Before I get into a lot of trouble let me say that I know many many teachers and some are very good friends so please don't take my following comments personally. Let me start by stating a few facts; first, teachers in the public sector are members of a union. I realize they don't have a choice but never the less they have to live and act according to a collective mentality. Second teachers work 10 months out of 12 every year. Third they are government employees who work for the people that pay the taxes that pay their salary. I want you to remember these facts as I point out some things that I believe are negatively affecting the education of our children. First of all anytime the teachers union want more benefits, higher wages and less work they hold our children's education as ransom (strike) in order to secure these things. The union makes it almost impossible to remove ineffective teachers from the job because their focus is on their members not on the kids. The union dictates that teacher evaluations are unfair and therefore will fight to the death to keep the taxpayers from finding out if the people who teach their children are qualified to do so. This honoured profession has become another collective union group and they operate no differently than the auto employees union, the truckers union or any other brotherhood of employees. Their purpose in life has nothing to do with improving children's education and all to do with extractiing more and more from their employers (taxpayers). Large unions are a part of the socialist system of government and in the private sector there is a balance between the reasonable sharing of thebusiness's success in good times and taking less in hard times. In fact when they press to hard they sometimes become a major reason why businesses fail vis a vis GM, Chrysler etc. But what balance do the teachers unions face? In fact what balance do any public sector unions face when the press their demands regardless of the current economic situation. There are none and added to that they are bargaining with people that have nothing to lose...(politicians). So on one side you have unions that can use your children as a ransom to achieve their goals and on the other side you have politicians that put up a good front but the reality is, they won't lose anything if they cave in to the union's demands. Who always loses is the taxpayer and their children. Seems a little unfair to me that these two groups, who are immune from any negative impact have the ability to continously gouge the ordinary citizens by dipping into the that deep black hole that is known as government funding (tax revenue). Realistically the unions aren't going away but at least the government should take away the right to strike and this would even the playing field a little. The private sector creates the wealth in any Country but today who in the hell wants to work in the private sector with all of the uncertainty and the fact that the public sector earns 20% more in wages on average. Diminishing private sector , growing public sector.....you tell me is this sustainable? I think not. Unfortunately no politician wants to take them on because the big unions, the Liberal Media and the socialist members in the government will attack them mercilessly. What is really sad, is that they attack people on a personal level rather than arguing the issues. This the favorite tactic of anyone on the left when they can't argue with logic and common sense they go for the throat and demonize the person who is debating them. Anyway I got that off my chest so its off to the scotch and soda.

"Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it." -Ronald Reagan

'Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.'

- Ronald Reagan

'The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'-Ronald Reagan

'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.'

-Ronald Reagan

'Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.'- Ronald Reagan

'I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.' -Ronald Reagan

'The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.'- Ronald Reagan

'Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.'- Ronald Reagan

'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.' - Ronald Reagan

'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.'- Ronald Reagan

'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it'

- Ronald Reagan

'Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.'- Ronald Reagan

'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan

'If we ever forget that we're one nation under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under.'-Ronald Reagan

In simple terms Capitalism is about individualism whereby most other systems are about groups, collectives, large government control etc. It is about allowing people to attain success in an environment that provides the opportunity for everyone to make their own choices on how they want to live their lives. Some government intervention is necessary within Capitalism to perform tasks that facilitate the ability of people to live and co-habit in a society. The enforcement of"common sense" rules and laws, the protection of the state, and the care of those in society that truly (mentally or physically) can't look after themselves. Beyond that it is up to the individual to forge his/her future. Entrepeneurs can start businesses and these can grow into Corporations that bring wealth to everyone. It is not only the owners that gain but it is every person that works in the organization and usually thousands that just interact with the business. The degree of wealth is determined by many things, ingenuity, risk taking, intelligence, and hard work. Where a person ends up on this scale is determined any one or all of these things. For instance ask yourself why the CEO of General Motors is in his position and you are in yours. Somewhere during your life you made choices and these most certainly effected your outcome. Perhaps you decided to drop out of school and go work in a factory which is fine if it is the choice you made. But to denegrate the CEO because he makes two million a year and you make $50,000 is wrong. He stayed in school went to college and earned a MBA and then worked his way up in management to achieve his status. That doesn't mean he is more intelligent than you it just means he chose education and a different path for his career. Maybe you are part of a union which is a collective and you have turned over your individual decision making to this body. How much you make and how much leeway you have is now predicated on what a group decides for you.I'll get back to this but for now lets jump back in history and look at the USA who embraced Capitalism in its purest sense decades ago. They have grown into the richest Nation in the world and with that comes the highest standard of living in the world. If you compare poverty in the USA to poverty in any third world Country the differences are striking. If you are under the poverty line according to the USA standard, you will still have a car, a roof over your head, emergency medical care, a TV, food for your table etc etc. Furthermore I would venture a guess that those in this category made their own choices to get there and are probably continuing to make them today. The folks in third world poverty do not even have food and water much less anything else so this reflects the plight of the poor in a non- Capitalistic Society. The point is that punishing Corporations or entrepeneurs because they are successful does nothing but hurt everyone in the food chain. Also everytime the Government takes over some part of the free market economy it negatively affects the Capitalist model which in turn has a negative domino effect on the economic system. In Europe and Canada these Countries chose to stray from the Capitalist model and move towards socialism, which they could, because they were thriving through trade with the USA and its burgeoning market. Essentially people signed up for a type of "union" which requires you to pay dues (taxes) and decisions are made for you. Now the USA is being pounded by debt and a large Government monster that is growing by the minute under the left wing ideology and these other Countries have to sit by and wring their hands because they do not have a true Capitalist system as a base from which they can rebuild their own economies. They have to rely on the USA and I believe in the end the American people will choose to remain within the Capitalist system. If not hold on.

Anyone who is interested in learning a little bit about socialist economics should keep abreast of what is happening in Greece. This Country like many in Europe have lived well beyond their means by allowing their government to spend monies they didn't have and then borrow to meet their financial obligations. Their bloated government payrolls and the extravagant entitlement programs have driven them to the edge of bankruptcy. As part of the European Economic Union they are now obliged to lower their debt levels or face the collapse of their economy. No one will lend them any money if they don't take immediate actions to address the problems. In order to do this they now have to cut government jobs and reduce spending in all levels of government which is upsetting people all over the Country. The folks want the Government to stand by the commitments they made to them that 1) their jobs were untouchable and 2) their benefits would never end. There are riots in the street as well as many other examples of civil unrest because of the results spurred on by the Socialist style management of the Country's economy. High taxes and the redistribution of wealth has driven the businesses and entrepreneurs out of the Country and with them go much of the revenue that supported the government largesse. In the year 2000 they dumped a lot of their debt through a deal with one of the large Wall St banks that helped their current situation but also put them in a position where many of their revenue streams (such as speeding ticket revenue, highway tolls etc.) would be paid to the Wall St bank long into the future. The problem of course with letting Greece default is the fact that the EEU holds much of the debt paper and if Greece goes down the domino effect will begin. Think now about the USA and Canada who are also living beyond their means and the similarities between Greece and them. Canada, of course, is much smaller than the USA but the same rules apply in that if these deficits continue we will all face the same result. China has begun to sell off some of its USA debt holdings which is a sign that they are beginning to question the financial management of the Obama White House. Trillions of dollars of debt is an unsustainable amount for the USA and yet they continue to spend like drunken sailors. At some point the economy will have to suffer and it appears that California will be the first to reap the results of their financial mismanagement. Let's hope the unions and the folks that drove them into this position don't turn on the government and riot just as the Greek people are doing. We must swallow and accept some cuts and hard times if we in the Americas are to get our house in order. My advice is to get your personal fiscal house in order, your root cellar filled and then hunker down and get ready to live through some tough times. It must get worse before it gets better , BUT it will get better if we stick with sound conservative fiscal policies.

While shopping the other day I saw a woman with the biggest derriere I have ever seen. To top it off her chest was as big as her posterior and I’m sure this was required in order to create some sort of balance so she could maneuver through the aisle ways albeit at a very slow pace. I can’t understand how these folks can live with themselves having to carry this type of poundage around 24/7. In fact as I looked around the rest of the store it was evident that she was not the only extremely overweight person in the store although she was by far the biggest. There is no question that obesity is a problem in the USA and sure enough I open the paper this morning and there is Michele Obama with her cohorts in Education, Agriculture and Labor working on the newest Government fad “The Control of Obesity”. Just what is needed, another government exercise in trying to exert control over its citizenry by telling them what they can eat and can’t eat. Did they ever consider that self control may be a factor? Of course not... They want to look, as they always do, on these people as victims of society and the government needs to race to the rescue to save them all. They have all sorts of wonderful ideas such as removing vending machines from the schools or at least limiting them to hold only the items they believe are healthy. Let’s say that 30% of the population at schools is overweight and the rest of the kids are average weight and many of them are athletes toned and healthy. Even though they control their food intake and keep themselves in good condition they will of course still lose the opportunity to grab a snack from time to time from the vending machine. This is the fallacy of these Liberal infringements on our rights. Those that are self reliant lose their freedoms right along with the gluttons. There is nothing wrong in teaching or informing kids about the perils of gluttony but why tailor the entire school environment to help them deal with their lack of self control. What happened to the parent’s responsibility to teach their children about health and diet? Aren’t there enough problems in the Country that the politicians could tackle rather than dictating what people eat? Who gave the government the right to be the food police anyway? The Federal Government is supposed to have limited powers according to the Constitution but every time a Liberal hits office they toss the book out the window and strive for more control. Why? Because they know better. Just like taxes those that do the right thing must give up money and their rights on behalf of those that can’t control themselves and have no desire to do so. These people must change their behavior and putting up small bumps in the road to slow them down will have little or no effect at the end of the day. In fact, what if they enjoy being fat? What right does the government have to change their diets? Oh well pretty soon parents will become a thing of the past as we all rely on our Nanny State to take our hand and tell us what we should do to be good little boys and girls.

I recently flew south from Toronto to Florida via Newark New Jersey and I am confused as to our Government’s strategy regarding security against terrorism. I traveled extensively during my career going back to the mid 70’s and spanning those years I have seen many changes in the security measures before and after 9/11 that make no sense at all. Now obviously some do and in particular the “no passenger no bags” policy is the most common sense change made during the 70’s. Metal detectors are another reasonable measure that is effective in preventing weapons getting on board a plane. However there are many other rules, regulations and procedures that make no sense at all and if eliminated could speed up the process without sacrificing security. First of all is the insane amount of paperwork required when purchasing a ticket. Why do they need all of the information at the point of sale? Why do the name on the ticket and the name on your ID (passport) need to be identical and if not you won’t be allowed on the plane? What danger do you represent if you spelled your middle name incorrectly. Why do you have to provide your name, address and destination address? Why do you have to fill out a customs check sheet indicating (almost always answered no) what you aren’t bringing into the country? A person could submit incorrect information (lie) on these sheets and no one would ever know or care and yet tons of paperwork is generated and time wasted every day capturing this data. Then you hit the scanning station and besides the metal detector you have to put your bags on a belt to be x-rayed and viewed to be sure you are not bringing anything dangerous on board. Along with your carryon bags you must also have your coat, sweater and shoes viewed on the x-ray screen. If you have liquid in your bags over 4 oz (?) it is immediately confiscated. These last two checks were brought on because of failed attempts by would be terrorists who used these tactics. It seems that most of our so-called security improvements are driven by the terrorists and their various methods that hopefully we learn about because of failure (unlike 9/11). On this particular trip after I had just passed through the metal detector and got my shoes back I had to walk 30 yards or so and then round a corner. Lo and behold there were 6 more security personnel and several tables whereby they proceeded to search my bag again and test me for gun powder. How they suspected I could have obtained something illicit in that short 30 yards I have no idea. They do this idiotic search in Toronto and yet once I landed in Newark I could walk around inside the gated area with several stores and restaurants that sell gadgets and use utensils including knives but no check when you get on the plane to leave NJ. Nor do they match ID with the boarding pass so I could switch with anyone and head on to a new destination without anyone knowing. The problem with almost all of our security system
is that it is reactive instead of proactive. If we followed a proven security system model like the Israeli’s use I’m sure we could be more efficient and ten times safer. But the people that make these rules never have to ride on commercial airways in economy so they will never understand the problems of us “everyday folks”. Perhaps we should insist that all politicians be prohibited from using military transport and first class seating on commercial airlines. Bet you it wouldn’t take long before some common sense laws saw the light of day.

Both of these skills require a person to have many of the same attributes such as the ability to communicate ideas clearly, the ability to sell these same ideas to other people and the ability to shepherd these ideas into actionable tasks. However there are many areas where the roles differ and sometimes people get confused as to why political leaders don't always follow the actions of Corporate leaders when confronting issues or implementing policies. You see Corporate leaders have one large advantage over political leaders and that is the fact that they have the power to terminate a person's employment whereas a politician cannot. At the most they can influence your job positively or negatively but rarely can they apply capital punishment to those that don't fall in line. Therefore a political leader has to be able to influence the emotions of his audience and to garner their trust if he/ she is to be successful with their agenda. To get your attention and your vote they must stimulate your passion by raising issues nearest and dearest to your heart. For instance to most people the issue of security for them and their families is always uppermost in their minds so attacking crime and punishment or the lack thereof is always a winner in politics. Taxation in all its forms has always been a negative aspect in our society regardless of your political persuasion so this subject can always raise the hair on someone's neck. Once the politician has tapped the emotions they must now garner trust. A past history with examples of "doing what you say you will do" is a powerful tool that will help convince people to get on your side. If you don't have that then kissing babies, trotting out your family for photo ops and general schmoozing will help get people comfortable with you and your political ideology. Back to the Corporate leader who will find it helpful to garner trust but not a necessary thing required to push through his/her agenda. Both of them can mislead people with vague statements, exaggerations and downright lies to facilitate their agenda so they are Bobbsey twins in this area for sure. So let's look at the results side of the board whereby both leaders have successfully pushed their agendas into actions using their own techniques and now must view the fruit of their labors. The Corporate Leader must be successful or he will face a boot out of his job for failing to satisfy his shareholders. So even though he started with more power and an easier route to implementing his policies and programs he faces capital punishment if he fails. The politician on the other hand finds herself in a very different position if she fails. She may have lied or mislead people to get herself elected and her programs implemented but what is to be done? The job is secure until the next election and by then most will have forgotten the untruths and the failure. In fact with good political spin doctors today they can turn failure into victory through the media (particularly if you are Liberal) and voila' you are ready for another run for the golden ring. So if you are searching for truth and integrity in leadership let me tell you it is very very rare. The last leader in my opinion that held these values was Ronald Reagan. He was truly a unique man and a honest politician ( which is almost an oxymoron) that has not been matched for the years before or since. Sarah Palin has the base talent to be another Reagan but the question remains, does she have the strength and confidence that are required to withstand the pressures that come with "principled" political leadership? It would definitely be something to see.

Because the Liberal minded folks don't like to admit that personal accountability and self control are qualities of character they have to develop an illness or phobia to explain away bad behaviour. In Tiger's case it is sex "addiction". If this be the case then I think they better start building clinics all over the world to treat male sex addiction beginning with 13 year olds entering into puberty all the way up to the mid 40's where the hormones began to quiet down and return to more of a balanced stream traveling through the male brain. In order to procreate and maintain the species nature has wired men in such a way that "sex" is at the top of their needs list from day 1. This of course created major problems back in the day of the caveman where men just walked up and grabbed a female, took her home and released some sexual tension. The women of the day decided that this wasn't going to work well if they ended up conceiving a child. Who would take care of them during dangerous times and provide food needed daily to survive? A male of course. So let's create the family scenario, which dictates an ownership factor and an access to unlimited sexual gratification without a battle. Since those days we have become more sophisticated but the basic tenets remain. If you are a normal young male in today's society your main preoccupation is searching out attractive females and getting laid. Who they are and where they come from is all secondary to "Will they respond positively to your needs?" For regular Joes this has always been a hit and miss quest as most women have a different view of arbitrary sex with strangers and won't couple with anyone just because they have the right fitting parts. But consider the possibility of being a major sports celebrity, having a billion dollars in the bank, young, in good health, reasonably good looking and with a group of people ready and willing to do whatever you may ask. As a male would you make use of these obvious advantages to satisfy your sexual appetite? Of course you would and so did Tiger. No harm no foul and I challenge any real male to admit otherwise. However, when you get to the point in your life when you feel the need to nest and raise a family then you adopt a new set of rules that are well defined and you enter into this pact with eyes wide open. This is when self control and personal responsibility enter into a males life. It doesn't mean you have to give up sex but rather limit it to one person, your spouse. Once you make this choice and then continue to romp around scoring with strange women all over the world as if nothing has changed, then this behaviour speaks greatly to your lack of character not to an illness, phobia or an addiction. So let's get real and call Tiger what he really is and that is a "wimp". He is shallow of character and instead of standing up like a man and admitting his faults he chooses to take the "addiction" route in an attempt to garner some sympathy for his actions. This may work with the female of the species but every male will be chuckling under his breath about this sorry excuse for an alpha male.

The elite Liberal brain trust truly believe that the masses of people, ie regular Janes & Joes, in the middle class are incapable of taking care of themselves. The hard line Union bosses and Socialists also have no doubt that their followers are stupid and must be protected from themselves. I can give you example after example of laws and rules that are passed to prevent we minions from making decisions that are not seen as proper by the almighty Liberals that sit in Government. For instance the pension laws and the Life Income Retirement Account are set up to prevent individuals from accessing their own money regardless of their choice in the matter. If your retirement money is in a pension fund you have access only to the predetermined payment calculated when you retired. You cannot get your hands on any more of it regardless of the situation. In fact after you and your spouse die your family will see nothing of the money that is left as it goes directly back into the fund. With the LIRA the Government had much the same rules until recently when it changed and now allows the owners of the money to remove up to 50% of the lump sum in the fund. It also (after tax) allows your family to receive the balance on your demise. These rules were put in place to keep people from their own money in case they may blow it on vacations, and travel after their retirement thus eliminating their nest egg. They assume nobody has the commonsense to manage their own finances during this time of life not considering of course you have managed to get yourself to this point without bankrupting your family. This is an arrogant and condescending attitude but it is the Liberal mindset. Look at our Food Protection Agency that was set up to inspect and insure that the food mass distributed across the Country was safe to consume. Considering some of the food poisoning catastrophes over the past several years they haven’t done a stellar job but they don’t stop there. Now these gurus want to tell us what we can and can’t eat. Based on the latest scientific craze about this particular food or that trans fat they want to enact laws banning these goods.Providing information to the Public isn’t good enough because once again they feel we are incapable of making good decisions for ourselves. Therefore these same people that told us no to eat butter years ago are actually banning foods.
The last example is Health Care where Liberals feel that the problem with Health Care in the USA is the spiralling cost which prohibits lower income people from attaining insurance. So rather than attacking the cost through the free market system by lifting the State by State ban on insurance Companies and allow them to compete across the Country they choose to control the system because they can make better decisions for the regular folk and drive costs down that way. Or to look at “tort reform” and discontinue these “lottery type” malpractice suit awards which have driven Doctor's insurance costs out into space. No no, mustn’t upset the lawyers.
All of the above are just a few of the ways these “well meaning people" want to run our lives but I for one am sick of “the pat on the head and the tsk tsk you don’t understand, this is for your own good” demeaning type answers. Maybe most people don’t mind being led around by the hand but look out because these people are not your friends, you see you are not smart enough.

Let me say that I sympathize with the terrible situation in Haiti and I believe we, around the world need to do whatever is necessary to help them through this catastrophic period. After saying that however, where do the politicians get the right to arbitrarily decide to send millions to Haiti beyond what our Government has set aside for foreign aid. This statement was made during the fundraising event for the embattled island the other night “The Government will match any funds that are raised for Haiti through this charitable venture.” It turned out to be around 9 million dollars and my question is “What gives you the right?” to do this. People are giving out of the goodness of their hearts which is what charity is all about. The world’s governments are also providing financial help as well assistance “on the ground” and these acts are a cultural norm in the western nations (primarily USA and Canada). So why does some politician who feels charitable or who wants to score points feel they have the right to dish out taxpayer money on their own accord. Did they ever think that maybe just, maybe some citizens of Canada don’t want to give any more money away? Did it ever occur to these elitist snobs that what they want to do may not coincide with what other taxpayers would like to do? And yet people do not seem to care about these reckless spenders who throw our money around like planting grass seed. Now this morning just after dedicating millions and millions of dollars to Haiti I read a column in the newspaper that suggest that we need to raise taxes in order to balance the books. This is the only solution in his mind that makes any sense. WHAT ABOUT CUTTING SPENDING!!!!!! I believe there is so much wasteful spending in every level of Government that if we were to eliminate just 50% of this waste we could balance the books in one year. The problem of course is that there are too many sacred cows in the current welfare state system and if any of their funding was cut the loud and constant squealing noise would scare the politicians to death. As we move closer and closer toward the Nanny State in both the USA and Canada (who is much farther down the road) the balance between those that pay tax and those that don’t is shifting toward 50%-50%. Once those that receive from the Government become the majority we will be lost because we will never be able to elect any fiscal conservatives to bring our finances under control. Based on the recent elections in Massachusetts it appears that the Americans are waking up to this fact and don’t like what they see happening to their Country. I wish we could get Canadians as fired up on this subject but at the moment there is no leader to carry the standard into battle. I keep looking but the only candidates appear to be in the west so it may take a awhile to bring their message here. Ahh Mr. Harper we had such dreams.............................