Don’t Worry … Be Happy

 

According to the United Nations’ World Happiness Report for 2012 the following nations placed in the top eleven:

1.  Denmark; 2. Finland; 3. Norway; 4. The Netherlands; 5. Canada; 6. Switzerland; 7. Sweden; 8. New Zealand; 9. Australia; 10. Ireland, and 11. USA.

Togo finished dead last.

With all the criticism surrounding the UN, maybe with this, it is on to something.

We in the West tend to focus on the annual GDP Rate – the nation’s Gross Domestic Product.  Two Quarters of negative GDP Growth signifies Recession; Three Quarters, a Depression.

Maybe – just maybe, we have been looking at the wrong indicator.

To me, what really matters in one’s life is whether you have your fair share of Happiness.

Your Goal should probably be to sustain happiness in the ups and downs of the GDP;  that is what I believe to be really important. 

But many appear to have lost their way. They tend  to be after The Big Car, The Big House, the Big Job …the Big (insert whatever you will).  While what is really important in life is Not Things but rather, Family, Friends and Health.

Many articles in the media of late, point to the 1950s and 60s as the time when this trend started to take root.  In particular, Women started to leave the home and join the workforce. Families found that financial success required both parents to work and the family unit began to unravel. In the decades since then, this trend has only increased.

And along with that, each successive generation is working harder and longer than the one before it. Workers in the private sector often now work 10 or more hours per day and added to that are atrocious commuting times.  Their children are the hidden casualties of this growing trend.

Workers themselves are burning out – depression and anxiety are running rampant.

As mentioned in earlier Blogs, faced with this, a very large segment of Society has opted out of today’s workforce. They would rather try to survive on subsistence welfare than participate in today’s economy. 

It was not that many years ago when talk of a ‘3 day work week’ made the rounds.  Now people are lucky to hold it to 6 days per week.  And retirement is being put off – often indefinitely.

We as a Society need to take control of this and the UN’s Happiness Index is probably as good a place to start as any.

If we were to give up Things and focused on what is truly of importance – we would all need less – considerably less.  No one should be expected to work longer than 8 hours per day, 40 hours per week and retirement should come no longer than after 30 years of work.  Indeed, I can envisage the  3 day work week plan and retirement 55 being ‘dusted off’ and eventually implemented.

That is not to say any of this would be mandatory – if people want to work longer – that of course would be their privilege to do so – and hopefully they would find their own happiness in so doing.

But the norm would be as I have noted above.

It would include a return to more families having a stay at home parent and indeed this is happening much more than one would think.  People are more and more prepared to give up Things – for other people and along the way – they themselves greatly benefit.  For instance, a greater number of parents are educating their children at home.

And given the equality of the sexes this thankfully means that the stay at home parent can be either the father or the mother without any stigma attached.

“Galagher, have you gone Communist on us?”

Not in the least – I will always believe that Capitalism is the best economic system available and I am confident that it will continue to function quite well within these parameters.

The GDP numbers may not be so awesome but I would leave that to the economists to worry about. Let them suffer anxiety if they wish.

I grant that this Blog may seem to you a little unusual given that it is Christmas Day 2012 but dear reader, the fact that it is Christmas sparked me to write it.

2000 years ago a baby was born to us in a manger with hay for a bed.  He came in to nothing and he went out with nothing and yet throughout his young life here on earth he focused and made us focus on what was and continues to be of true importance.

As I see it…

‘K.D. Galagher’ 

 

AND THERE THEY GO… ONCE AGAIN,

 

The Superior Courts of Canada that is.

Three…now make that four, more Recent Wrong Decisions amply attest to that.  The first has been well publicized:

1.  The Niqab caper -

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled yesterday that in some circumstances, a muslim woman can keep her Niquab on while giving testimony against an accused in Criminal Court. It will be left to the lower courts to determine what those ‘circumstances’ might be.

We all know that it is a fundamental Rule of Law that an accused can face his or her accusers.  With this decision, the Court has opened the door to changing this fundamental right to read the right to confront a ‘covered face’.

The 2 Justices on the right of the Court not surprisingly believed correctly, that the accuser’s face needs be uncovered while giving testimony while left wing Justice, Rosalie Abella, not surprisingly sees nothing at all wrong with a Niqab clad witness – i.e. only her eyes are exposed – assuming they are female eyes that is – whose to know. I digress.

But what were the other 6 Jurists thinking?

Moreover, in such proceedings, the accused is to have the same rights as the accuser, so how long will it be before an accused comes to court ‘masked’.  I can here it now – “witness, can you pick out the accused in the body of this court?”  Dah.

I have nothing against the Niqab per se – I see women who wear it as being mere subjects of their male overseers – but that is their right to be stupid.  We are after all a free society – albeit less so as time goes on.

If they want to wear a Niqab on the beach or on the street or when shopping – please do.  But if they are driving, or getting government picture id docs – then no – take the Niqab off.  And that pertains to Legal Proceedings as well.  Cases are often resolved by lawyers / judges being able to ‘read’ faces – the Niqab simply stated prevents that from happening.

2.  Christine Blatchford wrote an interesting column yesterday concerning a court case that has been in the works for nearly 20 years.

It pertains to the right of native fishers to harvest salmon out of season for ‘Food, Social and Ceremonial’ purposes only.  You will notice the concept of ‘commercial’ is missing. 

A group of non native fishers has been fighting this discrimination on the basis that an estimated 90% of the native fishers’ catch is sold commercially. This not only competes unfairly with the professional fishery but it seriously jeopardizes the sustainability of the stock.

For those who live back several hundred years and are still grieving about the hard done natives I sympathize with their feelings even though I believe they are misguided.  That said, if our Society wants to continue to gnash its teeth regarding our ancestors’ historic wrongs – I suggest that laws be passed giving natives the right to do whatever they like – hunt, fish, pollute – whatever and whenever they wish as long as it is contained within their own reserves (i.e. not on crown land). 

But while we pretend one thing –that natives cannot run a commercial fishery outside of season and then condone just that, it only leads to contempt for the law as it exists and increases resentment between natives and non natives.

So what does this have to do with the Supreme Court of Canada – you ask?

On Thursday of this week, the SCC threw out this decades old action with just the following three words – ‘Dismissed without costs’.

-and, to round out the triumvirate;

3.  One of our distinguished citizens was caught in the United States transporting some 119 kilograms of cocaine.  America, as you know, frowns upon this type of activity and quickly sentenced the poor chap to 10 years in jail (as an aside, had he kept his car on this side of the border, he might have got off with 2 years less a day, likely spent in house arrest but that is mere speculation on my part.)

The fact is though, he got sentenced to 10 years in an American slammer and immediately applied to Canada for a transfer back to serve out his sentence here.

Public Service Minister, Vic Toews, of whom I am not an ardent admirer, rightfully, in my opinion, turned down the poor chap’s application.

Enters the Federal Court of Canada which just ruled that Toews has but 45 days to reverse his decision and okay the transfer.  The Court went on to classify Toews original decision as being ‘closed minded’.

It went on to note that ‘clear evidence existed which supported the transfer’.

I can just imagine what the ‘clear evidence’ might have been composed of – e.g. that he had cleaned up his life, had married, fathered a few kids, got a regular job and goes to church regularly.

Oh Yeah – I forgot, the guy has been in jail since his conviction.  So what dear reader what would entail ‘clear evidence’ in that circumstance?

We elect Governments to do our bidding and part of that is to keep society safe.  Toews from my perspective, was doing just that in denying re-entry.  The Court, in contrast, was stepping on turf where it has no business. 

and this one just in…

4. The Supreme Court of Canada just ruled in a case involving Prosecutors possibly ‘vetting’ juror selections, that “it was not serious enough to quash …conviction(s)’. (There were a number of other similar cases awaiting the Court’s decision.)

We all know that Justice must not only be done – it must also appear to be done, and in this case(s) it would be most difficult to say the second condition has been satisfied.

You can imagine if you were the defendant and attempted in any way to influence who would be on or not on your jury – you would be charged with contempt and likely jailed in the process.

So as for me, this all adds up to the Superior Courts going 0 for 4.

As I see it …

‘K.D. Galagher’

QUEUING

 

Long time readers will also know that I am not a great fan of standing in line to wait.

Indeed, I am the type who would rather drive an hour and 20 miles out of my way rather than spend 15 minutes going bumper to bumper.

That brings me to this morning.

The boss, my wife Anne, asked me if I would mind posting a few small packages at the local post office …7 in all and not that small, but don’t sweat the details.

I could not accept her offer quickly enough.

Just last week, I had stood in line to mail some out of Canada cards – at the same local post office, where the line had backed out into the street.  Just my kind of thing as you know.

Anyway, when approaching their main door this morning– my fears were quickly realized as a woman was standing patiently outside…

But wait, she was waiting for me to open said door given my Christmas package burden.  In I cruised.

And low and behold, there was no one inside save a lonely looking postal clerk.

Let me say that again – there were no customers inside – save for me and my seven (7) packages and it is only days from Christmas Day.

I rushed to the counter.

Since my ‘packages’ were gift wrapped, boxes were needed to complete the mailing process.  The kind sales lady pointed me to the adjoining wall which was filled with all kinds of boxes, envelopes and various packaging paraphernalia; but quickly saw that I was overcome with the immense selection.

She started to make recommendations and I started to bring various options to her like an obedient puppy dog.  By now, the non-existent line had filled in and reached back to the infamous main door.  I turned to the assembled and profusely apologized for keeping them waiting. They glared back in unison.  

The clerk and I fumbled trying to squeeze this sized gift into that sized box and for a while it looked like we were on the losing side of the fight.

Finally, the right sized boxes were found. Relief.

How much says I?  Where to says the clerk?

What do you mean says I?

“There are no addresses on your packages”.

I looked on stupefied.

The silent glaring line burst out with uncontrollable laugher.

My packages had names on them, but no addresses.

“I guess there might be more than one ‘Dear Maude’ in Canada” I meekly suggested.

The line was now in hysterics. 

I paid for the boxes, gather them up along with my 7 gift packages and marched – well, slinked out the door.

I’ll be back, I thought to myself, but what will be the chance of finding twice in a row, no line at the Post Office a few days before Christmas.

Not bloody likely.

As I see it…

‘K.D. Galagher’

 

There You Go Again…

 

So said the about to become President Ronald Reagan in a 1980 Presidential Election Debate with Jimmy - the Peanut Farmer – Carter.

But before I get into the substance of this morning’s Blog – first a quiz:

What Right or Freedom transcends all the rest?

Why Freedom of Speech of course.  Without Freedom of Speech, all other Freedoms are simply academic, that is to say, they exist on paper only and not in reality.

Some of you may be aware that the Township of Russell – just east of Ottawa, passed a Bylaw requiring all businesses to advertise their business in both official languages given the significant Francophone presence in its jurisdiction,

Sounds reasonable – n’est pas?

And indeed, if I was to own a business where two or more significant languages existed, I would like to think that I would voluntarily advertise in both of those languages be they French / English or Dutch / Chinese.

But the problem here is that the Businesses have been forced by law to do so – and that my dear friend offends the Right of Freedom of Speech.

So what does this have to do with President Reagan’s famous quote you ask?

Well dear reader, the Supreme Court has done it again.  It has failed to uphold a court challenge against this discriminatory and unconstitutional bylaw.

When you look to the Court to act – such as in this case – it does not – and when you want the Court to refrain from ruling – such as in the case of gay marriage – it does.  Gay marriage whether or not you agree with it – was such a fundamental change for our society that the matter should have rested solely with Parliament.

In the case at hand, two gentlemen spent their own recourses challenging the Township Bylaw in the Courts – one was a Francophone by the name of Jean Serge Brisson and the other, an Anglophone by the name of Howard Galganov.  One wanted to retain the right to advertise in French, the other in English.  Hypothetically, had a third joined – who was say, Chinese, that person might well have wanted to advertise just in Mandarin. 

Regardless, the Claimants were told they were wrong, at every level of the judicial process.

You cannot be a little bit pregnant, nor can you have a little bit of free speech.  You are either pregnant or you have free speech in all of its manifestations.

Today, as a result of this case, our right to Freedom of Speech, has been a little bit impaired thanks to the Courts who are expected to protect free speech as a result of the Charter and as a result of the English Common Law.

In the case of the Russell Township Sign Bylaw – the Courts have let us all down.

As I see it…

‘K.D. Galagher’

The F35s…One More Time…

 

And most likely, not for the last time.

Most Everyone, appears to be up in arms about the Tory Government’s handling of the F35 purchase; even though no purchase has been made – just a proposal to purchase and one that is now in the process of being withdrawn by the same Tory Government most everyone is complaining about.

So where is the Beef?

You have got me?

Had it been a Liberal Government, a deal would have long ago been signed, sealed and delivered and some conglomerate based in la Belle Province would already have pocketed the money. 

But that is so yesterday.

Now the denizens bitch about what might have been – but wasn’t.

To all of them I say – “get a life’.

But I digress.

The issue here is not What the Tories did – since they did not do all that much.

Rather, the issue is Why our military chose this particular plane in the first place.

And simply stated, they did not choose it either.  Rather NATO did in which admittedly our Military plays a role – albeit a minor one.

So Why did NATO pick the F35? 

Readers – I have no idea whatsoever – all I know is that it did.  And that is good enough for me.

As an side, had the United Nations recommended the purchase, I would have been opposed for that reason alone.

With Tensions on the rise throughout the world and with China beginning to flex its enormous muscles – we in the Western World need a vibrant, fully functioning NATO for the next 100 years and more.  Sadly, to date, it has acted as such in the exception rather than in the norm.

Instead, we have relied upon the United States and before that – Great Britain for our collective defence. But as I have consistently pointed out in previous Blogs, the United States of America is now broke.

Sooner – rather than later, America is going to have to seriously reduce its military spending.  It simply cannot continue to fund its out of control debt/deficit, its expanded Health Care, the needs of a growing elderly population, and its 1 in 3 who are content to live on Welfare while continuing to spend nearly 50% of its budget on Defence.

The Western World via NATO will have to pick up the slack, despite the financial challenges that many of its Members Nations also face.  It must come down to collective pain if we have any hope of preserving our way of life.

It is then simply nonsense for the Government’s critics to call for Tendering the jet purchase process.

It would be like you or I wishing to buy a car X which the Consumers’ Report cites as the best deal on the market.  But in comes your neighbour, who demands that you tender out your purchase. Heaven knows what you would end up with.

That said, there is still a vital role for Western Governments to take into account their own unique situation and needs.  In Canada’s case, I would argue that with such an extensive coastline, we should focus on Ships and Subs.  And when it comes to NATO, we could offer to take a leading role in this important aspect of NATO Defence.

Again, if our Military believes a Ship or Sub is available which will meet their needs and can be purchased ‘off the shelf’  - then that is what should be done.  Not only will it also be cheaper than building our own, it will be available far faster. 

Plus I would rather put my faith in our Military deciding what best suits its needs, than a government procurer.

As I see it…

‘K.D. Galagher’

Suffer The Little Children …

 

Words are insufficient to describe one’s feelings surrounding yesterday’s massacre of little children at the Sandy Hill Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut, so I won’t even attempt to do so.

I cannot though stop thinking of the terror those little folks felt during their slaughter.

What I want to focus on this morning is the message the President gave which I found to be very moving:

• “Our hearts are broken today”, he said with tears in his eyes and then went on to say, “the majority of those who died were children – beautiful little kids between the ages of five and 10 years old”.
• In regard to America’s corrosive gun culture, he called for “meaningful action” to prevent such shootings from occurring in the future; and regarding the young victims, he had this to say,  
• “They had their entire lives ahead of them – birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own”.

Profound words all.

Regarding his pledge to “take meaningful action” against their corrosive gun culture, I wish him luck but doubt that too much of significance can be done given that the ‘right to bear arms’ is protected in their Constitution. A constitution that was written well over 200 years ago with things changing a little bit since then.

But that said, the time has long past when the average citizen needs to be ‘packing’. Guns should only be available to farmers and to legitimate hunters – i.e.  those who have taken gun possession courses, and hunter safety courses, and have a valid annual hunting licence.  And only then as it relates to hunting rifles and not to handguns nor automatic weapons on any kind.

If any good can come out of this terrible event, serious gun control would be it and I wish the President success on this.

I take a somewhat different view on his statement about what these tiny victims losing out on – birthdays, weddings and the like. Not because I take exception to his statement – not at all – it is a very moving commentary and all of it too true.  But it causes me to focus on the millions of Americans each year that are subject to this self same statement – that is to say, those poor souls who are needlessly aborted for convenience purposes.  Why does the President fail to speak for them as well?

I can tell you why – he is a big proponent of unrestricted abortion.

Yesterday some 20 young children died needlessly at the hands of a pistol carrying madman.  They are truly deserving of our thoughts, prayers and tears.

But so are the countless numbers of healthy aborted babies around the world who also will not be around to celebrate their “birthdays, graduations, weddings, (or) have kids of their own”. 

It is all a great tragedy and one that each of us must live with until the youngest and most defenseless are save to survive.

As I see it…

‘K.D. Galagher’

The Sky Is Falling ...

So sayeth Chicken Little ?

No, So sayeth the 8 year occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

And, as was the case with C.L., his scare tactics come down to a lot of clucking and no substance.

Why so Galagher?

America is well on its way to a $17 Trillion Dollar Debt or some 100% of its annual GDP.  Moreover, its annual deficit - since the time the Democrats took over the White House, has totalled in the Trillions and continues to rise.  With the advent of their new Health Care in a matter of weeks - these numbers can be expected to climb exponentially.

So what does America need to do and fast - that's right, 'raise taxes and dramatically reduce spending'.

So what does the Fiscal Cliff do - you got it - it 'raises taxes and dramatically reduces spending'.

So what are we missing?  Not a thing - the sooner America falls off that cliff, the better.

Even the Republicans - had they won the recent Presidential Election - were in for a big surprise.  They kept saying they were opposed to more taxes but continually failed to acknowledge the deep hole the US has dug itself into and that cuts alone will not be enough.  Higher taxes are needed in concert with those cuts.

The Dems fearless leader wants tax increases - but just on the rich.  Makes a great sell given that the vast majority of Americans - 95+ % do not find themselves in that exclusive category.  But it won't work - there are not enough rich to make much of a difference.  Plus, that small percentage - the rich - create wealth through the creation of jobs.  Do you seriously think they will hang around and let themselves be the only ones taxed  higher?  In that regard, keep an eye on France where a 75% income tax has been imposed.  Great for Germany and the UK. 

Even the Clff and falling over of same, will not be nearly enough to reverse their debt / deficit buildup:  estimates put the savings from doing so at a mere half Trillion Dollars.  The new costs associated with the Health Care implementation of 2013 itself will exceed those savings.

So what does America need - it needs a few more Cliffs to fall off.

The only reason America has not already been deemed a basket case by the world's investors is the fact that many of those same investors are using the States as a refuge from even greater financial troubles in the EU.  The day is quickly coming when even they will see America for what it is - a sinking life raft.

For now, America's only hope, in the short term, is to take the plunge from the Cliff.

Just don't bet on it happening though, since both the Donkey and the Elephant continue to live in a world of their own - in the Zoo.


As I see it...

'K.D. Galagher'