CALEDONIA

Okay let's get back to some current events...

CALEDONIA

A small quiet city of 10,000 situated on the picturesque Grand River a short drive south from Hamilton.



It's name dates back to the Roman name for Scotland.



It's tranquility though was shattered beginning in late 2005 when the Six Nations Indian Band warned of violence if certain lands in Caledonia were developed as a subdivision.



Violence did soon ensue with one resident of the city so badly beaten he nearly died. Road blocks by the Tribe went up and since then, a general reign of terror has been waged against the populace.



The Province under the stewardship of Dalton McGuinty has taken a hands off approach throughout.



McGuinty also approved the purchase of the contested lands, by the Province, at an inflated value and then more or less ceded those lands over the the Six Nations.

The Indians were rewarded for their lawlessness.



And the hostilities continue.



It is not my intention to use this Blog to incite - there has been enough of that in the local papers of late documenting the terrible suffering of one particular family at the hands of the natives even though their home is situated outside of the disputed boundary.



What I'd rather do is look at this issue from two sides: first from the side of the Premier and then from the side of the Caledonians themselves.



I am not going to consider the concerns of the natives since I strongly believe that they lost the right to our sympathy once they resorted to violence. Plus, for a more thorough look at the native issue, I refer you back to an earlier Blog where I conclude the Reserve System is in need of disbanding.



Okay - The Premier's Position:

• With Ipperwash still fresh in his mind and the death of the native Dudley George, he has rightfully concluded that if he attempts to 'police' the situation in Caledonia - more death will follow.


• Given this, he has placed the natives above the law and has relegated the citizens of Caledonia to second class status.


• Finally, he is counting on the matter remaining a local concern and thereby hopes the rest of the Province will remains uninterested (read apathetic).

The Caledonians:

• The accounts that I have read indicate that the locals feel betrayed by their own provincial government - that they have been left to violent hands without police protection.


• They cannot understand that a country like Canada, which prides itself on respecting the Rule of Law and the promotion of equal rights for all citizens, can stand back and allow this insurrection to occur.
• Residents have been arrested for trying to protect themselves and their property. Some have been injured - some seriously, and many believe that one or more or their numbers will be killed before this is all settled - if it ever gets settled.

My thoughts:

If the Natives are permitted to get away with violence in Calendonia to achieve their aims - as has been the case here, it sends a message to other Tribes across the country that this is the way to go rather than waste their time with slow legal negotiations.

YOU DECIDE:

Okay, you have heard the arguments - now you decide.

Pretend you are the Premier for a day - what would you do?

a) send the police / army in to break-up the rebellion, or...

b) continue to keep a cap on things and avoid any official conflict for the purpose of avoiding more serious injury and most certainly death.

I look forward to your answers which I will publish at a later date.

"Galagher"

JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY

It is time that I get back to some current events - there is so much going on - but before I do, I would like to look one more time to the past.



Kennedy was assassinated 46 years ago this week - November 22, 1963. He too was only 46.



For the first time though, I was unable to find any mention of the anniversary in our local papers. And, probably the time has come to relegate this sad date to the past.



But before I do....



As many of you know, I plan to one day get back to my Blog on how things dramatically changed in the 1960's and that even today we are experiencing the fall-out from that time - most of it to our collective detriment. President Kennedy's death followed by Martin Luther King Jr. and his brother Bobby - all in the 60's - was the end of the Age of Innocence and therefore falls into the category of events that forever mark the 1960s as the major turning point - certainly in our time and probably in the last one hundred years and more.



Kennedy had two major accomplishments; one during his lifetime and the other post his death:

The Cuban Missile Crisis was his greatest lifetime achievement. He alone literally avoided an Atomic War.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff to a man, strongly recommended that JFK launch air bombardments on the Cuban missile sites. At one point, their discussions amongst themselves was taped and several years ago I listened to this tape which was played on television. The Chiefs were highly critical of Kennedy and viewed him as being nothing more than a young naive pup who was poorly placed to make such a critical decision. Their language was quite 'salty' in nature.

Even his Cabinet was pro military solution, save for one - his brother Bobby the then Attourney General. Kennedy had taken great heat for appointing his brother to Cabinet which the then pundits condemned as blatant Nepotism. But it is doubtful that John Kennedy could have remained resolute against a military strike had it not been for Bobby's sage counsel.

History shows that the Russian Generals, posted to Cuba, had been given orders to launch an Atomic Response to any military action on the part of America. It also shows that their missiles were armed and ready for firing.

Kennedy opted instead for a sea embargo of Cuba which ultimately led to successful negotiations with Kruschev and the rest, as they say, is history.

Kennedy's other great accomplishment occurred as a result of his death.

• The Civil Rights Legislation of 1964/65

This monumental legislation, freed the Blacks from institutional discrimination and was spearheaded by Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson. However, Johnson would not have been able to achieve this success had it not been for Kennedy's death since it was passed into law in his memory.

There was also a negative that flowed from his assassination - the escalation of the Vietnam War.

During Kennedy's tenure, the war in Vietnam was limited in involvement to American Military Advisors. With Kennedy's death, LBJ was able to tap into the outpouring of sympathy to dramatically increase the US military presence in that tragic land.

Indeed, when Bobby was assassinated in June of 1968, he was running for the Democratic Presidential Nomination - against LBJ, on a platform to end that war.

As I said, it is probably time to let President Kennedy go.

This very November, 50 years ago, John Fitzgerarld Kennedy was elected the 35th President of the United States. His star shone brightly; but today it is but a glimmer.

For those of us who lived through his death though, it will continue to shine forever.

As I see it,

"Galagher"

Ralph and Betty and their next door neighbour Fred

The day after their meeting with their new Personal Money Manager (PMM), Ralph and Betty are sitting on the front step of their new home when along comes their older neighbour Fred.





"Why so glum"? asks, Fred.





We are selling our new home, replies Ralph.





Just when I was starting to like you folks - how come?





Our PMM says it is in our best interest. We even have to sell our car.





Hey - I'll buy it.





Fred, why would you want our Honda - You already have a good family car?





Not the Honda - it's the Van I want.





Ralph and Betty look at each other and then Ralph responds: "the Van is not for sale - we are going to continue to have need of it".





Whatever for, asks Fred.





A tear creeps down Betty's cheek - but neither reply.





Fred breaks the silence. I thought you guys were happy here and the ding.., I mean your children seemed to have settled in quite nicely.





That's just the problem, replied Betty; Ralph and I and the kids just love our new home and we just hate to leave here, but our PMM says it is imperative that we do.





The discussion went on to include RRSPs, RESPs and TFSA's and the like.





You have no idea how hard it is for families like ours these days Fred.





What do you mean by that? Margaret and I had 3 kids too you know and it was only me working outside the home. Things turned out pretty good for us.





Our oldest is a Pharmacist, our middle girl - a Manager and our youngest, is a Registered Nurse. We have our home paid for and no debts to our name. Plus we have never had so much money to live on.





"How so? The money part I mean", asked Betty?





Margaret and I both receive the OAS, the CPP, and the monthly Gains Cheque. We have never been so well off.





Wow, said Betty. That's incredible.





"So how did you pay off your home", piped in Ralph?





We rented until we saved up a big enough down payment to keep the payments manageable. And we amortized it over the course of the rest of my working life. The final year of my employment saw the mortgage paid off in its entirety.





Okay, what about the post secondary education for your 3 children? That must have nearly bankrupted you?





Hell no, we told our kids they were on their own. Get a job, and get student loans. Margaret and I realized that kids only value things if they have to pay for it themselves.





You mean you didn't help them at all?





Unfortunately, no. We provided them with free room and board while they attended school.



Any Regrets, asked Ralph?



Just one; we should have charged them rent!!



Still interested in buying our van Fred?

------------------------------------------------

Note - the above is my effort at a 'tongue in cheek' look at this industry. In reality though, and as a Libertarian, I see the value - on a number of levels - of having individuals plan for their retirements and not depend on Big Government. There is great value in seeking out the advice of a credited Financial Planner employed at any of Canada's five major Banks.

As I see it..

"Galagher"

Personal Money Managers

A short while ago, I wrote a Blog on 'Stock Market Prognosticators' and how very adept they all are at determing how the Market will perform - albeit, a day or two after the fact.




Today lets take a look at your Personal Money Managers.



You know, the ones you see mentioned in the financial section of your local newspaper.



These are the folks who review your financial status and provide you with advice on how best to prepare for your retirement.



So like the newspaper, we'll take a look at a Case Study (entirely fictitious of course):



Let's look at Ralph and Betty and their 3 ding a lings - I mean children.



Ralph and Betty are in their late 30s and the ages of their children range from 4 to 12 years.



Mr. works for privately owned company and Mrs. is employed by a non-profit organization. Their combined annual income totals approximately $100K.



Within the past year, they moved from a townhouse into a single detached home where they are all very happy.



She drives a fairly modern Honda Civic, while his mode of transport consists of a rather ancient Van.



The other day, Betty casually mentioned to her husband that it will not be too much longer before they will have to give serious consideration to how they will fund a post secondary education for their eldest. Ralph agreed, and added that they should also start to give serious consideration to planning financially for their retirement.



The problem they both recognized, was that after paying their monthly expenses, there was little or nothing left over for such savings.



Not to worry, they agreed that they would contact a Personal Money Manager (PMM) for his or her sage advice.



It did not take the PMM long to hone in on the problem:

Gross Income - $100k

Expenses:

• Taxes of all kinds - except realty taxes - $40k


• Mortgage - Principal, Interest and Realty Taxes - $21.5k


• Food, Clothing etc - $15k


• Car Payment (Honda) / Car Repairs - $4.5k


• Heat & Hydro - $3.5k


• Repairs to Home - $3k
• Insurance of all kinds (house / car / life/ disability) - $3.5k
  
• Entertainment (including cable vision, internet) - $4K


• Miscel - $5 k

"Your annual income is entirely cancelled out by your annual expenses" proclaimed the PMM.




What to do?




'Ralph and Betty, you have to immediately start to save for your retirements and for the cost of post secondary education for your 3 children and I suggest you the following course of action:"

• Each of you need to open an RRSP Account - for Mr. that would mean an annual contribution of $10,800 (18% of his annual income) and for Mrs. a further $7,200.



• You also need to open an Education Account for each of your 3 children and be sure to contribute at least enough to realize the government's maximum co-contribution. (formula) For the 3 children this would mean an annual contribution from their parents $7,500 ($2,500 per child to receive the government per capital grant of $500).



• And, of course you each must open your own new Tax Free Saving Account which will add an additional $10,000 to your annual bill.



• Oh, one more thing. It is prudent to have at least 6 months worth of income in a saving's account in case of the unexpected (e.g. the loss of one or both of your jobs) - $50,000.

Mr. and Mrs. sit dumbstruck. PMM sits with a great big smile on his face basking in the sageness of his advice.

Finally, Ralph clears his throat and manages to get the following out - but that totals nearly $90,000. "We don't have anything left over now - where are we going to get that much additional money?"

"That's why you came to me".

First you need to sell your home. That will save you mortgage payments, realty taxes, heat & hydro, and of course there will be no need for repairs.

Second, you need to sell one of your cars.

"My van"?

"No, you are going to need the van - I am talking about the Honda. With its sale you will get out from under $3,500 in annual car payments".

"Whaaat else"?

Glad you asked...

Now with respect to Food & Clothing. Have you thought of the Food Bank? Plus there are more second hand clothing stores than you can shake a stick at.

"Where'd we live?" asked Mr.

"Ah, that's why you are keeping your Van"!!

As I see it...

"Galagher"

p.s. My next Blog will deal with financial advice from their elderly neighbour.

The Monarchy ...encore..- Pt. 2

Andrew Coyne's two suggestions to improve our current system to better involve the Monarchy are as follows:

1. Have the Monarch once again appoint the GG and do so via members of her immediate family - e.g. the Prince of Wales; his brother Andrew etc etc. Or,

2. Discard the GG's office altogether and have the Queen or King directly liaise with the Government.

I see some merit in the first suggestion but do not see it being a viable solution for a number of reasons, including:

• Family of the Monarch is not the Monarch itself. And, to have the existing Canadian appointment process replaced by Brits - other than the Monarch him or herself - would not be supported by Quebecers nor by our so called left-wing elite. Even, I, on the right, would ultimately have trouble with it.

With respect to Andrew's second suggestion - I like it. Doesn't mean though it will ever happen.

• The current system is dysfunctional. Currently you have Canadians playing 'Queen for the Day' when all they are in fact doing is usurping the power of both our Prime Minister and the ruling Monarch. In the recent Prorogation Crisis did Madame Jean even consult with Queen Elizabeth? As her Representative she most certainly should have. And if she did, was the decision arrived at - her decision or the Queen's decision - the latter being the appropriate one.
• With current communications, the GG position as a intermediary is no longer needed. The PM can pick-up the telephone and speak with Her Majesty irrespective of where either of them may be in the world. They can even use Video Conferencing if they wish.
• Simply stated, the King or Queen of Canada no longer needs a representative in their ever less 'far flung empires'.

I think this second suggestion has the potential of breathing more life into a splendid and very worthwhile tradition. The Monarch would though have to become more visible here in Canada and his or her role as the Head of the Anglican Church would have to come to an end for obvious reasons.

Okay, that said, I am not confident that this important Institution will last given the opposition of so many Canadians and given the apathy of so many others.

I have stated my reasons why I think we desperately need to keep the Monarchy but there is one final one that I have yet to touch on.

In recent decades Canada has opened its borders to millions from around the world - with different cultures, different languages, different religions etc. This has been a welcomed development because Canada desperately needs immigration given our aging population. But one negative side effect is that it has resulted in less and less commonality with fewer and fewer symbols to help keep us together as a Nation.

The Monarchy is one of those Institutions that has been tested by the sands of time and accordingly gives us all something to be proud of and to respect.

As I see it...

"Galagher"

The Monarchy ...encore..

The other day I wrote half a Blog on why we should retain the Monarchy.

Then, on Thursday eve, I watched CBC's 'The Panel' and it dealt entirely with this important subject.

The breakdown was as follows:

• Chantal - is opposed to the continuance of the Monarchy since Quebecers have never and will never accept it.



• Allan - is in favour of keeping it, even though he sees the institution having little support across the country, since he believes that there are too many legal ramifications involved in changing to another system.



• Andrew - is in favour of keeping the Monarchy since he sees it as being a great asset in the preservation of our special democratic way of life. Plus, he put forward a couple of suggestions to modernize the institution.
  

I was not surprised by the position taken by Chantal. Given their history as a 'conquered' peoples, Quebecers are most unlikely to support anything with a British connection. In fact, I would likely be of that frame of mind had I been born a Francophone Quebecer.

That does not make their position correct - it does though make it understandable.

Allan's thoughts on the matter were new to me - in that I had never really considered the legal ramifications involved in changing to another system of government - i.e. a Republic. From my perspective his concern, although a major consideration, should not be the deciding factor in determining whether or not to retain a system that is seriously flawed.

That said, I do not see our current system as being fatally flawed.

That brings me to Andrew. I was delighted with the position he took since many of the reasons he gave in support of the Monarchy were included in my earlier Blog.

Permit me to summarize these reasons:

• The Monarchy is an institution that has survived over 13 Centuries and as such provides us with both tradition, custom as well as stability. An institution that transcends the centuries is something that has earned our respect.




• It is above politics, and therefore brings a much needed neutral, non-biased approach which is especially valuable in times of crisis;

• And for those who hate all things American (not me) - it provides a political system different from that of our large neighbour.

And, speaking of the States - you will recall George W. Bush's first election when the results were held up pending the 'Chad' fiasco in Florida. That incident had the potential of extending beyond the traditional Inauguration Day. Had it done so, the US would have been without an Elected President pending Judicial Decision on the Election outcome. As it was, it became very chaotic time with no Government in Waiting.

It is this type of situation where an impartial Monarch would be invaluable. For instance, a King or Queen could have stepped in and extended the term of the current President - Bill Clinton until the matter had been resolved by the Courts.

Another example also comes to mind. During Richard Nixon's second term, Watergate was tearing his Administration apart. There was concern expressed over his mental health during that trying period and there was some speculation that he was unstable enough to try to assume control of the government via use of the military.

Whether that was in fact true is not at issue here. The fact is, it could have happened, and may at some future date, actually happen. A Monarch would be the only one ideally placed to deal with such a situation in that He or She would be a neutral party that the populace could rally round.

Pity though, the United States does not have a Monarch to fall back on in times of need.

One more - Russia.

Those of you a little older can recall the attempt by the old guard in Russia to thwart the democratization of that country by arresting President Gorbachev and closing their Parliament. Had it not been for the courage of Boris Yeltsin climbing up on one their tanks and demanding that Gorbachev be released, the Coup would most likely have succeeded.

Should a similar event occur again, there is no guarantee that a Yeltsin will be available to climb up on a tank.

They too could use benign Monarchy.

I have gone on far too long.

Tomorrow I will deal with Andrew's two suggestions for the improvement of our Monarchy as well as considering one additional reason why I see the Monarchy as being an important institution for our future welfare.

As I see it..

"Galagher"

REMEMBRANCE

Janice Kennedy's 'Poppy' Dilemma

Ms. Kennedy is a writer for Ottawa's left of centre newspaper and this week she wrote an article setting out in great detail the dilemma she has on whether or not to wear a poppy.

In her own words: "How do I wear a poppy that recognizes the terrible sacrifices --- of Second World War Veterans when so many poppies today recognize (our veterans) deaths in Afghanistan"? (i.e. a war that she does not support)

The trouble Ms. Kennedy is having is that she too is getting a distorted view of things given her left wing perspective.

The Poppy is a strong symbol that does not glorify war -rather, it does the exact opposite. One of its main purposes is to help insure that we never forget the sacrifice of our soldiers made and to be ever vigilante to avoid war if at all possible. And of course, the other main purpose of the Poppy is to remember those Canadians who paid the supreme sacrifice on behalf of our country.

So in the case of Afghanistan, the Poppy continually reminds us that war is failure - a last resort - and certainly not something to be glamorized. And our soldiers who die there are equally entitled to our remembrances as were their counterparts in previous wars.

Janice - you can wear your poppy proudly - without the worry of being branded a pro-war.

That was never its purpose.


Medals for Stupidity

This week the Governor General awarded a new medal - The Sacrifice Medal, which among other things is awarded to those who die overseas as a result of military service.

So I suspect that the family of a soldier killed in an automobile accident would receive such a medal posthumously. And rightfully so. The soldier would not have been in that unfriendly environment otherwise.

But where I draw the line would be if that accident occurred as a result of the soldier driving intoxicated. Under those circumstances, I do not see a medal being deserved.

That leads me to the case this week, where a soldier's family was awarded the medal as a result of their son being killed in a game of chicken with firearms. If that indeed was the reason for his death - I do not see that it warrants special recognition.

My father was wounded twice in the Second World War - the first time as a result of one of his fellows playing with their rifle. The gun went off and the bullet ricocheted around the interior of Dad's Tank hitting him in the leg - had the chap who caused the incident been injured or killed, I would hope he or his family would not have been awarded a medal for doing so.

There should not be an award for stupidity.


Your Nearest Cenotaph

On those notes - get out to your nearest Cenotaph this morning and wear your Poppy Proudly.

As I see it..

"Galagher"