In Defence of the Beaver

Canadian Senator Nicole Eaton is calling for a make over of Canada's emblem which would replace the beaver with a polar bear.  Eaton's rationale: "It is high time that the beaver step aside as a Canadian emblem or, at the least, share the honour with the stately polar bear."

 

I can certainly understand Eaton's motivation to use a fierce animal like a polar bear.  After all, the Russians have a bear, Americans, Germans, Mexicans and others an eagle, England a lion, and all reinforce the idea of power and strength.  Eaton, echoing this line of thinking states, "The polar bear, with its strength, courage, resourcefulness and dignity, is perfect for the part. The polar bear is the world's largest terrestrial carnivore and Canada's most majestic and splendid mammal, holding reign over the Arctic for thousands of years."

 

I've never seen a polar in the wild, and I doubt most Canadians have.  I have seen many beavers, and I would bet that most Canadians have also seen a beaver at some point during a camping trip or excursion to Canada's wild hinterland.  The polar bear's strength, courage and resourcefulness also seems to need the care, concern, and hysteria of David Suzuki and Al Gore these days.

 

But I can't escape the thought that having a ferocious beast as Canada's symbol, seems awkwardly un-Canadian outside a hockey rink.  By contrast, beavers are hard-working, industrious, creative, alert, and humble.  They don't make an effort to be heard or bother anyone else, they just go along on their merry way building dams, swimming, and making babies.  Beavers are quick to warn their kin of a threat that is lurking by slapping their tails on the water.  They build enormous dams (relative to their size) that symbolize their industriousness and significance.  Despite being small and humble, they can change the flow of a river that floods any plains or marshes that stand in their way. 

 

Eaton has called the beaver a "dentally defective rat".  I would take issue with this disrespectful characterization.  A beaver uses the tools God gave endowed it (its teeth) to build, change, and modify its environment for the purposes it was created for.  The beaver doesn't have angry fangs, but it does just fine surviving in Canada's rugged and unforgiving wilderness.

 

I'm quite content to accept the humble, hardworking beaver over the weather sensitive polar bear as a symbol of this great country. 

Turn Coat Klees

The Toronto Star is reporting that Frank Klees is running for speaker of the house in Ontario.  This action will essentially give Dalton (Dad) McGuinty a majority government and Klees will go the way of Belinda Stronach in Ontario politics.  Klees will prove nothing more than the fact that he's an unprincipled opportunist who seeks only power and a temporary title.  There's a saying that those who stand for nothing will fall for anything, and that certainly applies to Mr. Klees.

 

Hudak, despite his shortcomings and faults, has been unjustly stabbed in the back.  Klees made many red-Tory rumblings when he ran for PC leader against Hudak.  Clearly, Klees has become even more of a turn-coat since his failed leadership bid.  If this is how he gets pay-back, he's a very small man.

 

Mr. Klees would do well to consider how history will remember him.  If Dalton pursues disastrous policies that lead to economic ruin, Klees will bear responsibility.  Regardless of what happens, Klees will be known as an untrustworthy man with no integrity and no principles.  He'll go the way of Stronach and other turncoats who took advantage of short-term gain for the sake of their own egos and vanity.

 

Shame on Mr. Klees for subverting the will of the electorate for his own selfish gains.

Obama Failing Like Carter, Maybe Worse

President Obama, as I predicted in 2008 more than once, is behaving much like Jimmy Carter and would be a big government socialist with no new ideas other than the expansion of government at the expense of individuals and the private market.

The middle east is in the throes of change, but it is impossible to tell whether it will usher in more violence, Islamist extremism, or democracy.  If I was a betting man, it would seem that the democratic possibility is, unfortunately, the least likely given the radicalism that infests the mosques, schools, and culture of the Arab world.

Obama has attacked success, prosperity, and the free market at every turn.  Businesses are not hiring because there is no reason for them to take on a massive risk and cost of a new employee.  Health care costs, taxes, and regulations are all on the rise.  Why would any business hire in this environment?

Meanwhile, the corruption and waste of the green jobs program and stimulus is becoming more obvious by the day as Solyndra and other debacles are coming to light.  The Democrats push a new stimulus package that pretends to be a "jobs bill", but is one that will only help unions and public employees which will in turn benefit the Democrats through union donations.  A sick cycle of corruption and money laundering, despite it being legal (technically).

America weakens at home and abroad with skyrocketing spending, deficits, and unemployment.  And what is the answer from the president?  More government, more regulation, more taxes, more spending, more control of private enterprise.  The central planners never really went away when the Soviet Union collapsed, they just changed their tune from "red" to "green", from "central planning" to "public investments".  However, underneath the name of the game is power and control. 

To get the economy moving, there must be more freedom and less burdens on business from the government.  Individuals and corporations must be uninhibited in benefiting from creativity, smart risk taking, and entrpreneurialism.

The protests on Wall Street are aimed at precisely the wrong people.  It is Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Congress, and the White House that are to blame for the mess that we are in.  Republicans and Democrats have allowed government to expand too fast for too long.  The tide must be reversed or the result will be irreversible: decline and failure.

Hudak's Failure

Dalton McGuinty was given another mandate as Ontario's Premier by the voters last night.  Despite a record of tax increases, skyrocketing deficits, broken promises, and union coddling, the PC's could not defeat the Grits.  The blame lies entirely on the PC leader, Tim Hudak.

 

Despite having some good ideas and that he would have, undoubtedly, done a better job than Premier Dad (in my opinion), Hudak could not convince Ontario voters to change horses.  This is especially surprising given the success the federal Conservatives have had in Ontario.

 

So why did Hudak fail?  My belief is that he ran as Liberal-lite, offering policies and ideas on slightly to the right of McGuinty.  Hudak ran an Ernie Eves (Hudak's political mentor) campaign.  I don't believe Hudak really had a vision of what he wanted to do for Ontario as its premier.  Say what you want about Mike Harris or Rob Ford, but they came to power knowing exactly what they wanted to do: prevent or slow government expansion, ensure fiscal accountability and responsibility, and create an environment where business can thrive.

 

Hudak presented no vision of where he wanted to lead Ontario.  The videos attacking McGuinty as a tax and spender were all true, but that's not enough.  Voters must understand the new direction a challenger wants to take, why it is better than the status quo, and how they will get there.  Hudak utterly failed in that regard.  There were no big ideas in the PC campaign at all.  Hudak will likely follow the paths of John Tory, George HW Bush, Gerald Ford, and Ernie Eves, leaders who lacked a vision and ran "moderate" campaigns.

 

Moderate conservatives almost always fail.  Principled conservatives like Reagan, Mike Harris, Stephen Harper, and even Rob Ford win elections.  So when the next leadership campaign begins for the Ontario PC's, as it should, remember that principle beats unprincipled.