The new Cadillac "Barack" or the Ford Harper...a nerdy looking gas guzzler?

So...I have to comment - I've been rather silent, on the bailout of the North American Auto industry.

First, I need to place a number of qualifiers on what I am about to write.

Let me start by saying that I'm clearly confused about what it means to pro-rogue the House of Commons. Apparently, the Prime Minister can make whatever spending decisions he wants now without any agreement from the people elected to Parliament. This weekend the Tory government-in-hiding announced that it would match 20 percent of the amount given to the US parent companies of Chrysler and General Motors. Ford apparently doesn't need the money as badly.

Secondly, I definitely agree that something needed to be done given the importance of the industry to the North American economy. However I also think we need to build a bridge between slow auto sales caused by the current credit crunch and the mobility market of the future while trying to create new jobs in a new economy. Unfortunately we appear to be squandering what might be huge opportunities to turn crises into catalysts of change.

I am actually a bit baffled and mildly amused by the irony of the 'bail-out'. Chrysler is owned by a Private Equity firm Serberus (sp?) They have been unwilling to pump their own money into their own investment. I become very worried when politicians are making investments that the company's owners won't make! As I wrote in a previous blog about my hopes of a Belinda Stronach Liberal leadership campaign, I believe that the right thing to do is to ensure that GM and Ford survive while forcing Chrysler to be split up.

I'm not talking about the money either. Tony Clement was on CBC this morning talking about the need to reduce wages while also boasting of the Canadian auto assembler and parts maker's efficiency as the most productive in North America. Part of productivity of course is quality where Clement was critical of the Big 3s record. Unfortunately, these are not your father's Fords or GMs. North American manufacturers are now winning initial quality awards from JD Power and are building top-selling vehicles. They're even responding to market demand for fuel efficiency even if they are a bit late to join the party.

Here is my main concern. Our Highways, public transit systems, sidewalks and borders are crumbling due to mismanagement by public authorities and dis-investment in assets. Now government is going to loan money to an industry that constantly fights regulation while ensuring that money is loaned with regulation and oversight. Hmmm. Am I the only one wondering why the Tories, who supposedly believe in the free market now believe in market intervention.

At any rate, it is interesting to say the least that we seem to efficiently produce automobiles and the 'best parts in the world' while also having a bloated market in terms of wages. I don't think that auto workers should necessarily be paid as well as they are but I also don't agree with the roll-back of collectively bargained agreements. As partners in the industry the unions have a vested interest in ensuring that the North American industry survives. A rational individual must conclude that they will act in the long-term best interests of their members.

I am curious to see what happens in the coming weeks. Aside from being directly involved in the intersection of transportation and politics, pardon the pun, we are perhaps in the most precarious economic times since industrialization. There are so many questions to be answered.

Will extending new credit on top of bad credit make things better? Can government do the heavy work of both over-seeing the operation of private companies while ensuring the health of their own bank accounts? Can government invest in the private sector while not crowding-out private investment? Can government create new green jobs in a new green economy while propping-up the old order?

The US economy is already in the deep red, over-exposed to foreign debt and most likely still boasting of an over-capacity of low-to-mid wage and skilled labour. Right now we have an opportunity to create jobs building public transit systems. There are thousands of cars sitting on the docks in Long Beach California depreciating by the minute. How will putting money into the Big 2/3 change the fact that people on Main Street USA have over-extended their credit already and are losing jobs and real wages?

Infrastructure jobs take time to create. One doesn't just approve and build a nuclear power plant in a week. That takes at least 5 years. In fact, it would take at minimum 6 months for any infrastructure money to hit the ground so to speak and that money would likely go to backlogs and 'easy' repairs which most likely would create few new jobs.

We could get to work creating new jobs to address long-standing problems. For instance if we we know that there is a shortage of solar-panels, education/training programs could be started to fill the new jobs are created by investments made - yes, to the reward of those who have taken risk previously - and we could collectively start down the path to a post-carbon economy. I think President-elect Obama gets this. It remains to be seen what, if anything, Harper (or Ignatieff) will do with the opportunity of crisis.

At any rate, these are very interesting times. How we figure our way out of the systemic challenges that we have is beyond me. I do think it's misguided to hope that our politicians will do a better job running companies than they will running government but I love the irony that this is where we're heading! In accordance with the title of this blog, I really can't wait to see the new cars designed by the Progressive Conseratives. There's no way the Harper will be as cool as the Barack!

Notes from the Crisis

Well, Canadians will surely remember the last week for some time to come. If our 'Constitutional Crisis' does not inspire Canadians to think long and hard about the kind of electoral and governing system that we currently have and the kind that we desire and need, then our ability as a nation to survive the new global economy must certainly be questioned as well.

Peter Van Loan is on TV right now blabbing about their clear mandate. What a maroon! Then he keeps going back to the Liberal Party and their issues while Suhanna Marchant continues to ask her questions. Blabbermouth. I can't believe that a majority of Canadians want these bozos over a coalition of parties representing, well, a majority of Canadians. The polling that has been conducted must be flawed.

The Conservatives have injured unity in the country with their attacks on the Bloc. The Bloc is a Provincial-rights party as much if not more than they are a separatist party (hypocritically called a sovereigntist party in Quebec.)

The Conservatives are arrogant. They received a third of all votes cast. They did not win a majority of votes or seats. We don't vote for a President but if Canadians want to, then we should consider changing our system though I've already blogged about it.

PREDICTIONS!

Okay...I often believe that I called things even if they are rumours I've heard already so I'm going to start putting things in writing about what will happen in the future!

The US Congress will get Harper! Belinda Stronach will come back to lead the Liberal Party of Canada!

Here's my sneaking prediction! This one is admittedly a long-shot but those are often the wise shots - especially when you're down 3 points in the championship, as the Liberals are right now.

So, what am I talking about? Here goes....The US Congress will provide a bailout for 2 of the Big 3. Ford and GM will be helped while Chrysler will be either left to its own devices or taken over by the federal government in order to manage its break-up and sale, perhaps to the other two, though don't overlook some foreign maker like Indian company Tata Motors.

At any rate, Chrysler's failure or sale over the next few months, heck the lack of a bailout package for them undoubtedly would cause its near immediate, shall we say, adjustment? This will cause at best temporary plant closures and a reduction of up to 1/3rd of the auto sector in North America, I would guess. The ripple through the economy will be huge.

If that happens, or Congress does nothing, or Congress waits for Obama, or Bush bails out 2 of 3 the Automakers, then there will be a huge pile of complaint letters waiting for Steve when he gets back to his job after his 6 week sojourn. The irony of the coalition is that they wanted to act now but due to Harper's ego and the apparent ignorance of many Canadians, their action has inadvertently created a vacuum of economic leadership in our country. But I blame Harper, not the majority of members of the House of Commons.

IF this happens as I predict and jobs are lost in the auto manufacturing and parts supply industries, then Ontario's vote-rich 905 region will have boiling blood to welcome Tory MPs out trying to garner public opinion. If nothing else, Harper has gambled these people's future as much as he has his own in a high-stakes game of political maneuvering. They will ring the collective necks of conservatives if there is any significant downturn in the economic sector in the next 6 weeks which brings me to my next big point...

I read in the Globe and Mail this morning that many Liberals are chatting about the possibility of someone running for the leadership who is very strong on economic issues and is pro-business and that no one has really been talking about. The Liberal commenting went on to refer to 'her' considerations for running and to 'her' in several other instances. Who could that possibly be?

Here it is - the Liberals absolutely need to take back the 905. Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin's emergence in the US have recently generated huge support for women in politics in North America, Hockey Moms and centrist candidates. The rivalry between Rae and Ignatieff threatens to ruin the party at a time when it needs solidarity - in a classic Liberal way I am torn one day to the next. I lean to Rae's politics and beliefs while thinking Iggy is the better candidate for a centre-right Canadian electorate, particularly in the West.

Belinda came to the Liberals during the brief Paul Martin era. Stronach has run a national leadership campaign before. Many tories, particularly democracy and institution-respecting conservatives are upset with Harper and the conservatives and the lack of an action plan. Stronach would be incredibly popular in the 905 and in the West.

I truly believe that this will happen. Our second female Prime Minister and leader of the next Canadian coalition government will be Belinda Stronach. You heard it here first!

a draft OP-Ed re Technology Incubation and the Clean Tech Sector

Green Sector Needs more than Encouraging Words from Government

Economic Development officials the world-over are heavily in pursuit of the next ‘bio-tech’ sector to create new employment opportunities in their Cities. The 2008 version of bio-tech is the ‘Green’ or ‘Clean Tech’ Sector. Toronto Mayor David Miller has talked openly of his goal to brand Toronto as an ideal location for such businesses to locate.

Warning to Businesses! We talk a great game but when the rubber hits the road, expect little support beyond rhetoric and encouraging words.

How so?

First, let me state that Canadian governments have done an excellent job to lay the groundwork for technology innovation. While we can always do better, our Universities are creating dynamic, intelligent and innovative graduates in sciences, math and computer science. In Toronto, one has to look only as far as the MaRS building at College and University (its building program co-funded by all 3 levels of government and private contributions) to see that excellent facilities do exist to incubate and commercialize clean and green technologies.

So in that regard, we are well positioned for the creation of a clean tech sector. However, if incubation spaces exist only to help companies to get to a pre-revenue, pre-commercialization stage, then much of the money we invest in facilities such as MaRS will have been wasted. Not only are those public dollars wasted but further millions of dollars of private investment threaten to fail to generate returns to ‘Angel Investors’ and further reduce the effectiveness of government strategies to grow this sector. If Angel Investors and then Venture Capital begins to look elsewhere, the ‘Clean Tech’ strategy will be doomed.

So while our governments have created these great frameworks, bureaucrats are still left scratching their heads wondering how to position their jurisdiction as a leader in ‘Clean Tech’ development. So what is the problem? Why, with all the investment in education and innovation are we failing to create and attract companies with innovative technologies through incubation to implementation and commercialization? Policy alone cannot stimulate economic growth.

A colleague of mine from a small yet innovative MaRS-based company I work with recently attended a session hosted by Toronto’s Economic Development department. City officials were asking the important questions about how to help grow this sector. Responses from the private sector attendees were fairly succinct and based upon a few mutually shared experiences: “Working with the government is like banging your head against a wall.”

Similarly, I attended an Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference in Montreal where Transport Canada officials asked: “How can we help create new technology to solve our transportation problems.” My answer to the room was that the problem was not in innovation but in implementation. There are lots of great ideas but without public policy ‘labs’ to test technologies and demonstrate their potential, Canadian companies are often forced to shop the world for clients to be first-users and early adopters. In those instances, Canadian companies face protectionism and local advantage that we don’t enjoy at home.

Here is the problem as I see it. Politicians want a clean-air machine. They have, I believe, largely convinced themselves that if they just set up technology incubators and create the conditions for innovation, a magical climate-change reversing ‘pill’ will be invented that we can all take, go to sleep and wake up a week later to ask Dr. Gore if its all better. Unfortunately, such a solution may never come along and I’m a big believer in using the solutions that are at your disposal, even if they are new and untested.

The fact of the matter is, human behaviour and the systems that we have built to support our lifestyles are largely unsustainable and require significant change if we are to tackle carbon challenges such as climate change, smog and resource depletion. That means we all need to change. That we all need to change requires that government mandate those changes – volunteerism only goes so far when it involves economics.

Furthermore, great innovations come in leaps and bounds – not in baby steps or from tinkering around the edges. I’ll paraphrase two of Albert Einstein’s famous quotes that come to mind: “We cannot solve the problems of today with the same thinking that created them” and “if an idea is not absurd at the beginning it is unlikely to succeed.” I also think Steve Jobs makes a great point when he says “People don’t know what they want until you give it to them.”

So what is my point and how does this all weave itself together? Let me get back to that MaRS-based company that I work with. Toronto Star readers may recall Judy Steed’s fine work in 2007 for her ongoing ‘Business Challenge’ reports. Judy profiled Skymeter, whose innovative approach to GPS signal processing has enabled them to create a market-busting approach to road tolling. Forget traditional road tolls – Skymeter’s beauty is the ability to privately and even anonymously charge for roads when and where they are used. To simplify – it’s a smart meter that would collect Gas Taxes or Road Taxes in a similar fashion to how a Water meter determines your bill – based on actual use. Plus it’s also a parking meter that removes all the hassle of finding and paying for a parking space.

Skymeter is just one example. There are numerous other companies with fantastic new technologies, many of them developed in conjunction with our Universities and Centres of Excellence. Skymeter is receiving fantastic attention in Cities and countries where governments are seeking to marry innovation to public policy to tackle our toughest problems. For instance, the government of The Netherlands is very keen on Skymeter as a potential tool to implement a nation-wide Distance-based taxation system for vehicles and roads. However, all government buyers ask the same question: “Where is this being used?”

What then is the missing link between Innovation, incubation and the wonderland of commercialization and success? The most important ‘I’ word here is Implementation. Had Apple required government for the iPod to succeed, we’d still be having blue-ribbon panels to discuss the idea. Governments must find the courage to test, pilot, demonstrate and otherwise support the export development of technologies made in Canada. Until we do, we will create more Alexandar Graham Bells – people who have to go away to succeed only to have that success nationalized once they return. The 2.0 version of Bell’s work is RIM and Blackberry.

I am not for one minute suggesting that Premier McGuinty implement provincial road tolls or that David Miller stand-up where Metrolinx has failed to and force the issue of fair taxation of motorists. However, I am suggesting that governments need to identify ‘test beds’ and put money forward for pilots and demonstrations. For instance, how would charging Courier vehicles for every stop in the downtown core affect the issue of illegal stopping? The City has a problem and Skymeter has a possible solution where all others have failed. This is a win-win-win-win. Traffic solution for the City, pilot for a local company, exposure of innovative clean tech sector, rewards to private investors. What am I missing?

Until Government realizes that it must step up to the plate and that politicians must take some portion of the risk that private investors and entrepreneurs are taking to develop these solutions then they will be doing little more than printing documents with great stated-goals that are never ever met. Ultimately that will lead not only to the failure of our economy but to our failure as a society to deal with our most pressing problems.

If, as Mayor Miller has stated, Climate change is [his] generation’s greatest challenge, than doesn’t that require the boldest steps?

Ohhhhh Canada....or is it Cana-duh?

Good friends you'll know now of my disgust with some Canadians for their furor over the 'Crisis' in Ottawa. The worst part of this whole thing is that the boarish, bizarre reaction of Canadians has drowned-out what could have been a huge galvanizing point in Canadian History that created the conditions for the solution of so many of the problems we face! It is toothless selfishness that reacts angrily to a coalition of elected officials representing over 60 percent of voters acts to take over from a government to avoid a costly election while investing in our economy.

I'm so tired of the Conservative's negative view of government. They seek not to solve problems but to disarm government of the ability to solve them, then complain that government doesn't work. It's cynical. It's old. Why can't we marry the good ideas of conservatism, particularly the fiscal approach, with those of the left, like using economic tools to curb carbon emissons. Huh? We have?

I have been thinking a lot about what the overall message is of what has happened in Ottawa and how the public has reacted in general. Canadians have fallen into two camps of course but they're odd in their composition because some partisan types are caught up in their own brands. Lefties generally support what is going on with the coalition and will believe that Harper's prorogue (hate that word) is simply stalling to avoid defeat and ultiamately it is the weakest economic package he could possibly propose - who's interest is Steve serving? If the Liberals don't use that in the next election it will prove that they haven't fired the idiots currently handling their communications.

If you don't support what is happening, even if you accept that it is constitutional, and if you're rational you must accept its constitutional since we do have rule of law in Canada and the coalition could not be doing what it is doing or proposing if it werent' constitutional, then you must conclude that our system of government is broken. If you are rational. If you are rational but are angered that the party in government could be overthrown by a majority of members of the House of Commons without an election but using instead the current composition of members and consensus to present a viable alternative to the Governor General then you must come to the conclusion that our government is broken.

Either way, you must conclude that our government is broken. Our system of government does not result in governments that reflect the desires of the majority of Canadians. I say we either go Presidential with a two-party system and a system of primaries for the selection of local candidates with candidates representing either generally right-wing and generally left-wing and running in local ridings with a multitude of candidates able to run for President. The Prime Minister would run the legislature and would be the leader of the party with the most seats. Add a reformed senate for good measure and you have Canada's own Republican form of government.

Or if you are not so enamored with that but think that everyone's views should be counted so that we have clear winners and losers but so that a range of views are allowed to be at the table then you must both support subsidies to parties for the amount of votes they get and you must ultimately support Proportional Representation as our form of government. Throw in a reformed senate for good measure and you have a Euro-Canadian form of government. Oh - and you could have either a run-alone Presidential Candidate or you could have the leader of the party with the highest vote share. These systems often allow people to rank the candidates or at least to vote for and against certain candidates.

So if Harper does stay in after the New Year (presumably we'll have a hiatus achieving no economic stimulus) I think the Governor General should commit him solely to the pursuit of electoral reform. Otherwise he should get out of the way gracefully and realize that Canada has once again set history with the most peaceful coup d'etat in the history of the world!

Palin go away

Oh my god. It's now a week since Obama crushed McCain in the US general election (by relative terms.) I was hoping that talkin-loud-and-saying-nothing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin would fade into history as a bizarre footnote.

Unfortunately, the media and Palin herself refuses to take the first step in displaying any modesty or in hinting at an ability to lose gracefully! Her basic understanding of the principles of democracy, capitalism and politics are sadly lacking. Progressive taxation sounds like socialism to her and Joe The Plumber.

Wolf Blitzer is interviewing her right now on CNN. It's pathetic. She's complaining about Obama, worrying about his association with William Ayres and using her patented keep talking without a breath until you get every talking point out style! Arrrggghhhh!

A viewer just asked via the web if, in accordance with something Palin had said prior to the election that "God's will was done on election day." She squirmed out of that one, "That's not really what I said..." I guess White Lies aren't a sin?

She's now offering advice to President-elect Obama about how and who he should form his cabinet. She's complaining that the questions are all slanted - this is a travesty if you've ever worked on politics. All she does is complain that she's constantly confronted by clarifications to her position or answers to what she believes. "Do you have any questions from anyone who voted for McCain?" Waaaaa...give me fluffy good press Wolf! No fair...

She made statements in this interview about her son being under the guidance of Obama as Commander in Chief. She may be the only person in America who thinks that Obama will put her child into harms way rather than removing him from it - something McCain surely would have done. Obama has also put forward solutions for the problems in Veterans Care and support for returning soldiers. She did express some faith in Obama but then she said something about her son "serving for all the right reasons." What? What are the wrong reasons for serving one's country?

These are the small things that indicate a person's intelligence. Examples of stupidity revealing phrases include Bush Malapropisms and the over-use of words such as like, also, too. Palin uses 'also'. And she throws out lines that bely her lack of intelligence. I'm not saying she's not a good mother or a good Governor. But the job of Governor is extremely different than that of President. There are far more menial tasks like plowing state highways and buying sand and salt for those roads. The President doesn't do such things.

McCain has shown nothing but class. He read the writing on the wall the weekend before and made fun of Palin on SNL and poked a bit at himself. McCain almost pulled it off due to his display of this strength of his character and the independence he has shown through his career - I believe his SNL appearance and his concession speech leave us with the memory of his career to date in tact.

Palin...Is going to be over-exposed and if she sticks around too long before educating herself about national economic issues, basic tenants of political theory, the system of checks and balances at the Federal level (for instance, knowing that the VP doesn't 'run' the Senate) and familiarizing herself with at least one Supreme Court decision she runs the greater risk of labeling/branding herself a dingbat. McCain has taken a nice rest, gone away from the cameras and tried to defuse the air from the election - showing a true understanding that the public wants a new body politic led by Obama.

Palin instead seems to believe she can run for 2012 starting today and mistakenly believes that this is the way to positively raise her profile. She's coming off as classless, unwilling to listen to voters, a sore loser, a complainer, a whiner and yes, an elitist - I don't agree with the electorate is never something you want to say as a losing politician. She is on her way to the electoral and historic trash heap...she needs to shut up and go back to Alaska and run her state well. If she's wise, she'd run for Senate at the next possible chance and aim to run for the Presidency in 2016, not 2012.

So..in the end, I hope she keeps it up! Keep talkin' Sarah! Stay in front of the cameras and whine away and offer Barack Obama unsolicited condescending advice. Palin is Idiocracy.

Testing of a new President

McCain says that Senator and VP-candidate Joe Biden said "Obama will be tested in the first six months." In fact, Biden was only partly right. Experts believe any new President will be tested, not just Obama. McCain as a war-mongerer is actually more likely to be tested. As Kennedy was tested, so too was W. How did that work out for you?

Make no mistake about it, McCain will continue the isolationist, go-it-alone policies of George W. Bush. That will produce a much weaker America than an America with truly willing coalitions. Further terrorist attacks under McCain for instance, would result in the same approach to retribution as in Iraq, further driving the American economy to the brink of total bankruptcy. This is the irony of the boosters who chant "U.S.A" at McCain rallies. Their vitriol and hyperbole are exactly the kind of fear-driven, reactionary response that those who seek to drive America into economic ruin are hoping for.

McCain continues this line saying that he has been tested. "I've sat in the cockpit of a fighter plane on the deck .... in the cuban missile crisis...I had a target...I know how close we've been and I've been tested." How? How was McCain tested in anyway in the Cuban Missile Crisis - he got in a plane? What decision did he have to make? To follow orders? Which leg to put in his jumpsuit first? I don't know how being a pilot, on the brink of total mutual assured destruction tested him. I'm sure it tested his nerve but no one questions his will - just his readiness to go to war. He's the one who says he's a fighter.

McCain continues to misquote Obama and spread fear about meeting with the leaders of sovereign, if antagonistic countries such as Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. First, I think it's a classic example of American arrogance to put pre-conditions on meetings. I also think its ridiculous of war-mongerers like McCain to suggest that not talking to your neighbour is a better way to deal with his fence being on your property. Venezuela is more likely to cut off oil to McCain than it would be to Obama. Cuba is more likely to be pulled out of its regime with support since it's worked everywhere else. Line-ups for Levi's jeans and Big Macs brought down Soviet communism, not the appeal of American-style health care! Iran was once a strong ally of the US and its likely a majority of the people would like to have a working relationship at worst.

Since he's an angry old man who likes to fight I suggest that it's apt to think that McCain would be the type to sneak out in the middle of the night to throw garbage back on his neighbours lawn rather than talk to his neighbour about his poor put-out practices.

I love the end of McCain's speeches too. "Stand up and fight. Stand up. We never hide from History, we make History." cough, cough...I'm angry. I'm really angry. Bring it on. We're right, you're wrong - always.

America can no longer bully the world. It can't afford to bully the world. The world also can't afford another decade of an isolationist America. Everyone impacted by US foreign policy ought to be able to cast a vote in US elections. The world could help them become number one again!

Palin an Energy Expert?

I'm watching Sarah Palin. I am so ready for this election to be over, for Obama to become President elect (knocking on wood) and for Sarah Palin to go away for at least 3 years.

I am a big fan of women in politics. I worked for a female City Councillor. She was not formally educated but displayed a clear ability to grasp complex issues and to understand the underlying philosophies of government. For instance, she would never call someone a 'socialist' lightly.

I love Hilary Clinton. I admire strong women conservatives like Peggy Noonan, Deborah Grey and there are others I'm sure - Belinda Stronach who is a blue Liberal or red tory, I'm not sure anyone ever really knew. I didn't agree with Kim Campbell but thought it was great that we had a woman Prime Minister and believe she got a rough ride. She at least understood the tenants of conservatism.

Sarah Palin's big credentials are that she is an Energy expert since she comes from Alaska. And yet, she continues to lie and mis-state facts about energy and Alaska's supply. Drill Baby Drill is the lamest chant - it's like saying, Magic baby Magic. T. Boone Pickens, the famous Texan Oilman has endorsed Obama's plan so it's not like Obama is just proposing conservation (which would be a great place to start.) Pickens says we cannot use Oil to get off of Oil and that we cannot wait, drilling is not an answer in and of itself.

I also think that if you are an expert in something, you should be able to at least pronounce the words that are used, such as Nuclear. I'm not a big opponent of Nuclear. I just don't think it makes a lot of economic sense, or at least it hasn't proven itself affordable anywhere in the world. Palin suggested that we teach our children about the importance of "Newk-u-lar power." Please don't give us another 4 years of that stupidity!

The McCain ticket has also made a big deal about Obama's answer to the "Manhattan Project" question - should government lead the effort to discover and implement new alternative energy supplies. McCain rightly believes (as does Obama) that the private sector is the better sector to pursue innovation. However, the R&D costs and eventual implementation costs of alternatives to Carbon-based fuels are so high that the Private Sector ought not to be solely responsible for their development. In other words, government research and resources are needed to support efforts to innovate and incubate new technologies. I believe that is Obama's intent - to financially support the development and implementation of alternatives.

Also remember that it was energy expert McCain who proposed a Gas Tax holiday. I will give credit where it is due and think it has been a mistake of the McCain/Palin team not to play on her great work at getting a pipeline approved. That is fantastic work and displays more than her rambling speeches ever could. Besides, rambling speeches expose what you don't know more than what you do also. ;-)

Americans have to accept a few truths. First, they have to accept that they are the biggest wasters of energy. Acknowledging the problem and recognizing you are powerless are the first steps to addiction recovery after-all. Secondly, they have to understand that the best way to curb mis-use is through economic incentives and dis-incentives. Prices send signals. Reducing energy costs will not discourage waste. The era of cheap energy is largely over. Actually, it was a myth anyway since we've deferred all of the environmental costs and hidden many health costs and created unsustainable systems.

Why, if the McCain ticket is so knowledgeable about government spending and energy have they made no reference to the impending crisis in Highway funding. The Highway Trust fund is nearly bankrupt, requires reauthorization and the Gas Tax has shown itself to be counter-productive and unsustainable as a revenue source. McCain knows Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters quite well since they are both from Arizona and Peters is former Arizona Secretary of Transportation. McCain has been oddly silent though so too has Obama. This is just one of the many areas where real issues aren't being discussed.

Now, Palin and McCain have been name-calling of late, using the term socialist to describe Obama's modest tax plan. Beyond being totally inaccurate, an insult to actual socialists and actually telling us more about McCain/Palin's own ignorance, it's quite hypocritical. The Obama campaign could easily call McCain a facist, since he's very militaristic, supported nationalizing banks and believes in the corporatism of 'Country First' while having a running mate who believes that Americans are Gods chosen people. But they of course are better than that and know that name calling is ultimately a sad comment on oneself more than it is on the target.

How is further subsidizing oil companies, Nuclear development companies and other energy providers not socialist or even facist? McCain, who's own party's President was charged with running the US economy, supported the bailout. Meanwhile, the Democrats, showing bi-partisan cooperation supported the President's plan since ultimately it is the President who is looked upon and appoints such luminaries as the Secretary of the Treasury, Chairman of the Federal Reserve and others. So McCain has supported nationalizing banks, the most socialist measure ever and has excused that as an action needed to address a crisis.

I think that most people dislike intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy and inconsistency. Unfortunately, those have all been the calling cards of the McCain/Palin ticket. Now we should care that some bald, angry, overweight, biggoted, self-centered moron from Ohio is endorsing Obama? Joe the liar supports McCain? Surprise surprise. He probably bought McCain's promise to reduce gas prices and reduce food costs at the same time. Wonder if he also has 'land' in Florida?

Lastly, if McCain is an energy expert and an economic expert and a supporter of anti-Climate Change actions, why has he not proposed something like cap-and-trade and/or carbon taxes? Guess that would be 'straight talk'?

The Politics of Health Care - Part 1

This blog is going to take a few to write I think which is why I've labeled it Part 1. Health Care is a complex subject and one that hits home for everyone at some point in their life. In fact, for most people it involves a number of interactions and health plays an intricate role in our happiness, even if some of us do take it for granted.

I am going to try to write about this topic from a variety of angles, disecting health care into its different segments and facets. I want to look at the topic of public versus private health care provision, private versus public insurance, user interaction and mis-use. I will review and discuss our perceptions and expectations of care and try to deal with the issues of right to care and whether or not Health Care ought to be a basic human right or if it is a privilege or an obligation of the state.

No discussion of Health Care can be conducted outside the context of existing systems. I will attempt to educate myself and make reference to documented proof and world-wide standards of outcomes. I, like any Canadian, have strong opinions about health care and I will try to adopt other sets of lenses than my own in order to conduct a balanced and empirical review. In other words, this blog will take some time and some re-edits and my opinions may change over time. For now, let me state my basic beliefs.

Health Care is a right, particularly the right to critical care or emergency services. Particularly within a developed nation is Health Care a right. I would like to state that in a perfect world all nations would have access to top quality health care and that no person should die due to lack of access to care. I also believe that individuals need to play a stronger and more conscious (yes, there is one finger pointing back at me) in their own preventative, holistic care. This is an area where tax incentives for physical fitness would be ideal.

I believe that we also have unrealistic expectations of care but that these are very natural. One is expected to be anxious and wanting nothing but first class, gold-plated Health Care when their or someone they love is in a health crisis. We ought not to base public policy on the hearts and minds of those under the most stress. That leads to irrational public policy that anyone not confronted with such a crisis fails to agree with. I also think that (and have heard directly from someone in the know about Ontario's Health Care System) surveys of those in the system are under-reported and are actually more positive than many other people would perceive.

I also believe that while patents need to be long enough for drug companies to recoup their research and development investments, there is also a lot of bluster when one looks at the amount that pharmaceutical makers spend on lobbyists and advertising. Generic manufacturers offer affordable opportunities, particularly to developing nations.

I believe that the Canadian system, while not ideal, is one of the best in the world particularly when one considers the presence of the for-profit American system and the lure it presents to Canadian Doctors. I support residency requirements for Canadian Doctors until health education subsidies are worked off by doctors receiving Canadian educations. I also support incentives for those who go to under-served communities.

I believe in the public provision of emergent, critical, non-elective and palliative care for all citizens but also support optional higher tier services that can be supplemented by private insurance in addition to public taxes and offered by private care providers. No one should go broke because they get sick but those who can afford better care ought not to be prevented from seeking it. The tricky part is ensuring that public sector health care is not undermined.

I believe that the US system adds at least two and even three layers of unnecessary profit and cost to the system. Private Insurance creates a profit-driven decision making system when it comes to care. Claims are often disputed, payments delayed and are often only partial (health care coupons.) Private companies are responsible to shareholders, not to doctors, hospitals or clients. Secondly, private hospitals have an incentive to charge higher costs, seek care that may be unnecessary and have their own issues that I'm not altogether familiar with. But it only makes sense that private hospitals would seek to maximize revenues and reduce costs. Doctors are exposed to significant malpractice suits and those companies that ensure them are forced to charge higher premiums. Trial lawyers also get rich from lawsuits. Tinkering will not fix their broken system.

I believe that the Canadian system conversely is in need of some tinkering to make it run smoother. We need more doctors and more community care. We need investments in community centers and fitness programs both in and out of our school systems. We need a greater emphasis on preventative care, healthy diets and active transportation. And unless we change things, we need to check unrealistic expectations at the door or prepare to pay more for high quality care for all.

I will write more but I think this is a good basis. I will expand on the thoughts above in coming blogs. I welcome comments.

Chantix Ad

I just saw this ad for a pharmaceutical that can help you quit smoking. A couple of thoughts instantly caught me.

First, I was at my computer listening to but not watching the computer. What caught my attention initially was the list of possible side effects. The calm, re-assuring voice said: "If you have feelings of severe depression, thoughts of suicide or take suicidal actions, stop taking Chantix immediately and contact your doctor." I chuckled to myself as I thought in the voice, "If you kill yourself, contact your doctor immediately."

There was a continuing list of worsening conditions far worse than death. "Some users may experience nausea, sleeplessness and vivid dreams while taking Chantix." Okay so what's the difference between taking Chantix and quitting cold turkey? These are normal symptoms of quitting.

Lastly, what really made me think this is one of the most dangerous confidence scams I've ever seen is when the soothing voice said "in clinical trials, users of Chantix were 44 percent successful at quitting smoking over placebo groups who's success rate was 18 percent over a 12-week period." So while I admit I'm no statistician, what this says to me is that if it takes on average 7 times to quit smoking, the placebo did very little to improve that success rate - maybe 2 percent?

It essentially gives you a 3-fold better chance than if you simply decide to quit and engage in some cognitive behavioural thought, decide you really want to quit and don't stop trying. Now, I have not yet been successful in quitting so I will never be too critical of methods that work for some people. But the sales job of a chemical which takes just as long with very little improvement and threatens to send you into dark depression or worse, to kill yourself, is just a tad unnerving.

Pharmaceutical ads ought to be made illegal. They distort the patient-doctor relationship and give people false expectations. Companies spend far too much on advertising while complaining of too-limited lifetimes of patents. More money ought to be directed back to research and development. No more blue pills, no more ads about erections lasting longer than 4 hours thank you very much!

Development Charges are a Tax on the Poor

Leave it to Toronto City Council to once again stick it to those who make the right choices about how to live in an urban area. Today's Toronto Star reports about excessive increases being proposed for the City's Development Charge Scheme. Unfortunately, a number of Councillors simply believe this is a tax on developers - not a cost that will be ultimately borne by consumers.

Here's my particular beef with development charges in the City of Toronto. Development Charges are intended to pay for increased services used by those who move into new developments, and into new neighbourhoods. These types of charges make imminent sense in the 905 and for 'greenfield' development, where new infrastructure is built to accommodate new residents. These include massive new Water pipes, Schools and community centres.

Unfortunately though a Toronto resident would have to have been living under a rock for the last 10 years if they think that with all the population growth and development Toronto has seen, that any new services or large infrastructure has been delivered. In fact, the opposite is true - services have shrunk, user fees increased and new fees introduces - such as the Vehicle Registration fee.

Now, some Councillors are advocating increasing development charges by upwards of 126 percent over the charges approved 5 years ago. Unfortunately, this is one instance where our City government finds the rules that are adequate for the suburbs are adequate for a mature City like Toronto when in most cases they argue for special treatment based on the age, density and special needs of the City of Toronto. Think of the opposite of the School Funding Formula and you have the Development Charges Act. I guess consistency doesn't really matter when all you run on is your name, not your record or your party's record. People largely vote based on name recognition so even if you make the comments of a buffoon in local media, as long as they spell your name right it's generally considered good publicity. It's too bad no one tracks voting - a far more important record than what Lobbyist you met with.

The charges would be about 25,000 for a Single Family Home (not too many of those being built, but this seems excessive for nothing in return.) A one-bedroom condo would be charged nearly 11,000 a 144 percent increase over the current charge of $4,467.

Cliff Jenkins is leading the charge with his fellow poor North Torontonian Karen Stintz. Together, these two represent some of the City's wealthiest residents and yet are the first to whine about increased property taxes on homeowners (which are very low in Toronto.) Mr. Jenkins is even making the ridiculous complaint that homeowners will subsidize developers to the tune of 40 or 50 Million dollars. Unfortunately, his flawed reasoning leads him to believe that since the Mayor has wisely signalled that there will be a base number of units built in one year before certain increases are introduced, that foregone revenue amounts to a subsidization by homeowners.

But let's look a bit deeper and with some sense of reason and ration. Who buys condos? They are predominantly bought by three segments. First time homebuyers, empty nesters and investors who plan to rent the unit out. In the first instance, Mr. Jenkins proposes to make it even harder for young families, freshly graduated students, new Canadians and those trying to make the leap from rental housing to home ownership. In the second, empty nesters are people who are selling a home in Toronto to do something good for all of us. They have, by Jenkins' logic, already paid they're fair share as homeowners - why should they be hit again? Lastly, the vast majority of new condominium units become rental units. Increased costs are a barrier to entry to the market for those seeking to offer a unit, thereby reducing supply over the long-term and ultimately driving up rents.

Here's the other problem too. Tell me what new infrastructure has been built at Yonge and Eglinton, to the exclusive benefit of new condo owners in the Minto complex that was not paid for by the developer? There are fees under Section 37 (in exchange for height and density bonuses) there are parks levies, there are public art levies, sewer impost charges and a myriad of fees, including building permits based on the value of the project - and yet the new owners will move into exactly the same neighbourhood as existed before it was built. This will only further undermine the City government's legitimacy and further increase the belief that City Hall is run by Unions who are bleeding this City dry. In fact, most Condominium projects are built with their own Community-Centre like facilities, such as work-out facilities, meeting rooms, etc. So there isn't necessarily any truth to the argument that new condo owners create needs for new facilities and services.

Point me to any massive new infrastructure that has been built to accommodate a new development in the City of Toronto. There was the Sheppard Subway Development Charge where development charges were introduced to pay for the Subway and to offset some of the increases in property values. There are also other financial tools that can be used to extract added value from developers who benefit from new public infrastructure.

Development Charges may not immediately be passed through to buyers since there is some price sensitivity in the market. But that also assumes that developers do not share information or the ultimate goal to make money. Eventually, increased costs for building lead to increased costs of housing. Why do Right wing Councillors not get this basic fact about economics? Are they Sarah Palins? Right wing but not really sure why - just that they resent other people and taxes.

If these Councillors are delusional enough to think that homeowners subsidize anything in the City of Toronto, perhaps they'd be willing to actually look at our system of property taxes. For instance, maybe Karen Stintz would support basing the Transportation portion of property taxes on how many cars are owned and how far they are driven by homeowners. Maybe we should treat condos differently than homes and tax them less since they clearly use much less resources and City services. Let's really look at this issue and who subsidizes who.

I am dead sure you will find that it is tenants who subsidize property owners, the poor that subsidize the rich and those who make wise, sustainable lifestyle choices that subsidize the self-centered homeowners of North Toronto. It makes one wonder if those from Lawrence and Bedford Park ever actually leave their neighbourhood to see how the rest of the City lives.

And it is clear why Jenkins and Stintz support development charges. It's obvious that they cannot identify places within the budget to save money (something both of them are normally quite bold about) and that they must agree that the City needs more money (even though Stintz is famous for her sorority-girl style rants about taxes) since both think charging more is a sensible plan. Clearly it is because they do not have to fear the reaction of homeowners (ie voters) since those who pay development charges don't live in the neighbourhood - yet.


My questions to Councillors Jenkins and Stintz are: Since new Condo owners pay municipal taxes that are the same as homeowners, how are homeowners subsidizing new Condo buyers to the tune of $40 to $50 Million? Are you saying that every new condo owner will get nearly 11,000 worth of new services in the neighbourhood they move into? Tell me then, with nearly 2500 units built in the Yonge/Eglinton over the last few years, what new major pieces of infrastructure (to the tune of 27.5 million) have been built in that area to accommodate new residents? Presumably if homeowners are 'subsidizing' condo buyers than at least that much
new infrastructure has been built there right? You see, to subsidize means that some have paid more for something than others.

I am going to record the vote on development charges and circulate it to every new condo built over the last 3 years to show new residents how their new Councillors welcomed them to the neighbourhood - with a bill for an additional $6,000 (added after their mortgage!) This is another tiny (massive actually) part of the ignorance shown by Councillors about the condo market. Many of the City's fees are imposed after the purchase and are added at closing, which then drives up either the mortgage or the closing costs depending on the buyer's arrangement.

The truth here is that trying to prop-up an unsustainable Operating Budget is actually looking to Condo builders and buyers to subsidize homeowners!!!! Get your economics straight Mr. Jenkins and Ms. Stintz - you'd think with all the Richie Riches the two of you represent you could find one brain that understands the concept of subsidies and the basics of economics.

At the end of the day, what Stintz and Jenkins and those other right-wingers are saying with this and their opposition to anything progressive is 'keep those people out of my neighbourhood. My nice White neighbourhood.' If they could put walls around North Toronto, they would have quite some time ago. They'll do it through zoning and if they fail there, they can just price us all out of the market. Genius. What a Healthy City that builds!

From Facebook Note: Hybrid Buses vs Local Food?

Here's another baffling story about Toronto City Hall and the environmental leadership being provided by Mayor Miller's team socialist. (I'm starting to understand Sue Ann Levy's frustration!)

So the TTC bought a whole bunch of Hybrid Electric Buses. Turns out they're not working as they should according to the agreement of Purchase and Sale. They are enjoying significantly less of a life span than they should, are breaking down and are only resulting in a 10 percent fuel savings. So the bright lights that be at the TTC are going to go back to buying dirty Diesel buses. (Guess Bombardier doesn't build the Hybrid-Electric buses?)

Meanwhile, a report coming through the process at Toronto City Hall recommends sourcing food for City programs from local producers. Aside from being just the latest in trendy green-washing (there are numerous studies that suggest that buying local produce is not always greener) this is an insult to most Torontonians who are struggling to pay bills in the face of an economic downturn. At a recent Council meeting, some genius on Council moved a motion that all food be sourced locally. They probably also wanted organic. I guess that's what you get from uneducated politicians who claim to have educational backgrounds they don't actually have. I dropped out of a University Astronomy Course once - can I please tell you how our Solar System works?

So, the report that City Staff has produced says that it will cost an additional $15,000 to provide food for Children's Services alone - that's not even one of the City's bigger food budgets but wait until this lunacy hits the Homes for The Aged and Shelter programs. I'm all for good nutrition but it starts at home - not at publicly-run charitable organizations when the City is broke!!!! Priorities people, priorities.

Now, what's really ironic is when you place these two programs against each other. Saying that the TTC's Hybrid Electric buses only reduce fuel consumption by 10 percent is an interesting piece of spin. Sure, if it was my personal vehicle, 10 percent wouldn't amount to that much. But we're actually talking about one of the biggest bus fleets in North America. Every budget year, the Mayor tells us that the City needs more money for, among other things, rising fuel costs. So to my mind, saving 10 percent is signficant, particularly when we don't get any rebate from the City when the cost of gas decreases as it is right now.

Here's Mayor Miller pushing a new package of increased user fees, increase property taxes and reduced services while trying to provide gourmet foods for people who would be happy with Campbell's Soup - produced locally but wonder if it qualifies under this program.

Any savings in energy or reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from buying local food for City programs (again, not a slam dunk) would be elapsed in about one day (total guess) when the TTC returns to dirty Diesel buses.

Seriously folks. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. And at the end of the day, are these buses not under warranty and is the City's contract not specified to ensure that these things work or that extensions will be granted, more buses delivered until they do work as promised?

What kind of investor does this? What companies switch horses mid-stream without fully knowing how that horse will perform in the long-run. And what is the cost of the 10 percent fuel savings?

I suspect they don't want the buses because Hybrid-Electric buses make a lot more sense than expensive, heavy, capital intensive, inefficient streetcars that Mayor Miller would like to buy from Bombardier for the next 100 years, leaving us either caught on a slow streetcar, with cars banished from our streets or choking in congestion behind brokendown streetcars. The TTC can also continue to provide it's brilliant short-turn services, kicking riders off prior to their last stop for 'operating efficiency."

And the TTC has the gaul to attack Metrolinx for thinking outside the box and looking at new solutions to our problems. To paraphrase Einstein; "You cannot solve the problems of today with the same thinking that created them." Come on TTC, it's not 1965 anymore.

Once again, I also have to ask what the Mayor meant when he said "Climate Change is the most serious challenge facing our generation" cause he clearly did not mean it as a call to action.

Trump's Esteem rises for Me

While he has not yet taken back his McCain endorsement, something the Donald just said to Wolf Blitzer causes me to take back my recent blog about him being less than smart. (in fact, I think he's crazy like a fox!)

"I was disappointed cause I thought Pelosi was going to go after Bush and impeach him." Blitzer: So you think the President should have been impeached? For what?
Trump: "For lying to us about the war. They impeached Clinton for something far less meaningful, in fact something meaningless."
Blitzer: "but they'll say based on the intelligence at the time..."
Trump: "Come on Wolf. I don't buy that. You don't buy that. You're too young and smart a guy to buy that."

That's a paraphrase. Trump went on to talk about how Iraq is screwed up and has been by Bush and the fact that the moment they leave, Iraq will collapse and Iran will fill the vacuum. He quite rightly pointed out that in fact, Saddam had been very harsh towards terrorists.

"The United States has been stupidly managed for the last 8 years."

Quelle Surprise! Rats on Spadina

So like many Toronto residents I've been entirely disgusted by the pictures and video of rats in the window at Lucky7 Chinese Restaurant on Spadina Avenue. The Public Health Department has done a sweep of Chinatown restaurants and closed a number of establishments under its licensing system and posted warnings on other establishments.

This is not a huge surprise to me. Spadina Avenue is disgusting. I love Kensington and I do understand the charm of the unkempt and true Asian feel of Spadina but for a long-time health standards have failed to meet our North American cultural requirements of cleanliness.

One only has to look in the gutters along Spadina south of College and in particular south of Baldwin, north of Dundas to see why we have the problems we do. While an erroneous CityTV report cited the location of the subway under Spadina (really?) I would imagine it has more to do with the amount of grease, blood and other viscous materials that are poured down local storm sewers. The sidewalks are permanently grease-stained as are the gutters. The gutters look like compost heaps at the worst of times. In the sweltering, humid heat of a Toronto summer the smell of rotting chicken is enough to make one gag.

So the City should feel very little compassion towards any of the businesses along Spadina. It's unfortunate too that some of the City's most impressive heritage assets line the streets of Spadina and Kensington. In bygone eras some planners might have suggested that the source of the best solution to this whole issue would be a match. Thankfully we've long since past that point and now appreciate the contribution that historic properties make to the character of our City and ourselves.

But for far too long, Politicians have struggled to solve this issue. The cleanliness issue is a symptom of a larger problem on Spadina. That problem is a general disrespect for the City and its rules. Parking laws are consistently violated to the point that unplated vehicles are used, drivers are on alert to vacate when parking enforcement comes around and the BIA has been forced to make ill-fated efforts to address this issue through private security firms. But it continues.

This issue will certainly test the mettle of City Councillor Adam Vaughan. His friends at City have so far not pinned him down on camera, preferring to go after Public Health Committee Chair John Filion. Toronto Public Health apparently failed to act after citizen complaints of rats until it was caught on video, though it is relatively difficult to prove rat infestation from visit-to-visit, at least to the point where a closure is ordered. However, this story is ill-timed as it comes on the heels of a negative story about the Lysterium outbreak.

This is where the Mayor needs to step in and reassure the public that its Health is in safe hands. Politically it would be wise for the Mayor to do a personal sweep of the businesses along Spadina. If I were his advisor, I'd get him out Guiliani-style, in full protective gear with a Task Force of Water/Wastewater, Public Health, Police, Fire, Buildings and Garbage Managers and Inspectors and private exterminators. They'd go door-to-door, inspecting kitchens, coolers, freezers, back alleys, grease and garbage bins.

And I'd get John Filion as far away from this issue as possible. We need toughness on this issue and Filion is simply ineffectual. The Mayor might also consider forming a task force, led by Councillor Vaughan with assistance from Councillor Lee (I do think a Chinese Councillor would help on this issue) and someone rather white from the rest of Toronto - a Cliff Jenkins or Mark Grimes type. This would give Vaughan a chance to shine, to introduce a new approach which he is very good at doing, it would allow Councillor Lee to establish contact and understanding (more than he may already have) with the downtown core and the issues of a downtown ward and a conservative would give the broader public the perception that this is a bi-partisan review, both culturally sensitive to the businesses but also respectful of the demands of the broader public for general cleanliness and a basic level of health standards.

As for CityTV, someone needs to tell Sue Scambati (I think that's who filed the report from Spadina yesterday) that the Spadina Subway runs up University south of Bloor, not under Spadina as she erroneously reported! While Subways can provide a breeding ground for rats, as reported by numerous residents in the neighbourhoods around Yonge Street, they are clearly not an issue in the case of Spadina. Unless there is a magic subway I've missed? Nothing like accuracy in reporting.

North York Council Madness

Well, Tuesday October 7th will go down as a day that lunacy reigned at City Hall - or at least at North York Civic Centre.

A group of disgruntled City Councillors from North York voted to name a street "OMB Folly" in response to an OMB-approved development. John Filion, the NIMBYest of all Councillors, a lefty only by affiliation made the motion over a development in his own ward. Surely this is a low-point in his career, though we haven't seen yet how he will mangle any new policies for food carts! Mr. Filion constantly complains about the traffic that infiltrates North York City Centre everyday but doesn't make the connection between more compact urban development and higher transit use. I think you'll agree this is an interesting position for a New Democrat.

This vote may have been one of the single-biggest indicators of why Toronto City Council ought not to have authority over individual development approvals. Every single City Councillor, with the possible exception of Kyle Rae who is too pro-development, acts in a NIMBY-like manner when it comes to development in their Ward. Some Councillors act in a NIMBY manner about development anywhere in the City of Toronto which is at least consistent.

The worst offenders though are those who perpetrate hypocrisy and my favourite, intellectual dishonesty. These Councillors tend to support big ideas and big moves, higher transit priority and intensification - as stated in our Official Plan but then actively oppose development in their ward. The Right wing of Council is not without their own issues when it comes to the day-to-day application of private property rights, de-regulation and the interests of private capital on their constituents - they support free markets except in housing and development. There is also tremendous political pressure on bureaucrats and planners to write reports and to make recommendations that will be safe and that Council will adopt.

Don't get me wrong. I support a clear zoning by-law that regulates the size/shape and use of properties. But I also don't think Zoning is ever cast in stone and that non-conforming developments can be accepted based on other considerations such as quality of architecture and design. Part of the problem in Toronto is that the Official Plan was adopted before any attempt was made to create a new, unified Zoning By-law with numbers that were updated to reflect the realities on the ground. For instance, Forest Hill's zoning at .35 lot coverage does not reflect the fact that most homes are at .57 x lot area. This creates a almost automatic need for Committee of Adjustment and/or Zoning reviews and automatically causes the angst of neighbours.

There are too many issues about Urban Planning and its legal framework, how it fits with capitalism, private property rights, natural law and the entire basis of zoning (actually an elitist attempt to keep the wrong people out of various areas in England where it was conceived) to the impacts of the entire system on property values, speculation and the orderly development of a City for this blog to explain. Plus, I am not an urban planner but have formed an opinion based on my experience in front and behind the scenes in development approval. The public cannot be expected to understand all of these underlying principles or the play between their various supporters. Developers will always push for the freest market possible. Homeowners will always fear change in their neighbourhoods and a vocal minority will generally lead an opposition. And politics does nothing but further confuse the issues and rather than constructively engage people it creates animosity about something that should be considered positive: growth and intensification

Here are some conclusions I have made: Happy people don't call City Hall to complain. A significant number of people less than a majority of people call City Hall. Therefore, particularly with respect to Toronto's growth, most people are fairly happy or indifferent. And given the rate that most new condo projects sell at, the market is further stating to Council that it is mostly positive about new developments.

People disconnect their own theory/belief when it comes to change in their neighbourhood. Why else would free market conservatives, home-ownership supporting liberals and/or some tenants-rights activists oppose many of these developments? New supply means cheaper rents and home prices, a free market encourages the growth of private capital. All of us believe in rational and good government but many of us believe that means "I get my way." They forget that Minto's Skyscrapers are directly related to their own ability to propose and get approval for a much-needed home renovation. Somehow the wealthier the land-owner or the bigger their property, the less right they should have to question blanket zoning by-laws that treat all properties similarly regardless of their individual characteristics or local context.

Without knowing it, Torontonians generally become supporters of a Soviet-style central decision making regime where plans for the use of capital and assets, i.e. the means of production, are made by City Hall bureaucrats. Most people would consider those fighting words but I've long argued that this is the real world application of political theory and you cannot disconnect the two! They may not like to be called that but that is exactly what they support - if they don't understand that, it is time to do some reading. I suggest starting with John Locke, some Marx, perhaps some Adam Smith...

I'm rambling. To get back to my central point - Politicians are in a lose/lose situation with regards to development approval and ought to divest themselves of authority for individual decisions while setting the broader policy context. In fact, that is what we elect them to do, not to review building plans or the location of driveways to new developments. The current system works on conflict of interest and deal-making, whether that's with NIMBY voters or secretly pro-development colleagues on Council. Some people think this is about contributions to candidates and lobbying rules but that is very simplistic. This is about politicians sheltering the public from the tough decisions. It's about the fact that Laws and Sausages are two things the public shouldn't see being made.


This is why a Vancouver-model, with exactly the kind of broad-policy oversight I mention above is set by Councillors while day-to-day decisions are made by experts and others in the development field through peer review. This preserves the integrity of their decision-making process; something that all City Councillors would benefit from.

It is clear to me that the OMB system is broken and for bringing that to our attention yet again Councillor Filion has done us all a service. However, when one fails to achieve anything constructive and sings the same tune, does not adapt his approach, change strategy, one has to worry about the effectiveness of that politician. I imagine most developers know well the records of local Councillors and their chance of a reasonable and open discussion about local change and those who will drive even the most modest changes to the OMB.

Unfortunately, Mr. Filion is also being somewhat less than honest with the public. The City of Toronto currently has Legislative Powers to reform many of its processes for building and zoning reviews, particularly with respect to the Committee of Adjustment set-up. The Provincial Government has at least expressed an interest in giving more authority to the City of Toronto in a de-politicized process.

Consider too that Councillor Filion supported appeals against the City of Toronto’s new plan. This is one of those odd prerogatives that Councillors enjoy – to oppose the Corporation whose by-laws they are sworn to uphold. Does it then make sense that after Council has made a decision – by the majority, that a minority can assist aggrieved homeowners Associations in holding up that By-law from taking effect? In this instance it was the City’s Official Plan. Councillors have funded fights against their own Urban Planners. What kind of use of Tax Dollars is that? Either fire them for giving bad planning advice or take their professional advice. Reports can be questioned in Council after all.

Furthermore, this Administration with the tacit support of Councillor Filion has completely failed to follow-up on former Chief Planner Paul Bedford’s directions that a new Zoning By-law be written within 5-years of the adoption of the new Official Plan. It has identified money as a central issue of course.

But this petty decision, to throw sand across the sandbox at the Dirty Rotten Developer is not only a sad reflection on our politics and our politicians but on our own ability to accept the organic and unorganized growth of a vibrant City. After all, how did John Filion’s constituents get their homes in the first place? Were they always there or at some point did a developer not apply to break some rules, create some new ones - it used to be farmland at Yonge/Sheppard after all!

The attitude is, I got here first - go find your own Greenfield to ruin! It is far past the point where we address the suburban growth patterns that make us entirely susceptible to an economic collapse fueled by higher carbon-based energy prices.

At the end of the day we need OMB Reform to remove the adversarial approach but we also need a substitute appeal mechanism separate from City Council. Council needs to update its Zoning By-law to be in conformity with the goals of the new Official Plan. Lastly, Council should create peer review and other panels to make decisions about individual development applications after they have set the broader policy context.

Is Donald Trump an Idiot?

On CNN this morning, Donald Trump was asked about his support of John McCain and for his opinion about the bailout. Like any good politician, he answered the question he wished he was asked and not the one he was asked.

To paraphrase: "Well yeah I support John McCain because of his experience and because he knows how to deal with OPEC. You have to control the price of oil. Listen, If I owned a store, and you owned a store and we fixed prices, we would be thrown in jail. That is exactly what the OPEC countries are doing. I like John McCain because he will go to those OPEC countries and address this and tell them they've got to stop hurting our economy."

But the true slice of brilliance came next:
The 'Trumpster' added: You see it with the failure of the bail-out. The bailout failed and the price of oil dropped by $10 a barrel, the highest ever drop in the recording of oil. Look, I think the price of oil is more important to our economy than interest rates."

How the hell did this man ever make one red cent?

The price of oil drops when speculators and buyers believe that there will be a drop in demand for oil. If anything, OPEC regulates the supply of oil not the price. Numerous countries have held revues of the system, world economists, resource experts and all pretty much agree with the way the system is run. The issue with oil is that it is an incredibly inelastic market so that any increase in supply results in short term price decreases that spur demand that ultimately result in price increases.

So yesterday, as wise as it may have been not to give Secretary Hank Paulson a blank check for trickle-down economic intervention, the markets reacted poorly and speculators held the belief (I would imagine) that the economy was in for a rougher than smooth ride with more job loss and a general slowing of economic activity. In other words, they believed as credit freezes up, foreclosures and bankruptcies continue, notwithstanding that Congress may still act to do something to prop up the flailing US economy there would be less demand for oil and gas in the coming weeks and hence lower prices.

We witness this every summer in Ontario as prices decrease Monday morning as a portion of those people in the workforce go back to work (think of how nice traffic is in July and August) and rise again for the weekend as people make plans and drive more. Then there is a refining stage between crude oil and gas at the pump which adds its own supply and demand issues.

What baffles me about Trump's comments are that he deals in real estate, a different market that involves speculation, regulation and responds to supply and demand. If a housing market is flooded with very nice, high quality, cheap apartments, it doesn't make sense to build a Trump Tower for instance. Similarly, if there are few apartments, the price of those on the market goes up - as anyone who moved to Toronto in the mid-to-late 90's can attest. With respect to land values, speculators do what they do best and buy properties that they believe will be critical pieces of a larger assembly or assemble properties believing zoning changes are achievable. If major transportation projects are announced, speculation runs rampant. There are short games and long games, micro and macro effects and forces at play in both oil and gas and the housing market. So Trump must enjoy a better understanding than his comments demonstrate.

Perhaps this is an Apprentice-styled rouse?

Perhaps Trump is smarter, way smarter than I am giving him credit for. Trump relies heavily on the price of carbon-based fuels to build his buildings - everything from steel, concrete (very CO2 intensive,) glass and simply moving dirt around, costs more as the price of gas goes up. So, if there is doubt in the economy, created in part by the total lack of understanding in the economy of a President McCain, that would mean that the price of oil would be fairly low for sometime into the foreseeable future. But there's a flaw in his thinking if that's the case since less people would be able to afford his luxury condominiums if the economy remains ill. So that would not be very wise ultimately since he benefits far more from a strong economy than from cheap gas and instability.

Perhaps Trump truly believes that McCain does have the ability to impact OPEC policies while every single other world leader also dependent on cheap gas to fuel economic growth has been unsuccessful. Those leaders undoubtedly employed more diplomacy than McCain is capable of, enjoyed a greater esteem for their nation and was seen as less greedy - things the US are not very well known for as they enter the post-Bush era. So how will John McCain be able to do anything about oil prices (especially when in reality, there is a fixed supply, whether we burn it quickly or slowly is another issue?)

He could invade those nations that are members of OPEC and remember that he will not tell his plans because you 'don't tell sovereign nations what you're thinking.' That would ultimately cause higher gas prices - nothing costs more to fuel than a War! Would McCain create greater stability in the mid-East region? That is highly doubtful given that he supports maintaining an occupying force in Iraq and is talking tough about Iran.

Oil and gas markets want stability - as most markets do. McCain does not possess the skills to stabilize the economy and his approach to foreign affairs would not necessarily create greater stability than Obama - not enough to look past his lack of economic knowledge. Forget Palin. She's a nightmare.

McCain would give a gas tax holiday - at least if he keeps his word, when gas prices are at their highest, which would of course, drive prices higher while also removing the source of the Highway Trust Fund. So he's not an Eisenhower by any stretch of the imagination as some are suggesting he is with his Nuclear Plant program. Though one could argue that McCain's nuclear plan is similar to Eisenhower's Interstate program in that it would create an infrastructure that is ultimately financially unsustainable!

Anyway you look at it, there is simply no way in which a McCain government would be able to do anything about the price of gas and inevitably, his efforts to fix the problem would only make them worse. The flip side of the question here is whether the absence of OPEC would decrease the price of oil or whether competition would have a deleterious effect on the oil market? OPEC mandates and regulates how much each nation is contributing to the global pool of oil. This ensures that in times of crisis in one OPEC nation, others can ensure that global supply is maintained.

Lastly, if the Americans possessed the world's majority share of oil and had the ability to set prices, do I even have to ask the question that logically follows? Would they subsidize the rest of the world by selling their natural resources at below-market rates? And would they sell that resource off prior to it achieving its highest possible market value? Oil is not currently worth what it ultimately will be as supplies continue to dwindle and if our consumption continues at its current levels or worse increases. So wouldn't it make sense for nations to keep the lid on their supplies for as long as possible to achieve the highest market value - the last barrel is worth significantly more than the first - notwithstanding the expense of getting to that last barrel.

What is up with Trump? Is he being serious or has too much carbon-based hair product finally leaking through to his brain! Oh, right. He's American which means the sun rises over his bed every morning and it will and should forevermore!

Capping CEO Compensation vs Progressive Taxation

They're at it again. They're talking about birdies instead of fundamental problems - even if the birdie is part of the fundamental problem.

This morning it appears that Congress will support a package of $700 Billion in aid to failing Wall Street and Main Street banking firms. However, before Congress votes a number of Members of the House of Representatives must get up and speak before voting since they're up for re-election. And since this is the height of silly season in the US, speak they will!

And who better to kick around than CEO's? The best, most hypocritical of these speeches come from House Republicans. First, let me say that I do not disagree with a policy that CEOs of those firms that receive Federal assistance should have caps on their remuneration packages. Given that the entire economy is on the line, largely because of their greed, it is reasonable to expect that the leader of a firm needing assistance shouldn't get anything extra.

But let's back up a moment here. Remember that most true conservatives will argue for user pay in most instances and that taxes should reflect as closely as possible the consumption of services, not to ensure the equitable provision of a service regardless of income, i.e., that taxes should be based on the cost imposed on society by the individual and not their income. The rich don't cost anymore to serve so they shouldn't pay more in taxes the belief goes. Flat taxes are the conservative ideal. From there it is a gray area - an attempt to limit the mix and balance of the share of individual proportions of the entire tax bill.

It is also the partner of the belief that high taxes reduce the incentive to innovate, work hard and try to get ahead. I think that is a fundamentally flawed view - there are leaders and followers, achievers and under-achievers regardless of the amount of taxation. Conservatives want government to be small, off our backs (though oddly, religious conservatives want to be in your bedroom) and for taxes to be constantly reduced regardless of other factors. And market intervention is to be avoided as much as possible.

But, it appears that deregulation of the financial services sector has resulted in massive over-speculation in the housing market, bad, risky and predatory loan practices and the bundling of mortgages into funds that have eliminated many ties between the investment and the asset. In other words, some of the mortgages are totally illiquid since there is no direct tie to an actual property. 100's of mortgages were bound together as packaged investments and now that the housing market has collapsed due to a slowing of the economy, over-valuation of houses and over-borrowing by consumers, well, there's about $700 Billion of artificial value that needs to be bought. That is why even the experts don't know the value of the assets.

So now it is crazy election time. Rather than advocating for higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans - after all, if John McCain thinks that those earning over $500,000 a year aren't rich, then raise it to $1 million per year or whatever level you believe is wealthy and crank their taxes. Then you wouldn't have to drive further firms from Wall Street to London, further reducing the economic and commercial influence of America. What many Americans fail to see is that many firms have already left the NYSE because of the possible prosecution of CEO's for accounting errors. It's my belief that in their effort to recover their political careers after ENRON and Worldcom, Politicians passed wrong-headed legislation that went too far and after the wrong things. By all means, clean up malfeasance but go after the crimes, not the errors. Perhaps one of the flaws with the Enron business was the significant reliance on private power companies in California and the concession agreements they had with the State?

If the Federal Government taxed the hell out of Golden Handshakes - be it from stock, options or dollars, then they really needn't worry about the size of these packages. In fact, the bigger the better. To the best of my knowledge, a CEO's compensation is determined by a Board of Directors, appointed by Shareholders who own stock and meet on an annual basis to make major decisions. These are the people to whom the CEO is responsible and accountable. CEO compensation packages and the details of their contracts are their problem! Tax Corporate earnings and CEO compensation packages and let private firms determine market value for the services of CEOs!

I cannot believe that in all this din, no one is talking about the hypocrisy. Obama should be saying - 40 percent of a $75 million dollar CEO compensation package is $30 Million; A lot of money. Why does John McCain not want the CEO to pay those taxes? Instead, my opponent would rather show-boat and suggest doing something that he knows we cannot legally do and that is a far more interventionist, socialist, liberal policy than anything I'd ever suggest; Capping private sector wages. He opposes a minimum wage and high taxes but wants to cap incomes? Who is this John McCain? Who are these conservatives?

If your firm gets a bail-out or declares bankruptcy, you shouldn't get a 'golden handshake.' If you leave a firm at any other time - congratulations, good work, enjoy your wealth. Now gimme those taxes!

It's these kinds of debates that really make me think we have little hope to solve the larger problems that we face, be it climate change or pandemics or the looming energy crisis. We get so caught up in these petty issues that we fail to see the trees for the forest.

McCain vs McCain

"I'm a foot soldier from the Reagan Revolution."
"I believe in regulation."
"I believe in de-regulation."
"I'm for the bail-out."
"I'm not for a bail-out."
"I believe in a free market."
"I want to limit CEO compensation packages."
"I believe in tax cuts."
"I'm experienced."
"I represent change."
"I own 9 houses." (No, wait. He didn't say that - he couldn't remember how many he owns!)
"I care about the Middle Class." (No, wait. He didn't say that. He said Main Street.)
"I don't believe in taxing the wealthiest at a higher rate."
"I believe in giving Americans tax credits for mortgages."
"We need to address the problems that Americans face."
"We need to freeze spending."
"We don't need the UN to tell us what to do....except in
"I can work with our partners."
"You don't tell your partners what you're going to do."
"I took on these guys, I took on those guys."
"I can work with anyone."
"I do not have a temper."

You might think that these statements were made by two separate candidates in the US Presidential election. Unfortunately, these are all quotes or paraphrases from John McCain. McCain is a populist hypocrite and a public liar.

On this morning's ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous, he was trying to clean up after his botched Debate. What a loser. This man has contradicted himself every day of the last two weeks.

Foreign Affairs:

Palin says "If we know Osama is there we should go into Pakistan." Meanwhile, McCain tries to convince the American people that Obama wants to invade Pakistan rather than send strike forces in to take out Bin Laden. Obama has taken the George Bush position (that killed John Kerry in 2004) that America is responsible for its own security and will answer to no one. Obama means that if you see Osama Bin Laden on Satellite or have intelligence as to his whereabouts - you take him out with a covert, strategic strike - just as Palin has suggested and most Americans would agree with. Pakistan, and the governing party must understand that this is a potential consequence of their inaction - by not allowing them to respond ahead of time, to assist NATO in Torra Borra, McCain exposes his Pakistani allies to retribution from extremists in Pakistan. "You don't tell them what you're going to do." He is so totally out to lunch on this issue it's not funny. Lie to your friends, be honest with the indifferent and threaten enemies seems to be his M-O.

By McCain's reasoning - you can openly threaten states that are hostile to you but you cannot threaten to cut off foreign aid to allies when they don't help you. Is anyone buying this bullshit? That Americans do not see him as an Angry Old Man who will do or say anything for power is startling.

On Domestic Issues:
McCain supports the Bush Tax cuts and is continually trying to convince the American people that Obama would increase taxes on Americans - particularly on the middle class. How do people let this guy lie to them? Go to obama.com and you can see Barack's tax plan. It is clear that it will shift burdens from low-wage earners, single-income families and middle-class Americans on to Corporations and the rich.

John McCain says he doesn't believe in the greed of Wall Street and the excess that is rewarded. Yet he does not want to tax the rich at any higher rate. In essence, he wants a flat tax. How can people not see through this? Forget the compensation packages - like Earmarks they are a visual yet ultimately fairly inconsequential part of the problem. Allow Shareholders to limit compensation packages - they ultimately own publicly-traded companies. The Federal government has the ability to claw-back compensation packages by a much simpler measure - TAX THEM!!! Instead, McCain is playing populist - they all are with respect to the financial bailout.

Health Care:
McCain argues that nationalizing Insurance means telling people which Doctor they can visit. What an idiot. Americans: I am Canadian and can chose my own Doctor - though we do have a shortage as 'greedy' doctors go to America to earn money off the backs of your sick and fail to pay us back for our investment in their education - so, thanks for running a profit-drive health care industry. We take your guns, you take our Doctors. Back to my point. By eliminating profit-driven Insurance companies from the Health Care equation, you eliminate a 3rd party, non-medical decision maker saying no to necessary treatments. (Hello? Greed anyone?) Look at the facts. US Health Care delivery costs more and has worse outcomes than in Canada. FACT.

It's basic. Government does not profit from its activities and when it delivers a surplus - that's the peoples' surplus. AIG, a major insurance company, with major health care services and investments in health insurance is going to be bailed out by the Federal Government. AIG will at some point, deliver benefits to its shareholders though that looks like it will be the American people for the foreseeable future. So...AIG makes money from people who need health care/insurance. They and their competitors say no to services they perceive as unnecessary and pay-out only portions of coverage for services - a health care coupon as it's called.

Here's how it works in Canada. I need health care, I go to my doctor or Hospital. I get treatment. Sometimes that means medication, a portion of which is covered by our Socialized drug-purchasing policies - those programs that attract AARP buses to Toronto from Buffalo to buy cheap drugs. Sometimes my health care entails a wait. But I never, ever get a bill for it and I can feel comfortable knowing that the person serving me my food also has the same opportunity and that they're not coming to work with an infectious disease because they can't afford a doctor's visit or medication to solve their problem.

So John McCain talks big about limiting greed and corruption. Then he endorses the current Health Care approach - a license to Insurers and private Hospitals to print money. What a liar. What a hypocrite. What a jerk.

Earmarks:
Much ado about nothing? Earmarks totaled $18 Billion last year. The US spends 10 Billion everyday in Iraq. Earmarks pay for local projects such as needed road fixes that don't meet bureaucratic criteria, bridges to encourage economic development (under SAFETLU bridges are assessed only from cost-benefit/transportation perspective) and cultural projects like privately run Holocaust museums.

Spending Freeze:
I'm not sure what McCain meant by this. If he meant that when he took office, no cheques would be issued except those he excluded (Defense, Veterans Affairs, maybe one other) then he is proposing to close Washington DC until he gets educated on line-by-line spending - in a budget of over $3 trillion! He has already shown that he is a slow-learner. Does this mean that DC would be closed until sometime in 2010 when he understands finally how government works? I'm confused. How will congressmen get to Congress with all that garbage piling up on the streets of DC? Does he mean that Congressmen won't get paid? The Federal government cannot simply have a spending freeze of any substantial weight since most of what the Federal Government spends is in entitlements - programmed spending to deliver... core programs. Does he close the Federal Highway Administration? Does he close the FDA with all the food security issues the US faces? What exactly does John McCain mean by a spending freeze? It sounds great because it plays on our passions - which are emotional, not rational.

How will John McCain fix the bankrupt Highway Trust Fund? He's already stated he wants a Gas Tax holiday. And here is my conclusion:

The problems in the American Economy have been created by a detachment with reality and a lack of effort to address cracks in the system as they've developed like so many cracks in the New Orleans levies. Greed fuels the whole thing - whether that's an expectation of lower taxes or mortgages based on good wishes instead of economic solvency, unlimited credit and ego-driven anger against those who succeed under the current rules. Americans love to kick their success stories while also boasting of the American Dream. There must be some parallel to psychological conditions, like schizophrenia and/or paranoid delusion but definitely ADD.

America, if you want another high-functioning Moron as your President, one who will lie to you, lie to your neighbours, threaten your foes and take us to the brink of all-out Global war...then please, vote for John McCain. If you want this ship we call earth, to steer itself successfully through the challenges we face, then vote for bold change - vote for Obama, or please for the sake of the rest of us on Earth, just don't vote at all.



New Conspiracy Theory: Bush went after Saddam cause he went after his Daddy. Given McCain's quoting of Teddy Roosevelt's 'walk softly with a big stick' (totally misinterpreted by the way) and his propensity to not tell anyone what you are really thinking and McCain's well known anger towards those who have ever crossed him, even once, let alone torturing him for 10-years leaving his body scarred and maimed .... McCain secretly wants to send the US Military back to Vietnam to make those m-f's pay for what they did to him!

Presidential Debate - McCain Whack-a-Mole?

CNN this morning says that John McCain has now left Washington and has gone to his Campaign Headquarters in Virginia. Why? I thought he had suspended his campaign until the Financial Crisis had been solved. If he is at his campaign headquarters, presumably he will be working on, discussing and in other ways, working on his campaign. I guess, he's figured that his whole idea of suspending a Presidential Campaign is ridiculous.

The US has been focussed on the question of who the next President will be and what direction they will take the country in that it is impossible for one candidate to suspend a campaign. Regardless of his inaction, the rest of the country, his party, his supporters, independents and of course the Democrats are still campaigning and are still seeking answers and leadership. McCain loses any right to point the finger at Obama for ever voting 'present' in the Illinois legislature. At least Obama was present. McCain has done nothing but make himself irrelevant this week which certainly undoes much of the hard-work he has done.

The President, as much as we'd like the current one to do so, cannot simply disappear from the scene, nor can his return to Washington cause a solution to crumble to pieces - as McCain's recent return to Warshington has (*yes, Warshington, this is McCain we're talking about.) So Obama has largely said little of deep consequence but his presence has been calming and displays to the American public that he both hears their concerns while also realizing that the health of the Economy at large, on a macro-scale, is of crucial importance to the lives of Americans.

University of Ole Mississipi, which is hosting the debate, has spent $5 million in preparation for the debate. McCain tried to cancel this debate, a debate about foreign issues which he is supposed to have the upper-hand on. He is truly desperate. He is starting to know why VP candidates must be carefully veted - Palin clearly is bombing now that people are looking beyond the surface. Anytime she speaks now, all one can think is, my god, McCain better live if he gets elected.

"Anytime Putin raises his head in our Airspace, where do you think he's going to go first into America? Hello? Alaska and that is where we send them up to keep eyes on them..." wooohooo.... what world does Sarah Palin live in? Did they stop reporting news in Alaska sometime during the Cold War? Doesn't she know that Economics are what killed soviet communism - not tough talk.

Now I'm seeing Harry Reid and Chris Dodd hammering away at John McCain. No one on the right is doing that to McCain. His designates have gone silent - because they have no clue how to spin this. The Republicans are trying to distance themselves from their own President. McCain is stuck between Iraq and a hard place - to either support Bush's plan and further alienate house republicans and true conservatives, or to support the plan, side with Democrats, and go with the majority of experts (albeit Bush appointees) who seem to agree that major intervention is required. The times have caught up to McCain in the worst of ways.

Obama is playing this as well as anyone possibly could. He has in essence said many of the same things as McCain. However, he of course benefits because he didn't say stupid things about the Fundamentals of the economy in the last 10 days as McCain did. It's like watching a game of Presidential Whack-a-Mole. Anytime McCain raises his head, Obama, Biden and a host of surrogates are ready to whack him! It's almost unfair. Obama's lead will continue to widen.

Obama played the debate coin-flip well too. They put the foreign affairs debate ahead of the domestic affairs debate. Obama will not lose any ground on foreign affairs and will destroy McCain on domestic issues next week, particularly after this debacle and McCain's total fumbling of Economic Issues. Young people, influenced by shows like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, can only drift further away. And the excitement on the Democratic side, the unprecedented voter registration and grass-roots movement that is Obama, will ensure that there are no election day swindles this time around - no Florida's hanging chads or Ohio vote-count issues. Hopefully.

Just wait unit Obama puts forward his ideas for who would be in his Cabinet - Clinton, Clinton, Powell and William Cohen are among those I speculate will be named to prominent positions. Perhaps General Wesley Clark? Oprah? lol Then add a couple of republicans for a Lincoln-esque Cabinet, challenged by those who disagree with the President and Obama will pick up a huge number of independents. Palin for Secretary of Hockey Moms?

However, until John McCain finds his way out of Virginia, proves that he knows how to get to Ole Miss by 9:00 tonight, we have to assume he is lost.