opponents seem to contradict his assertion, and he has not yet adequately explained these contradictions.
Despite this I do not think that we should lose track of the real issues of the election. The condition of Mr. Wilfred's pulse matters far less than the condition of the national debt.
Despite this I do not think that we should lose track of the real issues of the election. The condition of Mr. Wilfred's pulse matters far less than the condition of the national debt.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
The party of Laurier?
Jonathan Kay wrote an interesting piece advocating the end of the Liberal Party because it has become a detriment to public discourse. His basic argument is that the Liberal Party sees itself as nothing but an empty shell of a governing party. They don’t need to put forth any consistent ideas because they rule. That is their purpose.
As much as this may or may not be too harsh he made one point that specifically resonated with me:
The most common is the one about the Liberals being "the party of Laurier" -- as if the party affiliation of someone who's been dead for a century should have the slightest bearing on how anyone today should vote. It's the equivalent of an American Republican gushing about "the party of Taft."
Laurier believed in minimal government interference in the market place. He once compared government enforced monopolies to serfdom. Does this sound like someone that would fit into the modern day Liberal Party?
As much as this may or may not be too harsh he made one point that specifically resonated with me:
The most common is the one about the Liberals being "the party of Laurier" -- as if the party affiliation of someone who's been dead for a century should have the slightest bearing on how anyone today should vote. It's the equivalent of an American Republican gushing about "the party of Taft."
Laurier believed in minimal government interference in the market place. He once compared government enforced monopolies to serfdom. Does this sound like someone that would fit into the modern day Liberal Party?
Why are people so afraid of a conservative tv network?
I’ve decided not to get too excited about the prospect of a conservative news caster in Canada. It seems to me that it has as much potential pitfalls as it does potential. Yet it is fascinating to see so many act so scared by the mere mention of a conservative media outlet.
Don Newman is openly admitting that he is prick to anyone who thinks it is a good idea. NDP MP Pat Martin is calling it ‘frightening.’ Then there are liberal bloggers that are writing like they are in a panic. And that just scratches the service of the hysterical response that has been bouncing around the internet.
The question I want someone to answer is: what are they so afraid of?
Are they afraid that a conservative newscaster may actually convince people to be conservative? Are they scared to actually engage in a genuine debate? Are they so insecure in their own ideas that they want them to go unchallenged forever?
You can disagree with someone but that is no reason to try and exclude them from a debate. In fact that is even more reason to include them. The more diverse the perspectives are in public debate the healthier and more fruitful will the debate be. Having more broadcasters of any bias or ideological bent will be good for democracy and good for Canada.
So even if this new network takes a shape that I cannot support or approve of, I will still welcome it to the great public dialogue of Canada.
Don Newman is openly admitting that he is prick to anyone who thinks it is a good idea. NDP MP Pat Martin is calling it ‘frightening.’ Then there are liberal bloggers that are writing like they are in a panic. And that just scratches the service of the hysterical response that has been bouncing around the internet.
The question I want someone to answer is: what are they so afraid of?
Are they afraid that a conservative newscaster may actually convince people to be conservative? Are they scared to actually engage in a genuine debate? Are they so insecure in their own ideas that they want them to go unchallenged forever?
You can disagree with someone but that is no reason to try and exclude them from a debate. In fact that is even more reason to include them. The more diverse the perspectives are in public debate the healthier and more fruitful will the debate be. Having more broadcasters of any bias or ideological bent will be good for democracy and good for Canada.
So even if this new network takes a shape that I cannot support or approve of, I will still welcome it to the great public dialogue of Canada.
Friday, June 11, 2010
The problem with government regulation
A recent study, done by the Fraser Institute, shows that government regulation has not made medicine cheaper in Canada than the United States. The National Post reported on the findings here:
"Our conclusion is that government intervention in prescription drug markets does not produce overall cost savings for consumers compared to free-market-based approaches in the United States," said Mark Rovere, associate director of health policy research with the Vancouver-based, right-wing think-tank.
"The main reason for this is because the potential savings from low-cost generic alternatives could not be had in Canada because they are incredibly inflated because of government policies."
Personally I’m not surprised that government regulation has not had the intended effect, most government regulation doesn’t accomplish what civil servants and politicians hope it would accomplish. The problem with any government regulation is aptly demonstrated later in the same article:
Noting the focus on drug price is "significantly misplaced," the Canadian Pharmacists Association is instead pushing for more investment in pharmacy services to ensure governments and individuals are getting value for their money.
So the association of pharmacists wants the government to spend more money on...pharmacists.
And there lies the problem. Governments are too vulnerable to interest groups such, as the Canadian Pharmacists Association. Any regulation that is ultimately created is more likely to benefit such interest groups than the public as a whole. It may not be a bad thing for the public but it certainly would not be optimal.
I don’t really blame policy makers. I am not one of those that think politicians and bureaucrats are some sort of evil cabal. They are simply lessoning to one particular group of experts, never mind that the same experts have an obvious stake in the outcome. It is simply the way that all governments work.
It is inevitable.
"Our conclusion is that government intervention in prescription drug markets does not produce overall cost savings for consumers compared to free-market-based approaches in the United States," said Mark Rovere, associate director of health policy research with the Vancouver-based, right-wing think-tank.
"The main reason for this is because the potential savings from low-cost generic alternatives could not be had in Canada because they are incredibly inflated because of government policies."
Personally I’m not surprised that government regulation has not had the intended effect, most government regulation doesn’t accomplish what civil servants and politicians hope it would accomplish. The problem with any government regulation is aptly demonstrated later in the same article:
Noting the focus on drug price is "significantly misplaced," the Canadian Pharmacists Association is instead pushing for more investment in pharmacy services to ensure governments and individuals are getting value for their money.
So the association of pharmacists wants the government to spend more money on...pharmacists.
And there lies the problem. Governments are too vulnerable to interest groups such, as the Canadian Pharmacists Association. Any regulation that is ultimately created is more likely to benefit such interest groups than the public as a whole. It may not be a bad thing for the public but it certainly would not be optimal.
I don’t really blame policy makers. I am not one of those that think politicians and bureaucrats are some sort of evil cabal. They are simply lessoning to one particular group of experts, never mind that the same experts have an obvious stake in the outcome. It is simply the way that all governments work.
It is inevitable.
Government should not be funding cultural events
The Toronto Star is reporting that Minister Tony Clement made the decisions on which festivals should get funding and which should not. The opposition MPs, and indeed the tone of the article, suggest that this is outrageous. And I agree but I doubt for the same reasons.
It is outrageous that one man gets final responsibility for deciding how $100 million of taxpayer’s money is spent. This is money that has been taken directly out of our pockets and is now at the disposal of a man who is a stranger to most of us. Under most circumstances that would be called theft
The problem is how else should the government make such decisions? Do you want this to be decided by some committee? That would mean that no one would be directly accountable. If there was some sort of problem or corruption it would be difficult to know who to fire or who to arrest. By putting the power in one man’s hand at least we know who to lynch. Besides the very principle of Westminster democracy is built on Ministerial responsibility. If you start messing with that you don’t really know what you are going to get.
No, the real issue isn’t that Mr. Clement was allowed to make these decisions. The problem is that these decisions are there to be made in the first place. Government money has no place funding cultural events. If people want these events to take place they will contribute to it voluntarily not be forced by the government to give them money.
It should always be kept in mind that the only true way to prevent the abuse of power is not to give the power to begin with.
It is outrageous that one man gets final responsibility for deciding how $100 million of taxpayer’s money is spent. This is money that has been taken directly out of our pockets and is now at the disposal of a man who is a stranger to most of us. Under most circumstances that would be called theft
The problem is how else should the government make such decisions? Do you want this to be decided by some committee? That would mean that no one would be directly accountable. If there was some sort of problem or corruption it would be difficult to know who to fire or who to arrest. By putting the power in one man’s hand at least we know who to lynch. Besides the very principle of Westminster democracy is built on Ministerial responsibility. If you start messing with that you don’t really know what you are going to get.
No, the real issue isn’t that Mr. Clement was allowed to make these decisions. The problem is that these decisions are there to be made in the first place. Government money has no place funding cultural events. If people want these events to take place they will contribute to it voluntarily not be forced by the government to give them money.
It should always be kept in mind that the only true way to prevent the abuse of power is not to give the power to begin with.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
In support of the HST
Opposition parties in British Columbia and Ontario are accusing the governments of both provinces of attempting a tax grab with the HST. But what is the real story of the HST? Niels Velduis of the Fraser Institute provides a strong argument for harmonizing sales tax in British Columbia. You can read the full details here, but I will provide a quick over view:
HST is far from a tax grab. It just makes good economic sense and opposition parties should take a deep breath and take an honest look at this policy.
- The current PST charges inputs and outputs, this means you are affectively taxed twice on everything you buy.
- 3 provinces have already harmonized to and have experienced significant economic benefit.
- Provinces that harmonized experienced a decrease in consumer prices.
- Harmonization also encouraged investment in those 3 provinces
- It is estimated that harmonization will increase investment in BC by $11.5 billion and generate 113 000 jobs over 10 years
HST is far from a tax grab. It just makes good economic sense and opposition parties should take a deep breath and take an honest look at this policy.
The doom of Stephen Harper
Bob Hepburn at the Toronto Star is predicting the end of Stephen Harper. I think just about everyone can roll their eyes at such a statement. It would be an interesting study to look at how many times someone from the Toronto Star has predicted the doom of Stephen Harper since 2002. I am willing to bet that the number is impressive. The problem is that Mr. Hepburn is partly right. Stephen Harper should be doomed, but somehow he is not.
Mr. Hepburn puts forth two reasons for why Mr. Harper’s downfall is eminent: $1 billion spent on the G20 and G8 meetings; not including abortion in foreign aid funding. The second reason is silly. This has been an issue in the public sphere for months. If it was going to hurt Mr. Harper’s standing in the polls it would have done so already, but it didn’t. It is simply not an issue that the Canadian people as a whole care about.
The first reason is far more valid. Stephen Harper has positioned himself throughout his public career as a fiscal conservative. From his days in Reform to his days in the NCC and back again into Parliament as the leader of the Canadian Alliance, Stephen Harper was an advocate for limited government spending. Having built his reputation on such advocacy it was the fiscal conservatives that made him leader of the Conservative Party and ultimately the Prime Minister of Canada.
So you would think that a massive overspending project like this would cripple his government. The basic foundation of Mr. Harper’s support should be eroding underneath him. But really he still looks pretty secure. Sure he is slipping in the polls, but there is still little chance that the Liberal Party would be able to get it together enough to take him on. Also the prospect of a caucus or cabinet uprising is so laughable that it makes me want to weep for Westminster democracy.
The reason for this lack of destruction is simple. Any fiscal conservative who is likely to abandon Stephen Harper has already done so. The Harper government has increased spending at a rate that Pierre Trudeau would have envied. So why would any true believer in fiscal conservatism still support him?
No, the truth is that his real power is based on being the better option than the Liberal leader. As long as Mr. Harper can point to his opponents and declare that they would be far worse, the ranks of the Conservative Party will stay in line. So far he has been lucky that Mr. Dion and Mr. Ignatieff have set the bar so low. That luck may run out one day, but I think anyone of sense would hesitate to declare the end of Stephen Harper.
Mr. Hepburn puts forth two reasons for why Mr. Harper’s downfall is eminent: $1 billion spent on the G20 and G8 meetings; not including abortion in foreign aid funding. The second reason is silly. This has been an issue in the public sphere for months. If it was going to hurt Mr. Harper’s standing in the polls it would have done so already, but it didn’t. It is simply not an issue that the Canadian people as a whole care about.
The first reason is far more valid. Stephen Harper has positioned himself throughout his public career as a fiscal conservative. From his days in Reform to his days in the NCC and back again into Parliament as the leader of the Canadian Alliance, Stephen Harper was an advocate for limited government spending. Having built his reputation on such advocacy it was the fiscal conservatives that made him leader of the Conservative Party and ultimately the Prime Minister of Canada.
So you would think that a massive overspending project like this would cripple his government. The basic foundation of Mr. Harper’s support should be eroding underneath him. But really he still looks pretty secure. Sure he is slipping in the polls, but there is still little chance that the Liberal Party would be able to get it together enough to take him on. Also the prospect of a caucus or cabinet uprising is so laughable that it makes me want to weep for Westminster democracy.
The reason for this lack of destruction is simple. Any fiscal conservative who is likely to abandon Stephen Harper has already done so. The Harper government has increased spending at a rate that Pierre Trudeau would have envied. So why would any true believer in fiscal conservatism still support him?
No, the truth is that his real power is based on being the better option than the Liberal leader. As long as Mr. Harper can point to his opponents and declare that they would be far worse, the ranks of the Conservative Party will stay in line. So far he has been lucky that Mr. Dion and Mr. Ignatieff have set the bar so low. That luck may run out one day, but I think anyone of sense would hesitate to declare the end of Stephen Harper.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Ignatieff on bilingualism
Michael Ignatieff spoke about how bilingualism is part of the Canadian identity. Since identity is a rather loose concept that relies almost entirely on the feelings and attitudes of individuals, I think I can let that one slide. I would disagree but he can define the country however he wants.
What I find puzzling is why he feels the need to spend everybody’s money to enforce his concept of Canada. If this is who we are as a people, in the sort of fundamental way that Ignatieff speaks of, then why do we need government funding to enforce it? If we are a bilingual people by nature shouldn’t we be, you know, bilingual by nature?
That isn’t even the most puzzling part of his speech. Mr. Ignatieff claims that bilingualism is the reason why Canada has been united for “hundreds and hundreds of years.” I have to believe that this is a quote taken out of context because I find it hard to believe that the man was this silly.
Two things come instantly to mind:
1. Official bilingualism has been enforced for less than half a century.
2. Canada hasn’t been a country for more than 143 years. So how could we have been united for hundreds and hundreds of years?
I suppose we can put this comment down to Mr. Ignatieff being to enthusiastic. But really that is the whole problem with this idea of government promoted bilingualism. It is too enthusiastic.
It creates a picture of Canada that doesn’t exist and frankly never will exist. We are not a bilingual people. There are many languages spoken in Canada, and many people speak more than one of them. But English and French are not at the heart of every Canadian.
What I find puzzling is why he feels the need to spend everybody’s money to enforce his concept of Canada. If this is who we are as a people, in the sort of fundamental way that Ignatieff speaks of, then why do we need government funding to enforce it? If we are a bilingual people by nature shouldn’t we be, you know, bilingual by nature?
That isn’t even the most puzzling part of his speech. Mr. Ignatieff claims that bilingualism is the reason why Canada has been united for “hundreds and hundreds of years.” I have to believe that this is a quote taken out of context because I find it hard to believe that the man was this silly.
Two things come instantly to mind:
1. Official bilingualism has been enforced for less than half a century.
2. Canada hasn’t been a country for more than 143 years. So how could we have been united for hundreds and hundreds of years?
I suppose we can put this comment down to Mr. Ignatieff being to enthusiastic. But really that is the whole problem with this idea of government promoted bilingualism. It is too enthusiastic.
It creates a picture of Canada that doesn’t exist and frankly never will exist. We are not a bilingual people. There are many languages spoken in Canada, and many people speak more than one of them. But English and French are not at the heart of every Canadian.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
The Liberal Party should stop acting like it is doomed
Dan Arnold (aka Calgary Grit) wrote an amusing piece, sarcastically suggesting that the Liberals and Conservatives should merge. One paragraph in particular struck me:
Believe me, I too see how bleak the future looks for the Liberals. After all, we have been out of power for four years, while Harper sits with a towering 34% in the polls. I cannot imagine a more hopeless situation.
In his tongue and cheek manner, Mr. Arnold makes a good point here. The Liberal Party should not be this demoralized. In 2006 they lost due mostly to the biggest scandal in Canadian politics for a generation. In 2008 they lost because of a single bad policy proposal and a weak leader. The Liberal Party may be in trouble for a variety of reasons, but it certainly isn’t hopeless. The Liberal Party is still an important political force in federal politics.
By the way you hear some Liberals talk you would think that it was 1993 and they were Kim Campbell’s PC Party. Remember 1993? The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was all but wiped out and it still took them 12 years to decide to merge with their political opponent. Yet some in the Liberal Party seem willing to pack it all in after just 4 years of a Conservative minority government.
The real problem with the Liberal Party is that they don’t know how to lose. Losing in politics, or at least losing constructively, is an art that every political party needs to master. I mean by this, the ability to internalize within the institution of a political party the lessons of a defeat.
The Liberal Party hasn’t done this. They are still looking for a quick fix. As James Travers points out, the Liberals seem to be in the search of an easy way back to victory. They are looking for a new leader that will grant them victory, a merger with the NDP, or even a return of Jean Chretien. All of these ideas are nutty but they are being talked about seriously by way too many people.
Instead the Liberal Party should take a deep breath, realize that sometimes you lose elections in a democracy, and figure out how they are going to win next time.
Believe me, I too see how bleak the future looks for the Liberals. After all, we have been out of power for four years, while Harper sits with a towering 34% in the polls. I cannot imagine a more hopeless situation.
In his tongue and cheek manner, Mr. Arnold makes a good point here. The Liberal Party should not be this demoralized. In 2006 they lost due mostly to the biggest scandal in Canadian politics for a generation. In 2008 they lost because of a single bad policy proposal and a weak leader. The Liberal Party may be in trouble for a variety of reasons, but it certainly isn’t hopeless. The Liberal Party is still an important political force in federal politics.
By the way you hear some Liberals talk you would think that it was 1993 and they were Kim Campbell’s PC Party. Remember 1993? The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was all but wiped out and it still took them 12 years to decide to merge with their political opponent. Yet some in the Liberal Party seem willing to pack it all in after just 4 years of a Conservative minority government.
The real problem with the Liberal Party is that they don’t know how to lose. Losing in politics, or at least losing constructively, is an art that every political party needs to master. I mean by this, the ability to internalize within the institution of a political party the lessons of a defeat.
The Liberal Party hasn’t done this. They are still looking for a quick fix. As James Travers points out, the Liberals seem to be in the search of an easy way back to victory. They are looking for a new leader that will grant them victory, a merger with the NDP, or even a return of Jean Chretien. All of these ideas are nutty but they are being talked about seriously by way too many people.
Instead the Liberal Party should take a deep breath, realize that sometimes you lose elections in a democracy, and figure out how they are going to win next time.
Layton should reread the Constitution Act
Jack Layton hopes that he can make Health Care an important issue in the next election. This is surprising because he is talking about a federal election and not a provincial election. Is Jack Layton confused about the constitution of Canada? Did he somehow miss the fact that health care provision is a provincial power?
I read an academic journal article a week ago that argued that Canadians are ignorant about Canada’s federal system. I found the article unconvincing but after reading Jack Layton’s proposals I am willing to give it more credence. Would it be any wonder if Canadians don’t know what is federal jurisdiction when federal party leaders seem to have no idea?
Seriously Mr. Layton, if you want to fix health care run for the leader of a provincial party.
I read an academic journal article a week ago that argued that Canadians are ignorant about Canada’s federal system. I found the article unconvincing but after reading Jack Layton’s proposals I am willing to give it more credence. Would it be any wonder if Canadians don’t know what is federal jurisdiction when federal party leaders seem to have no idea?
Seriously Mr. Layton, if you want to fix health care run for the leader of a provincial party.
No regulation or new tax is needed
Stephen Harper has announced what he feels should be the key objective of any united G20 policy towards the banking industry:
The key objective, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in Paris on Friday, is to ensure that taxpayers, in Canada or elsewhere, will never be on the hook to bail out big banks.
Here is a crazy and radical idea: why don’t we just not bail out big banks?
There seems to be a myth that someone or something forced governments to bail out their banking industries. The truth is that it was a policy decision that they all took and it was a bad one. The global market would be better off, in the long run at least, if all those banks had been allowed to die. They could have been replaced by smaller banks who had not lent money to people who couldn’t possibly pay them back.
Mr. Harper, objective achieved.
The key objective, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in Paris on Friday, is to ensure that taxpayers, in Canada or elsewhere, will never be on the hook to bail out big banks.
Here is a crazy and radical idea: why don’t we just not bail out big banks?
There seems to be a myth that someone or something forced governments to bail out their banking industries. The truth is that it was a policy decision that they all took and it was a bad one. The global market would be better off, in the long run at least, if all those banks had been allowed to die. They could have been replaced by smaller banks who had not lent money to people who couldn’t possibly pay them back.
Mr. Harper, objective achieved.
Private industry reaching for the stars
Yesterday the first private space ship was launched and achieved orbit. Anyone who ever doubts that private industries can achieve marvels should remember June 4th (though I admit that the technology was originally developed by a government agency).
It seems significant that the only criticism that was reported about the project is that it is behind schedule. As if no government program has suffered the same fate; as if NASA had never been behind schedule. Space flight is a complicated thing and I think we would all rather the experts get it right than risk lives.
It seems significant that the only criticism that was reported about the project is that it is behind schedule. As if no government program has suffered the same fate; as if NASA had never been behind schedule. Space flight is a complicated thing and I think we would all rather the experts get it right than risk lives.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Is it too late in the year for Tax Freedom Day?
Tax Freedom Day has come three days later than it was last year (June 5th). So to celebrate or rather commiserate this sad statistic, the Fraser Institute has produced this video:
The right to fire an employee
I admit I tend to be a bit doom and gloom about the economic situation in the EU. I’ve predicted time and time again that the trouble countries, such as Spain, will not take the difficult steps to reform their economy. I have to tell you I am happy to have been proven at least partly wrong.
The Spanish government has announced that it is going to reform Spanish labour laws to make it easier to fire and hire people. Previously firms were not allowed to lay off workers to save money nor was it easy for them to fire someone for incompetence. This led to a stagnation of the work force and the economy.
As the BBC article that I linked above points out, many economists have said that Spain needs to reform these laws to improve their economy. So it will be a benefit to Spain and ultimately to the whole EU if the government manages to pass their reforms. But there is another dimension of this issue that should not be over looked: the moral dimension.
A few months ago my professor was discussing Spanish labour laws with the class. Many of my classmates comment that the labour laws were good because firing people to save money was selfish of the companies. The implication of most of my peers, and indeed the professor, was that business firms have a moral obligation to pay a person even if they didn’t want or need that person anymore.
What follows is a back and forth between myself and the professor as I point out an important fact that was being overlooked:
Prof: Why should a firm be allowed to fire people just to save their profits in an economic downturn?
Hugh: Because it is the firm's money.
Prof: Well isn't it really the economy's money?
Hugh: No it is the firm's money.
Prof: Okay, but isn't it ultimately the consumer's money?
Hugh: No it is the firm's money.
Prof: Well it depends on what model of the economic system you use.
No it does not depend on what ‘model of the economic system’ that you are using. It is the firm’s money. It is the money that they have earned. They are only as morally obligated to pay employees that they don’t want as you are to buy products that you don’t want.
Every business has the moral right to fire someone.
The Spanish government has announced that it is going to reform Spanish labour laws to make it easier to fire and hire people. Previously firms were not allowed to lay off workers to save money nor was it easy for them to fire someone for incompetence. This led to a stagnation of the work force and the economy.
As the BBC article that I linked above points out, many economists have said that Spain needs to reform these laws to improve their economy. So it will be a benefit to Spain and ultimately to the whole EU if the government manages to pass their reforms. But there is another dimension of this issue that should not be over looked: the moral dimension.
A few months ago my professor was discussing Spanish labour laws with the class. Many of my classmates comment that the labour laws were good because firing people to save money was selfish of the companies. The implication of most of my peers, and indeed the professor, was that business firms have a moral obligation to pay a person even if they didn’t want or need that person anymore.
What follows is a back and forth between myself and the professor as I point out an important fact that was being overlooked:
Prof: Why should a firm be allowed to fire people just to save their profits in an economic downturn?
Hugh: Because it is the firm's money.
Prof: Well isn't it really the economy's money?
Hugh: No it is the firm's money.
Prof: Okay, but isn't it ultimately the consumer's money?
Hugh: No it is the firm's money.
Prof: Well it depends on what model of the economic system you use.
No it does not depend on what ‘model of the economic system’ that you are using. It is the firm’s money. It is the money that they have earned. They are only as morally obligated to pay employees that they don’t want as you are to buy products that you don’t want.
Every business has the moral right to fire someone.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Merger will never happen, so sit back and enjoy the pointless discussion
At this point I’m having trouble remembering the last time I read anything written by Jane Taber that wasn’t about this fantasy of a merger between the Liberal Party and the NDP. I am not going to criticize anyone for jumping up and down on their hobby horse; after all I do live in a glass house. But if you are going to beat a horse to death you should at least check and see if it was ever alive in the first place. This merger idea is simply not going to happen. Both parties have way too much to lose.
Lorrie Goldstein writes about at least one NDP activist who would abandon any merged party and start a new ‘progressive’ party. I doubt that there is only one, the true believers of the NDP grassroots and labour associates will not tolerate a merger with the Liberal Party. The idea that the two parties are similar enough to form a single entity is delusional in the highest extreme.
On the Liberal side I expect the situation is even worse. Notwithstanding the President of the Young Liberals of Canada, there is little indication that Liberal Party membership would welcome a merge with the NDP. In fact most of the Liberals I talked to over the years (because this has been discussed for decades) laugh at the very idea.
Besides the lack of any support for the merger, the very process of merging these two institutions is full of potential problems. The Liberal Party is the oldest federal party in Canada and the NDP have their own institutional quarks such as Labour union participation in their leadership race. How do you expect to merge organizations with such a diverse background?
Summer is coming and there isn’t going to be a lot for the chattering class of the mainstream media to talk about. So I expect this to be constant back and forth for the next three months.
If you keep in mind that this isn’t going to ever happen, you can sit back and enjoy the rather amusing idiocy of certain members of the media.
Lorrie Goldstein writes about at least one NDP activist who would abandon any merged party and start a new ‘progressive’ party. I doubt that there is only one, the true believers of the NDP grassroots and labour associates will not tolerate a merger with the Liberal Party. The idea that the two parties are similar enough to form a single entity is delusional in the highest extreme.
On the Liberal side I expect the situation is even worse. Notwithstanding the President of the Young Liberals of Canada, there is little indication that Liberal Party membership would welcome a merge with the NDP. In fact most of the Liberals I talked to over the years (because this has been discussed for decades) laugh at the very idea.
Besides the lack of any support for the merger, the very process of merging these two institutions is full of potential problems. The Liberal Party is the oldest federal party in Canada and the NDP have their own institutional quarks such as Labour union participation in their leadership race. How do you expect to merge organizations with such a diverse background?
Summer is coming and there isn’t going to be a lot for the chattering class of the mainstream media to talk about. So I expect this to be constant back and forth for the next three months.
If you keep in mind that this isn’t going to ever happen, you can sit back and enjoy the rather amusing idiocy of certain members of the media.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Soccer league teaches that winning is everything
I remember playing on a sports team in high school. I played rugby and I look back at both practices and games with a fond memory. It was a lot of work. Some days I would go home so tired that I couldn’t get any of my homework done. But at the same time the friendships I made and the experiences are gained still have value for me 6 years later.
My team sucked.
Seriously we were horrible. I have no idea why our coach kept doing it year after year. I played for 5 years (starting in grade 8) and there was only 1 year that we were any good at all. There were games that we were happy to score a single try (a rugby goal). We lost some games more than 40 to nothing.
It didn’t really matter though. It wasn’t important that we were humiliated, it was far more important that we all showed up to practice the next day. It was more important that we were all able to laugh at ourselves and work hard to improve. Because life is not about winning and losing, it is about how you handle victory and defeat; and perhaps more importantly, who you share that victory or defeat with.
An Ottawa football league, league (I’m currently living in the UK so I have to call soccer football) the Gloucester Dragons Recreational Soccer, seems to have missed the point of sports. They have institutionalized a rule that any team that scores more than 5 goals that team will automatically lose. The idea is that this rule will prevent blow outs that would damage a youthful self esteem. The message, however, is clear: if your team sucks you are object of pity and mercy.
Really this teaches a message opposite of what the league wants. It teaches them that winning is the only thing that is important about a game. It teaches them that the score board is important and that they should feel shame if they don’t get points on that board.
This league wants coaches to teach their children to play half assed if they are beating their opponents too easily. They want players from superior teams to play with the wrong foot, take harder shots, or perhaps leave fewer players on the field. If some rugby team in my high school days had done something like that to us, I would have refused to play. I would have found it insulting.
The lesson that the Gloucester league should be trying to instil is the one that I learned: how to accept disappointment with grace and achievement with humility. Instead the lesson they are learning is that winning is the only important part of the game.
My team sucked.
Seriously we were horrible. I have no idea why our coach kept doing it year after year. I played for 5 years (starting in grade 8) and there was only 1 year that we were any good at all. There were games that we were happy to score a single try (a rugby goal). We lost some games more than 40 to nothing.
It didn’t really matter though. It wasn’t important that we were humiliated, it was far more important that we all showed up to practice the next day. It was more important that we were all able to laugh at ourselves and work hard to improve. Because life is not about winning and losing, it is about how you handle victory and defeat; and perhaps more importantly, who you share that victory or defeat with.
An Ottawa football league, league (I’m currently living in the UK so I have to call soccer football) the Gloucester Dragons Recreational Soccer, seems to have missed the point of sports. They have institutionalized a rule that any team that scores more than 5 goals that team will automatically lose. The idea is that this rule will prevent blow outs that would damage a youthful self esteem. The message, however, is clear: if your team sucks you are object of pity and mercy.
Really this teaches a message opposite of what the league wants. It teaches them that winning is the only thing that is important about a game. It teaches them that the score board is important and that they should feel shame if they don’t get points on that board.
This league wants coaches to teach their children to play half assed if they are beating their opponents too easily. They want players from superior teams to play with the wrong foot, take harder shots, or perhaps leave fewer players on the field. If some rugby team in my high school days had done something like that to us, I would have refused to play. I would have found it insulting.
The lesson that the Gloucester league should be trying to instil is the one that I learned: how to accept disappointment with grace and achievement with humility. Instead the lesson they are learning is that winning is the only important part of the game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)