Our family has gone camping for years. My wife and I camped even before we had kids, and we have visited many of the provincial parks in Ontario.
We just came back from what we felt was truly the best experience camping (excluding weather). It was at Awenda Provincial Park, near Penetanguishine / Midland. This is a fabulous park, particularly for those with families. While I don't have time to get into all the aspects of what we liked in detail, I would like to point out a couple of tings which may be of benefit to those looking for somewhere to camp, particularly if you have kids, and even if you don't.
I have two big pet peeves when it comes to camping: privacy and noise. I like more of the former and none of the latter. They are inter-related. One can argue that noise is everywhere...maybe, but I find that at campsites which are within close proximity of each other (and you can tell this by whether you feel comfortable taking a wizz in the bushes in broad daylight), you tend to get noise at night, from either rowdy young adults who had too much to drink, or those who can't shut their dogs up.
Most campgrounds offer radio-free sites, but radios have not generally been a problem over the years, for us. Awenda offers radio-free and pet-free sites (we were in the Snake campsites). At night it was so quiet.
But moreover, the camp sites are so spread apart, you cannot see your neighbour and it's not because of simply a dense smattering of trees, but each site really is a bit of a hike from the next. We camped with friends who have kids who are a bit boisterous when they talk and I'm not kidding you, you could not hear them, day or night. And yes, they were talking and shouting. We could hear a bit of other neighbours, but it was so faint, you didn't even know what they were saying...everyone had kids, so it was a great family area. Also, not be awakened by some yappy canine was such a treat! I really do not like dogs period, and I am glad that they had pet-free zones at Awenda.
Another forward-thinking family-friendly aspect to Awenda Provincial Park was that they had kids' educational programs running daily, whether it be learning about the habitat of some animals or the local industry in the surrounding towns. This is great for those parents who want variety and it is also a nice alternative when the weather does not co-operate.
While I did not go to the beach due to my aversion to beaches and my self-imposed avoidance of anywhere scantily clad women may be, my wife and kids went and they said the beach was awesome - white sand, clear water, lots to do.
The entrance to the park was a nice long ride in the car...if you have bladder control problems and are relieved to see the "Welcome to Awenda" sign, be prepared to wait for some time before hitting the registration desk. It's not as bad as Algonquin, but it's not your common short-distance from highway to park entrance either.
Only a few things I didn't like about the park - 1) the outhouses are not lighted, so expect to take a dump in the dark (our last camping experience, which was at Arrowhead, near Huntsville last month, was eased by lighted outhouses). 2) some comfort stations (showers) are nowhere near walking distance - they could have probably put more of them in, but that may simply cause more traffic. 3) Getting to the park was a bit of a challenge - you go into Penetanguishine, and go through a few streets before hitting a concession road, and then more turns. The Awenda signs along the way are very small. If you have a GPS, you'll be fine; if you're using a paper map, study it carefully before heading out.
I didn't get a chance to fish this weekend, mostly due to weather (it rained all weekend and it was freezing cold), so I can't speak on the fishing aspect, but I do plan to go back there next year with the family.
Overall, I really enjoyed Awenda and plan to go back. I really liked the privacy (lots of trees and shade), the quietness, and the stuff for kids to do. Each campsite has a longer-than-usual "driveway" to get into the site, so your campsite is not as close to the road as some are. The beach was great, and there are good hiking trails if you want to burn off your hamburger lunch.
Showing posts with label Ontario. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ontario. Show all posts
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Saturday, September 22, 2007
The 2007 Ontario Electorate: Lemmings Personnified
What else can I call many of these apathetic voters who, despite a long history of broken promises, fiscal mismanagement, and...well, lies to the public by Dalton McGuinty and the governing provincial Liberals, are planning to vote him back into power in a few weeks time (at least according to recent polls). Do people care about good leadership anymore? Does a person's word count for much anymore? OK, so you may think all politicians are slimy, and I am not going to vigorously debate you on this point, but surely common sense must prevail and you'd have to objectively look at McGuinty's leadership (or lack thereof) record? It is no secret to anyone that I am going to be voting for John Tory and the Progressive Conservatives, but I will be so bold as to say that even the NDP leader, Howard Hampton, a really left-leaning uber-liberal, with whom I disagree on most issues, would be a far suitable Premier than Mr. McGuinty. I've watched Hampton for more than a decade now on debates and interviews, and at the very least, he has sincere passion and truly believes in his principles, despite what others say. That is probably why he has been NDP leader so long, because he will stick to his message and his socialist ideals, and not stoop to vote buying right before an election. Of course, I hope that the NDP does not take power, but I don't think there's ever a chance of that, given the consistently third place ratings of the party in elections. Still, my point stands that ANY of the other leaders (even fringe Green Party candidate Frank De Jong) would be a better Premier than McGuinty.
Due to an event at my son's school (his first school open house since he has been a student - all of two weeks thus far), I was unable to watch the leaders' debate live; however, due to the wonders of modern day technology, I was able to view it in its entirety via video streaming on the internet (I don't have cable, so there was no option to record it on TV) thanks to the good ol' CBC. While it is not my intention to go over the debate, I want to touch on a couple of points, and then expand it to my editorial comments.
Well, what can I say? No surprise that McGuinty was on the attack throughout the debate. Anyone who thinks that McGuinty won the debate was not watching very carefully. McGuinty dodged questions by his usual strategy of providing an answer to a question that not even remotely addresses the topic in the original question. The one point which Tory and Hampton sliced him up quite nicely, was on the issue of is countless broken promises, not the least of which was his bring forth of the health tax, the biggest increase in Ontario's history, when during the last election, he said he wouldn't. Now, in subsequent ads and in print and radio responses and even on this debate, he said he realized after he got into power that he faced a tough choice as he inherited an almost six billion dollar deficit from the previous Conservative government and Mike Harris. However, it is evident that he knew about this months before he took power, since there are reports that were provided to him, even during the election campaign of 2003. So when he made that promise not to raise taxes, he knew that he would be dealing with a deficit that would require money from somewhere.
McGuinty also promised more doctors/nurses available and shorter wait times at the hospital four years ago. Well, I can tell you as a guy who has visited the emergency room multiple times before 2003, and many times after 2003 (due to my having a son now, who gets sick once in a while), the emergency room waits are markedly worse than before. I thought it was just me, so I asked friends and colleagues (a number of which are not conservatives like me) about their experience, and they also indicate that emergency room waits have increased. Also, have you tried to find a family doctor lately? It's pretty difficult. Tory proposes a controversial pay-per-use private clinic, and I support him on such initiatives. True, universal health care is a great thing, and I'm glad that we have it, unlike the U.S. However, with it being a public system, we should expect long waits (it's like free internet - you can't expect the highest quality). Just like anything else, I don't see why it can't be that people who can afford to get faster or better service, simply pays for it. Example: you will see a certain clientele eat at McDonald's, and you will see another certain clientele eat at fancy restaurants. No one is complaining about the disparity between the rich and the poor (or the wealthy and the middle class). Some people can afford to buy Porsche 911s, others put all their life savings toward a 1986 Hyndai Pony. That's just the way it is. Some people can afford to have others cook and clean and tend to their gardens; others can't even afford the cost of potting a simple plant. So if people who have the cash or the means to pay for faster service for their health care needs, why are people so up-in-arms over this? I would say it is better this way, as it will alleviate some of the congestion in the emergency rooms. Some will argue that such private clinics and hospitals will pull talented doctors away, but again, is this so unusual? Within all professions there are value/economy priced companies, and then there are the pay-through-your-nose priced companies. People should have a choice as to how to spend the money that they have or don't have. I'm all for a privatized health care system that works alongside a public universal system.
For education, McGuinty's big feather-in-the-cap (according to him) is that there have been no teacher's strikes for four years. So what? You have a tax-and-spend liberal like McGuinty who will appease most special interest groups, and of course you're not going to get any strikes. Many people in Ontario (especially teachers and nurses) did not like Mike Harris, but at the very least, he was one of those guys who did what he said he would do. He ended up pissing off a lot of people in the process, but if you are talking about making hard decisions to cut
spending and expenses in order to balance the books, that's what he had to do (remember, Harris inherited a massive deficit from the previous NDP - ultra liberal - tax and spend government). During McGuinty's time, class sizes have actually increased and there are more split classes than there were in Harris' time - this can all be independently verified. McGuinty also says he supports a full-fledged public school system, yet he is a staunch supporter of publicly funded Catholic schools (which I am 100% dead-set against) and I believe his own kids went to publicly funded Catholic schools. John Tory supports the public school system too, but as a guy who has considerably more common sense, he has called on McGuinty to either scrap public funding for Catholic schools, or publicly fund ALL faith-based religious schools, not just Catholic ones. From an equal treatment of citizens perspective, this makes lots of sense. But for whatever reason, McGuinty will continue to rally behind a public school system that also makes provision for Catholics for funding, but no one else (of course, this is because he is a Roman Catholic - whatever happened to separation of church and state???). I've never understood, even as a kid, why the province funds Catholic schools, so the sooner that this can go away, the better. I'm with John Tory on this one!
McGuinty also broke promises to shut down coal-fire plants, as well as provide assistance and support for autistic children (he ended up going to court to fight them after he broke his promise to them - once again, at election time- that he would provide support for them). McGuinty, as a feel good measure, attempted to put together a committee (ugh!) to look into support and funding for autistic children, in particular, but last I checked, no report was forthcoming.
John Tory, in his campaign (the website, by the way is http://www.ontariopc.com), as well as on the debate, has consistently focused on the sad fact that Ontario is now lagging badly in many aspects of job creation, economic growth and being viewed as a leader, as compared to other provinces. Much of this can be attributed to McGuinty, as Ontario was not in this position four years ago. As much as I disagree with McGuinty, at least he is not doing the ultimate killer for the economy, which is to be Hampton's single focus: raising the minimum wage. I am not an economist, but you don't need to be one to get at least a sense of why that would be not very good, given the shape of today's economy.
He did Toronto a huge disservice by telling its mayor, David Miller, that he had no money to give the city, and as a result, Toronto had to start cutting services, including public transit, libraries and pools and such (this, of course, was not entirely the province's fault, since Miller has also done a poor job of managing Toronto's books, and has made a point of ridiculous spending patterns, sending councillors, on the public dime, to lavish retreats and training facilities - but this is not about Miller, so I'll stoop here). However, JUST BEFORE AN ELECTION, McGuinty magically announces that he has a 1.2 BILLION dollar surplus for the 2006 year alone, and he will be doing some spending with it. Of course, he pulled the wool over Miller's eyes, but that's another story. He then started to disperse some money, right before the election to several organizations - apparently, these are "gifts" with no strings attached. One million dollars went to some cricket club (McGuinty claims there were no political party attachments here, but if you look at this demographically, cricket is enjoyed by East Indians and Pakistanis and others from that region, and it can be demonstrated that the East Indian/Pakistani community are heavy liberal supporters (don't believe me - look at how heavy-Indian areas like Brampton, and certain parts of British Columbia vote).
McGuinty also says he supports public transit, but he said that last time as well (and right before an election). Interestingly, McGuinty's current campaign platform (if you haven't read it, you can get it on the http://www.onterioliberal.ca website) does have provision for transit funding, but it mentions Toronto exclusively, even though there are transit systems in other centres such as London and Ottawa. McGuinty's plan for funding transit goes up to 2040 before it's actually fully paid for. Sounds like some short term gain (votes) in exchange for some long-term pain (deficit). McGuinty claims that the gas tax that he introduced (another damn tax that consumers have to pay) was purported set up in order to fund public transit. In truth, the gas tax was collected and put in a general revenue bucket, only a fraction of which was used for public transit. So McGuinty isn't really telling the whole truth here - yes, he's collecting the gas tax, but are the proceeds of this tax being used specifically to fund public transit and improve roads? I've noticed the quality of many roads in Ontario to be utterly crap in the past couple of years.
Crime and punishment - here's where McGuinty's true colours of being an observer, not a leader, really stand out. Remember the Belleville Indian blockade earlier this year? The provincial government did nothing about it. In truth McGuinty does not want to look like a non-liberal, by actually enforcing laws to protect citizens. He also doesn't want to be viewed as being unsympathetic to the Indian population, but instead, he let it get out of a hand with the rogue leader of the protestors group looking more like a leader than the Premier of Ontario. Speaking of crime, have you looked at crime statistics lately? At least in Toronto, where crime seems to have risen and has only been kept in check somewhat with the excellent work that past police chief Julian Fantino and current chief Bill Blair have done? I find it amazing to read of so many crimes being committed by those who are either on bail or have had previous criminal records or were on probation. The penalties for those who skip bail are more like a slap on the wrist. And as Tory has stated, McGuinty keeps records on beans harvested and fishing licenses issues, but has no record on how many commit crimes while on bail (the police have this info though), how many deals with criminals are done with the government, etc.
McGuinty loves to blame Mike Harris for any of his shortcomings, but even Howard Hampton and a number of socialist commentators have remarked, he has had four years to do so something about it. What has he done in the past four years?
I remember watching McGuinty when he squared off against Mike Harris and Howard Hampton back in 1999 on a televison debate, but also on the campaign trail. He was very wooden, and just like he is today, has a really annoying way of presenting himself, using dramatic pauses when they are not needed, slowing his speech to try to emphasize points, and looking serious in order to gain him some credibility. Obviously, people saw through all that, and saw that he had no personality and could barely defend his position. In 2003, McGuinty, with an obviously improved team of speech and body language coaches used a bit more humour, etc. This is good to the electorate, but the problem was, he basically wasn't really being himself. Those who watched him in 1999 and before that would know that he's a more introverted, introspective type of person. My brother, whose friend works in the Liberal Party, has told him that McGuinty is actually a pretty nice guy, but he's nothing like his in on TV, where he has to project some sort of politician personality. In order to win votes, he changed his personality like a Dr. Jeckyll / Mr. Hyde type of deal. He's done that with breaking promises. He's done that with funding and giving in to special interest groups. Unlike Tory and Hampton, McGuinty does not possess a genuine passion in his platform, and does not seem sincere when he talks.
He is now proposing around 300 new promises this election campaign. Do you really think this guy deserves a second chance?
Due to an event at my son's school (his first school open house since he has been a student - all of two weeks thus far), I was unable to watch the leaders' debate live; however, due to the wonders of modern day technology, I was able to view it in its entirety via video streaming on the internet (I don't have cable, so there was no option to record it on TV) thanks to the good ol' CBC. While it is not my intention to go over the debate, I want to touch on a couple of points, and then expand it to my editorial comments.
Well, what can I say? No surprise that McGuinty was on the attack throughout the debate. Anyone who thinks that McGuinty won the debate was not watching very carefully. McGuinty dodged questions by his usual strategy of providing an answer to a question that not even remotely addresses the topic in the original question. The one point which Tory and Hampton sliced him up quite nicely, was on the issue of is countless broken promises, not the least of which was his bring forth of the health tax, the biggest increase in Ontario's history, when during the last election, he said he wouldn't. Now, in subsequent ads and in print and radio responses and even on this debate, he said he realized after he got into power that he faced a tough choice as he inherited an almost six billion dollar deficit from the previous Conservative government and Mike Harris. However, it is evident that he knew about this months before he took power, since there are reports that were provided to him, even during the election campaign of 2003. So when he made that promise not to raise taxes, he knew that he would be dealing with a deficit that would require money from somewhere.
McGuinty also promised more doctors/nurses available and shorter wait times at the hospital four years ago. Well, I can tell you as a guy who has visited the emergency room multiple times before 2003, and many times after 2003 (due to my having a son now, who gets sick once in a while), the emergency room waits are markedly worse than before. I thought it was just me, so I asked friends and colleagues (a number of which are not conservatives like me) about their experience, and they also indicate that emergency room waits have increased. Also, have you tried to find a family doctor lately? It's pretty difficult. Tory proposes a controversial pay-per-use private clinic, and I support him on such initiatives. True, universal health care is a great thing, and I'm glad that we have it, unlike the U.S. However, with it being a public system, we should expect long waits (it's like free internet - you can't expect the highest quality). Just like anything else, I don't see why it can't be that people who can afford to get faster or better service, simply pays for it. Example: you will see a certain clientele eat at McDonald's, and you will see another certain clientele eat at fancy restaurants. No one is complaining about the disparity between the rich and the poor (or the wealthy and the middle class). Some people can afford to buy Porsche 911s, others put all their life savings toward a 1986 Hyndai Pony. That's just the way it is. Some people can afford to have others cook and clean and tend to their gardens; others can't even afford the cost of potting a simple plant. So if people who have the cash or the means to pay for faster service for their health care needs, why are people so up-in-arms over this? I would say it is better this way, as it will alleviate some of the congestion in the emergency rooms. Some will argue that such private clinics and hospitals will pull talented doctors away, but again, is this so unusual? Within all professions there are value/economy priced companies, and then there are the pay-through-your-nose priced companies. People should have a choice as to how to spend the money that they have or don't have. I'm all for a privatized health care system that works alongside a public universal system.
For education, McGuinty's big feather-in-the-cap (according to him) is that there have been no teacher's strikes for four years. So what? You have a tax-and-spend liberal like McGuinty who will appease most special interest groups, and of course you're not going to get any strikes. Many people in Ontario (especially teachers and nurses) did not like Mike Harris, but at the very least, he was one of those guys who did what he said he would do. He ended up pissing off a lot of people in the process, but if you are talking about making hard decisions to cut
spending and expenses in order to balance the books, that's what he had to do (remember, Harris inherited a massive deficit from the previous NDP - ultra liberal - tax and spend government). During McGuinty's time, class sizes have actually increased and there are more split classes than there were in Harris' time - this can all be independently verified. McGuinty also says he supports a full-fledged public school system, yet he is a staunch supporter of publicly funded Catholic schools (which I am 100% dead-set against) and I believe his own kids went to publicly funded Catholic schools. John Tory supports the public school system too, but as a guy who has considerably more common sense, he has called on McGuinty to either scrap public funding for Catholic schools, or publicly fund ALL faith-based religious schools, not just Catholic ones. From an equal treatment of citizens perspective, this makes lots of sense. But for whatever reason, McGuinty will continue to rally behind a public school system that also makes provision for Catholics for funding, but no one else (of course, this is because he is a Roman Catholic - whatever happened to separation of church and state???). I've never understood, even as a kid, why the province funds Catholic schools, so the sooner that this can go away, the better. I'm with John Tory on this one!
McGuinty also broke promises to shut down coal-fire plants, as well as provide assistance and support for autistic children (he ended up going to court to fight them after he broke his promise to them - once again, at election time- that he would provide support for them). McGuinty, as a feel good measure, attempted to put together a committee (ugh!) to look into support and funding for autistic children, in particular, but last I checked, no report was forthcoming.
John Tory, in his campaign (the website, by the way is http://www.ontariopc.com), as well as on the debate, has consistently focused on the sad fact that Ontario is now lagging badly in many aspects of job creation, economic growth and being viewed as a leader, as compared to other provinces. Much of this can be attributed to McGuinty, as Ontario was not in this position four years ago. As much as I disagree with McGuinty, at least he is not doing the ultimate killer for the economy, which is to be Hampton's single focus: raising the minimum wage. I am not an economist, but you don't need to be one to get at least a sense of why that would be not very good, given the shape of today's economy.
He did Toronto a huge disservice by telling its mayor, David Miller, that he had no money to give the city, and as a result, Toronto had to start cutting services, including public transit, libraries and pools and such (this, of course, was not entirely the province's fault, since Miller has also done a poor job of managing Toronto's books, and has made a point of ridiculous spending patterns, sending councillors, on the public dime, to lavish retreats and training facilities - but this is not about Miller, so I'll stoop here). However, JUST BEFORE AN ELECTION, McGuinty magically announces that he has a 1.2 BILLION dollar surplus for the 2006 year alone, and he will be doing some spending with it. Of course, he pulled the wool over Miller's eyes, but that's another story. He then started to disperse some money, right before the election to several organizations - apparently, these are "gifts" with no strings attached. One million dollars went to some cricket club (McGuinty claims there were no political party attachments here, but if you look at this demographically, cricket is enjoyed by East Indians and Pakistanis and others from that region, and it can be demonstrated that the East Indian/Pakistani community are heavy liberal supporters (don't believe me - look at how heavy-Indian areas like Brampton, and certain parts of British Columbia vote).
McGuinty also says he supports public transit, but he said that last time as well (and right before an election). Interestingly, McGuinty's current campaign platform (if you haven't read it, you can get it on the http://www.onterioliberal.ca website) does have provision for transit funding, but it mentions Toronto exclusively, even though there are transit systems in other centres such as London and Ottawa. McGuinty's plan for funding transit goes up to 2040 before it's actually fully paid for. Sounds like some short term gain (votes) in exchange for some long-term pain (deficit). McGuinty claims that the gas tax that he introduced (another damn tax that consumers have to pay) was purported set up in order to fund public transit. In truth, the gas tax was collected and put in a general revenue bucket, only a fraction of which was used for public transit. So McGuinty isn't really telling the whole truth here - yes, he's collecting the gas tax, but are the proceeds of this tax being used specifically to fund public transit and improve roads? I've noticed the quality of many roads in Ontario to be utterly crap in the past couple of years.
Crime and punishment - here's where McGuinty's true colours of being an observer, not a leader, really stand out. Remember the Belleville Indian blockade earlier this year? The provincial government did nothing about it. In truth McGuinty does not want to look like a non-liberal, by actually enforcing laws to protect citizens. He also doesn't want to be viewed as being unsympathetic to the Indian population, but instead, he let it get out of a hand with the rogue leader of the protestors group looking more like a leader than the Premier of Ontario. Speaking of crime, have you looked at crime statistics lately? At least in Toronto, where crime seems to have risen and has only been kept in check somewhat with the excellent work that past police chief Julian Fantino and current chief Bill Blair have done? I find it amazing to read of so many crimes being committed by those who are either on bail or have had previous criminal records or were on probation. The penalties for those who skip bail are more like a slap on the wrist. And as Tory has stated, McGuinty keeps records on beans harvested and fishing licenses issues, but has no record on how many commit crimes while on bail (the police have this info though), how many deals with criminals are done with the government, etc.
McGuinty loves to blame Mike Harris for any of his shortcomings, but even Howard Hampton and a number of socialist commentators have remarked, he has had four years to do so something about it. What has he done in the past four years?
I remember watching McGuinty when he squared off against Mike Harris and Howard Hampton back in 1999 on a televison debate, but also on the campaign trail. He was very wooden, and just like he is today, has a really annoying way of presenting himself, using dramatic pauses when they are not needed, slowing his speech to try to emphasize points, and looking serious in order to gain him some credibility. Obviously, people saw through all that, and saw that he had no personality and could barely defend his position. In 2003, McGuinty, with an obviously improved team of speech and body language coaches used a bit more humour, etc. This is good to the electorate, but the problem was, he basically wasn't really being himself. Those who watched him in 1999 and before that would know that he's a more introverted, introspective type of person. My brother, whose friend works in the Liberal Party, has told him that McGuinty is actually a pretty nice guy, but he's nothing like his in on TV, where he has to project some sort of politician personality. In order to win votes, he changed his personality like a Dr. Jeckyll / Mr. Hyde type of deal. He's done that with breaking promises. He's done that with funding and giving in to special interest groups. Unlike Tory and Hampton, McGuinty does not possess a genuine passion in his platform, and does not seem sincere when he talks.
He is now proposing around 300 new promises this election campaign. Do you really think this guy deserves a second chance?
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Protests and Rallies Do Not Work and Are a Waste of Time
So...I have followed the events surrounding the Native blockcade near Belleville a week or so back, where traffic and train tracks were impeded and snarled throughout the day. I just sat listening to the coverage, thinking, what on earth is this going to accomplish? You are impeding people's travel (a lot of it is likely travel for work or livelihood), you are blocking train tracks, denying 100 million dollars worth of cargo from getting through, and right before a long weekend, this has all the earmarks of simply pissing people off. If I was travelling in that area, would I give a rat's arse what they were protesting about? Nope. In fact, I would hope they never get what they were after - teaches them a lesson that you don't inconveience others to try to make a point - and one where they threatened to use not just rifles and handguns, but all-out assault weapons (Against who else? The provincial police that would seek to break this off). Last year/this year, it was the occupation in Caledonia (claims that developers were building houses on their land). I think in the end, it just made people more resentful of them as a minority group.
Now, I know one thing for a fact, and it is only by way of talking with some people I know who are of Native background. This is a rogue band of Aboriginals who are doing this - I had that sense anyway before it was confirmed - in fact, the local Native community groups there strongly condemned the action before it was even taken, yet the small group, led by some ding dong who wanted his 15 minutes of fame, decided to go ahead and challenge the police anyway. Many Native communities are embarrassed by these actions and are worried that it will only fuel the fire towards their group collectively (which, sadly to say, will likely happen).
Of course, in Ontario, we have an extremely weak liberal government led by an extremely weak socialist chameleon individual (Dalton McGuinty), who has been shown to break promises and not take action when needed. About ten years ago, we had a similar protest at Ipperwash (I believe). The Premier at the time (a Conservative) sent in the police, and one of the protesters was regrettably, killed. Since then, the government has shyed away from involvement in these protests and this is sad. If I were to grab some friends and take some MP5s onto the highway and stop traffic, griping about hospital wait times, I guarantee you I would be arrested and charged. Yet, no one wants to touch these guys for fear of another death and stirring up any racial tensions.
But believe it or not, the recent events are not what I want to write about, even though I have already done so. What I want to suggest in this entry of my blog is that protests and rallies have no influence whatsoever and should be ignored by the government.
Now, that being said, I know what you are thinking - "Uh...Jeremy, didn't you just say that in the recent events near Belleville, that the government should have intervened?" Yes, I did say that, and no, I am not being two-faced here. In the recent Native protest situation, it wasn't a protest - it was an illegal action under the guise of a protest. Since they took out assault weapons and blocked consumer and business, they are now impeding on the rights and freedoms of others (and though I am far from a libertarian, I will say that we do have some rights entrenched in our constitution (which is a more left-wing constitution, but one nonetheless), entitling us to not be the victim of threats and having our business interests needlessly shut down by non-government people. There are also laws in the land governing how we live, but unfortunately, with a weak liberal socialist government, they pay little heed to enforcing laws - they are more than happy to make them, though.
What I want to discuss is the idea of protests and rallies proper. That is, peaceful marches and such, which although it may slow traffic down somewhat, they are non-violent. These protests are within the boundaries of what is lawfully permissible and it is definitely people's right to protest. However, here is why I do not believe protests and rallies do not work, and I will cite several examples.
1) Most governments are not easily swayed by the viewpoints of a special interest group or a minority. Yes, I am sure you will take issue with me on this one, but let me explain. There are literally millions of special interest groups out there, each seeming to want the government to throw some money their way or change or create a law in their favour. Many (not all) elected officials are generally thick-skinned and have a wider picture of their budgets and social programs, not simply going for short-term solutions. If they could be swayed left, right and centre (and I'm not talking about the political spectrum here), no constructive action will ever take place. Governments are elected to make tough decisions, and yes, if they are elected, they are to represent their constituents, so if their constituents want such and such, then they are obligated to represent them. Special interest groups different from constituents in that they are not geographically based, and as such, they don't really have an elected official that they put in office (though I know there are always exceptions). By the way, have you ever noticed that when a protest happens at a government building, you almost always never see a government official show up to address the crowd?
2) Some rallies are utterly laughable. My brother, son and I were, unfortunately, caught in the streets of downtown Toronto a couple of months ago during a 10,000 person rally by some Marijauana-advocacy group in Ontario. While it was generally a peaceful protest, let me just say that the language coming out of their mouths were less than civil and proper, and of course, there was the waft of pot smoke everywhere (I had to shut my windows and turn on the AC, recycling the car's already stale air). So as I was driving through the protest (I was strongly tempted to drive through the protest, if you know what I mean), I thought to myself - what are these yahoos trying to prove (and based on the demographics and age constitution in the group, their lack of business acumen and articulation, I couldn't tell what they were rallying for or against - seemed like a good day to go out and smoke some weed), if I were in the government's shoes, I would have just said, "whatever" and go back to saving the whales or whatever they do. As it turns out, this rally was thoroughly ignored and not even acknowledged by the goverment. Of course, some of these rallies may push for a viewpoint, but it's not fleshed out very well in terms of who pays for such and such, what the social implications are (usually the special interest group will not care about how what they are championing will impact others).
3) Christian protests and rallies - sorry to say, and I don't like to slag my own people often, but I have to say, these are also ineffective. Writing a personalized note to your MP or MPP may not make a huge difference, but I think it will have the potential of being slightly more effective than standing at a corner with a sign saying, "Abortion is wrong" or "we need prayer in schools". The first one, I absolutely agree with and fully support, as I find abortion to be completely abhorrent in general. Prayer in schools I don't necessarily agree with, but either way, protesters standing at a corner, trying to convince a secular government to institute an abortion ban - what will that do? I absolutely abhor the Roe vs. Wade verdict in the U.S., and would love to see the U.S. Supreme Court one day overturn it (which may happen seeing here is now a 5-4 ideology split favouring the conservative side (yay for John Roberts and Samuel Alito!!!), I think that in the meantime, the best way to get people to change their minds is to talk with them during your day to day interactions. If you want to try to sway a governement official, write them a letter with what's on your heart (I know, I know, they may not even read it, but it's better than standing at the corner). My wife will take issue with me on this one, as her position is that they are at least doing something, rather than simply talking about it, as I am, and I see her point, but would counter saying "what are they really doing?" Christian rallies generally tend to be peaceful anyway, and when they turn ugly (as some abortions protests have in the U.S., that ceases to be a protest and is now an unlawful act). I think believers can be far more effective in influencing people on a day-to-day basis, and I think that is the Biblical pattern that Jesus set for his followers.
4) Today, I think, that whole "Live Earth" concert, based on ideas from that neo-environmentalist Al Gore will occur. While it is not a protest per se, it is supposed to bring "awareness" to environmental issues (which seem to be on the forefront of political agendas these days). While environmentalism is a subject I plan to discuss in the future, for now I will simply acknowledge that there is a concert taking place. But as with any group gathering for a "cause-based" event, I will be so bold as to say that many people going to this concert will be more interested in the big name bands who play and less on the message. Even Live 8 was like that - in England it was all the hype because of the reuniting of Pink Floyd after 22 years or so (and I must say, as a guy who had a thrown-out back that day and spent the entire day and evening in front of the tube, I saw that Pink Floyd re-united part and it was pretty cool) - but did I think about African relief? Not really. Did I think of African relief when Motley Crue got on and I realized how porky and old these guys have become? And I'm not sure if the artists did either. I remember one of the Canadian bands, A Simple Plan, who played at the Barrie location, the vocalist kept referring to Barrie as Toronto, but moreover, I found it telling that his references to African relief was brief and generalized (I wasn't even sure if he knew why he was there): "We are here today to support a good cause...now, Toronto, are you fucking ready to rock??????!!!" Nice one, buddy. Anyway, I think it will be interesting to see whether the media focuses on what will be a lot of garbage and litter on the grounds of the LiveEarth environmental concert...
I think that, while I believe rallies and protests to be a waste of time, that I have to commend some of the protesters and ralliers who brave weather conditions and crowds (and mocking opinionated blog writers) to try to support something they believe in deeply. In a sense, I think that they mean well, but it may also be that they just want to feel better about themselves, that they are at least voicing their opinion, which is, of course, our democratic right. Or they may just be the product of the 60s hippie generation who seemed to revel in these kinds of things.
Now, I know one thing for a fact, and it is only by way of talking with some people I know who are of Native background. This is a rogue band of Aboriginals who are doing this - I had that sense anyway before it was confirmed - in fact, the local Native community groups there strongly condemned the action before it was even taken, yet the small group, led by some ding dong who wanted his 15 minutes of fame, decided to go ahead and challenge the police anyway. Many Native communities are embarrassed by these actions and are worried that it will only fuel the fire towards their group collectively (which, sadly to say, will likely happen).
Of course, in Ontario, we have an extremely weak liberal government led by an extremely weak socialist chameleon individual (Dalton McGuinty), who has been shown to break promises and not take action when needed. About ten years ago, we had a similar protest at Ipperwash (I believe). The Premier at the time (a Conservative) sent in the police, and one of the protesters was regrettably, killed. Since then, the government has shyed away from involvement in these protests and this is sad. If I were to grab some friends and take some MP5s onto the highway and stop traffic, griping about hospital wait times, I guarantee you I would be arrested and charged. Yet, no one wants to touch these guys for fear of another death and stirring up any racial tensions.
But believe it or not, the recent events are not what I want to write about, even though I have already done so. What I want to suggest in this entry of my blog is that protests and rallies have no influence whatsoever and should be ignored by the government.
Now, that being said, I know what you are thinking - "Uh...Jeremy, didn't you just say that in the recent events near Belleville, that the government should have intervened?" Yes, I did say that, and no, I am not being two-faced here. In the recent Native protest situation, it wasn't a protest - it was an illegal action under the guise of a protest. Since they took out assault weapons and blocked consumer and business, they are now impeding on the rights and freedoms of others (and though I am far from a libertarian, I will say that we do have some rights entrenched in our constitution (which is a more left-wing constitution, but one nonetheless), entitling us to not be the victim of threats and having our business interests needlessly shut down by non-government people. There are also laws in the land governing how we live, but unfortunately, with a weak liberal socialist government, they pay little heed to enforcing laws - they are more than happy to make them, though.
What I want to discuss is the idea of protests and rallies proper. That is, peaceful marches and such, which although it may slow traffic down somewhat, they are non-violent. These protests are within the boundaries of what is lawfully permissible and it is definitely people's right to protest. However, here is why I do not believe protests and rallies do not work, and I will cite several examples.
1) Most governments are not easily swayed by the viewpoints of a special interest group or a minority. Yes, I am sure you will take issue with me on this one, but let me explain. There are literally millions of special interest groups out there, each seeming to want the government to throw some money their way or change or create a law in their favour. Many (not all) elected officials are generally thick-skinned and have a wider picture of their budgets and social programs, not simply going for short-term solutions. If they could be swayed left, right and centre (and I'm not talking about the political spectrum here), no constructive action will ever take place. Governments are elected to make tough decisions, and yes, if they are elected, they are to represent their constituents, so if their constituents want such and such, then they are obligated to represent them. Special interest groups different from constituents in that they are not geographically based, and as such, they don't really have an elected official that they put in office (though I know there are always exceptions). By the way, have you ever noticed that when a protest happens at a government building, you almost always never see a government official show up to address the crowd?
2) Some rallies are utterly laughable. My brother, son and I were, unfortunately, caught in the streets of downtown Toronto a couple of months ago during a 10,000 person rally by some Marijauana-advocacy group in Ontario. While it was generally a peaceful protest, let me just say that the language coming out of their mouths were less than civil and proper, and of course, there was the waft of pot smoke everywhere (I had to shut my windows and turn on the AC, recycling the car's already stale air). So as I was driving through the protest (I was strongly tempted to drive through the protest, if you know what I mean), I thought to myself - what are these yahoos trying to prove (and based on the demographics and age constitution in the group, their lack of business acumen and articulation, I couldn't tell what they were rallying for or against - seemed like a good day to go out and smoke some weed), if I were in the government's shoes, I would have just said, "whatever" and go back to saving the whales or whatever they do. As it turns out, this rally was thoroughly ignored and not even acknowledged by the goverment. Of course, some of these rallies may push for a viewpoint, but it's not fleshed out very well in terms of who pays for such and such, what the social implications are (usually the special interest group will not care about how what they are championing will impact others).
3) Christian protests and rallies - sorry to say, and I don't like to slag my own people often, but I have to say, these are also ineffective. Writing a personalized note to your MP or MPP may not make a huge difference, but I think it will have the potential of being slightly more effective than standing at a corner with a sign saying, "Abortion is wrong" or "we need prayer in schools". The first one, I absolutely agree with and fully support, as I find abortion to be completely abhorrent in general. Prayer in schools I don't necessarily agree with, but either way, protesters standing at a corner, trying to convince a secular government to institute an abortion ban - what will that do? I absolutely abhor the Roe vs. Wade verdict in the U.S., and would love to see the U.S. Supreme Court one day overturn it (which may happen seeing here is now a 5-4 ideology split favouring the conservative side (yay for John Roberts and Samuel Alito!!!), I think that in the meantime, the best way to get people to change their minds is to talk with them during your day to day interactions. If you want to try to sway a governement official, write them a letter with what's on your heart (I know, I know, they may not even read it, but it's better than standing at the corner). My wife will take issue with me on this one, as her position is that they are at least doing something, rather than simply talking about it, as I am, and I see her point, but would counter saying "what are they really doing?" Christian rallies generally tend to be peaceful anyway, and when they turn ugly (as some abortions protests have in the U.S., that ceases to be a protest and is now an unlawful act). I think believers can be far more effective in influencing people on a day-to-day basis, and I think that is the Biblical pattern that Jesus set for his followers.
4) Today, I think, that whole "Live Earth" concert, based on ideas from that neo-environmentalist Al Gore will occur. While it is not a protest per se, it is supposed to bring "awareness" to environmental issues (which seem to be on the forefront of political agendas these days). While environmentalism is a subject I plan to discuss in the future, for now I will simply acknowledge that there is a concert taking place. But as with any group gathering for a "cause-based" event, I will be so bold as to say that many people going to this concert will be more interested in the big name bands who play and less on the message. Even Live 8 was like that - in England it was all the hype because of the reuniting of Pink Floyd after 22 years or so (and I must say, as a guy who had a thrown-out back that day and spent the entire day and evening in front of the tube, I saw that Pink Floyd re-united part and it was pretty cool) - but did I think about African relief? Not really. Did I think of African relief when Motley Crue got on and I realized how porky and old these guys have become? And I'm not sure if the artists did either. I remember one of the Canadian bands, A Simple Plan, who played at the Barrie location, the vocalist kept referring to Barrie as Toronto, but moreover, I found it telling that his references to African relief was brief and generalized (I wasn't even sure if he knew why he was there): "We are here today to support a good cause...now, Toronto, are you fucking ready to rock??????!!!" Nice one, buddy. Anyway, I think it will be interesting to see whether the media focuses on what will be a lot of garbage and litter on the grounds of the LiveEarth environmental concert...
I think that, while I believe rallies and protests to be a waste of time, that I have to commend some of the protesters and ralliers who brave weather conditions and crowds (and mocking opinionated blog writers) to try to support something they believe in deeply. In a sense, I think that they mean well, but it may also be that they just want to feel better about themselves, that they are at least voicing their opinion, which is, of course, our democratic right. Or they may just be the product of the 60s hippie generation who seemed to revel in these kinds of things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)