Did the “womensmarch” start a movement or was it just a protest?

irishcolin72Leave a comment

The day after Donald Trump officially became the 45th President of the United States. Woman all over America (and in some parts of the world) took to the streets of major cities including Washington D.C. in enormous numbers.

From the website womensmarch.com the following:

“In the spirit of democracy and honoring the champions of human rights, dignity, and justice who have come before us, we join in diversity to show our presence in numbers too great to ignore. The Women’s March on Washington will send a bold message to our new government on their first day in office, and to the world that women’s rights are human rights. We stand together, recognizing that defending the most marginalized among us is defending all of us.”

In the aftermath of a divisive election season, with President Trump’s words, demeanor and attitudes representing the worse misogyny and glorifying “locker room talk” such a rally was timely and meaningful.

Peaceful protest, marching and forceful debate are hallmarks of a vibrant and healthy democracy. I personally applaud the marches. I believe the majority of those participating wanted to ensure that on their first day in office President Trump and his team saw and heard, in no uncertain terms, that the highest standard of conduct, protection of rights and service to all citizens is expected from those in the highest civic offices of the Union.

This is right. More than the media and other officials it is the people who must monitor and hold its government to account. For what they do and how they do it. And the marches were a great first step in setting that tone.

I hope that this is just a beginning. That these same women carried the sentiment back to their homes and communities. That they will talk to their boys and husbands about the destructive nature of pornography – and that it’s not cool or normal. It degrades women and men and it destroys healthy relationships and the ability to form them. That they will review popular literature and music and make better choices than 50 shades of grey and Beyoncé. If the march begins a kitchen table revolution that rejects the locker room talk that permeates our society at so many levels, so much so that a man who is the poster child for these attitudes can be elected POTUS. To march against him and not act against the social norms that create and normalize him will not affect the change needed to ensure and protect our shared rights.

Unfortunately the first evidence of hypocrisy that taints the march and movement is found in the attitude and actions of some of its main proponents. These are entertainers, singers and movie stars many of whom have made their names and careers by celebrating and projecting a sexualised image of womanhood. The argument that its okay for a woman artist to sing locker room style lyrics and grab their own genitals provocatively  – because this its their own body, a statement of strength and art but not okay for men and boys to imagine, discuss or attempt to do the same doesn’t wash with me – in my mind we must reject both. And here is the nub of the problem, if you want to claim the high moral ground and hold it, then you have to be willing to accept and the concept of a pervasive and public morality, something that is anathema to modern progressive liberalism.

Most disappointing was the absolute rejection by the organisers of any pro life organisation and by de facto pro life women. The inability to tolerate a different view point about an important human rights issue, to make peace in the name of uniting women against a greater threat – if even for just one day is indicative of the rot that moves within the modern liberal movement. Rights, are increasingly only for those who agree with the progressive world view and a balance of rights that respect diverse views – which by definition should be at the heart of a liberal movement is increasingly absent. This absence of compassion and compromise is hypocritical and cast a shadow over what otherwise was a great event and day.

Streep was right and wrong.

irishcolin72Leave a comment

At the Golden Globes this past week Meryl Streep received a lifetime achievement award. She used the platform afforded her at the event to give a well scripted, expertly delivered and passionately received speech denouncing President Trump.

I think she was right to speak out. President Elect Trump is a lightning rod for public opinion. He is beyond uncouth, his words and attitudes are often unbefitting the highest civic office of the United States. Many fear that his election heralds an era of exclusion, nationalism and increased division. If you are against Trump and what he stands for then Meryl Streep eloquently articulated your concerns.

Those who have influence and opportunity have the right, and in my opinion the moral obligation to speak up and use their platform to advocate for their beliefs. This is enshrined in the US Constitution. Freedom of expression is essential for a pluralistic, diverse and thriving democracy. Even when we don’t agree, or perhaps abhor the opinion and statements of others we should be very careful about limiting their right to express those opinions or beliefs – that’s one of the reasons I’m very concerned by a continued expansion of the definition of hate speech.

There are two areas where I think Streep is wrong. First is the question of hypocrisy. The second is message.

Streep supported the press in her speech but under Obama more whistleblowers have been prosecuted than under any other administration  and more freedom of information requests have been denied or slow walked, where was her outcry. She supported foreign nationals and immigration but under Obama thousands of bombs have been dropped all over foreign countries, particularly Islamic nations in the middle east. Not a peep from Streep. She derided his treatment of women, but famously gave Director Roman Polanski who fled the US to avoid charges of raping an underage girl a standing ovation when he was awarded an Oscar.

None of this means the content of her speech was wrong, just like content of Hilary’s emails are less true because they were revealed by hacked emails. We can all be guilty of excusing the foibles or our ‘guy’ while jumping on everything the other team’s guy does. But I think that if you are a mega star and you want to use your public profile to make political statement – you need to demonstrate consistency of values. I don’t think she has done that. Perhaps, though, this is the beginning of her political commentary and we will see her speak out against things that are wrong, even if those wrongs are committed be her favourite party or politician.

If it was just a matter of hypocrisy I probably would have let the event pass. But I think the most disappointing aspect of her speech was that in criticising the President elect (and I agree with many of her criticisms) she chose an alienating tone.

She reinforced the message that he is the President of deplorables, who enjoy watching football after work and cheer their favourite fighter in the MMA. Who know nothing of the Arts and the refined world she and all right minded people dwell in. She emphasised them and us and celebrated the divide.

I think it is possible to criticize and hold Trump to account while building bridges between those who voted for him and those who didn’t. But the prerequisite for this is to admit that something (more than hacked emails and fake news) went wrong with the liberal message. That those who turned to Trump have more in common, in terms of needs, wants and dreams with those who voted for Hilary and common ground can and should be found. To the extent that she failed to sound any tone of reconciliation with Trump voters I thin she was wrong and missed a great opportunity.

 

Ringing in the New Year with a New Carbon Tax

irishcolin72Leave a comment

What better way to start this blogging experiment than on the topic of Alberta’s new carbon tax. Here’s the link to the current government web-site that set’s out some of the key points on this tax: https://www.alberta.ca/climate-carbon-pricing.aspx  I’ll be quoting from and referring to this website extensively in this blog.

My approach to this topic is to think of some key questions: What is the problem we are trying to resolve? What is the proposed solution? What is the cost of the solution? What evidence is there that the solution will work as proposed or better? What alternatives could produce the same or better results?

The answer to the first question is Climate Change. This topic alone will likely need a few separate posts to really explore it well. Because I’d like to look at the proposed solution in more detail in this post I’ll quickly make some points on the problem.

The particular climate change we are talking about, as the problem to be resolved by the carbon tax, is anthropomorphic or man made climate change which has as its main characteristic the release of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere primarily through the combustion of fossil based fuels (natural gas, gas, diesel). Again, leaving aside the various facets and arguments of this problem for another day, the stated purpose of the carbon tax is:

“Alberta’s carbon levy provides a financial incentive for families, businesses and communities to lower their emissions. Economists agree that a price on carbon is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions. It drives innovation and changes behavior by encouraging individuals and businesses to become more energy efficient and shift away from higher emission fuels.”

So the rationale is straight forward, based on the view of economists (none cited) the best way to reduce carbon emissions is to incentivise a change in consumer behaviour by way of a tax. Again I see another post examining the evidence for this contention and looking for examples in other jurisdictions. (Wow I see how this blogging thing can spiral out of control).

At first Alberta’s carbon tax looks like a consumption tax. Consume this product and you will be subject to a tax, the more you consume the more you pay as such you are incentivised to consider using alternative cheaper products. This seems to be born out on the website which states:

“All Albertans who take steps to reduce their emissions – by turning down the heat when no one is home, installing smart thermostats, choosing more fuel efficient cars, using public transit, walking, biking, or taking advantage of coming energy efficiency programs – can reduce the cost of the carbon levy.”

On further examination it becomes clear that this is not a pure consumption tax and it does not, in fact require all Albertans to take steps to reduce their emissions.

Again from the government website. “Carbon rebates will offset costs associated with the levy to help low-and middle-income households adjust. To help businesses, the small business tax rate is being cut by one third.” The rebates are income based, so what starts of as a consumption tax becomes some sort of a hybrid – the full impact of which is determined by a consideration of one’s income. Of course middle to high income households under this type of scheme always end up paying more (because they fail qualify for any rebates).

The rebates are so far reaching that the government confidently proclaims “Six of 10 Alberta households will receive a rebate that covers the average cost of the carbon levy.”

Let’s remember that the stated rationale of the carbon tax is to incentivise changes in behaviour so that all Albertans reduce their carbon emissions. And yet in application the government are exempting 60% of households based on their income from this incentive, leaving the pain and the change to the remaining 40%.

Surely if we are really concerned with the problem of man made climate change and want to show leadership in this area we would introduce a flat consumption tax with no exceptions – if you use you pay, so reduce your use type of approach. In failing to do this the government has simply introduced another tax on middle to high income households.

Low to middle income households will not feel enough incentive to change and likely middle to high income households will off set the cost by less consumer spending (bad for the economy), less savings (bad for the economy) and fewer investments (oh, also bad for the economy).

For me this is a serious flaw. I don’t agree that we need a carbon tax to fight climate change. But if we are going to have a tax on carbon it should be a pure consumption tax applied at a flat rate to all consumers so that all consumers are incentivised to change.