Blueprint for a New Political System -Part 1- Sponser This!

Ogr81 shook his wallet upside down, and all his ID fell into a dog bowl...not a friggin coin! Not even enough to buy a small bottle of internet ink.
Tommorrow was pay day, so his relevation for a new Canadian political system would have to wait. O Canada! Your system is lacking!
Honest hard working people are drained of their worth to fuel a machine that is way out-dated; which becomes increasingly less efficient and yet more expensive. The middleclass loses ground daily, and the huge abyss left between the rich and poor is quickly filled by arrogance. We are not calculated for our worth, but rather controlled by minimizing what we have left over, so we have to work to an old age. Laws are imposed on us that do not reflect the majority, nor do they give heed to the lives or livlihoods they destroy. Somewhere we stopped being governed and started being ruled. The trust we give our leaders is now assumed by them, and they don't even care about the myriad of occassions where they abash their own credibility.
If the money from the sponsership scandal would have been in the hands of capable governing, that money might have gone to save those that died from exposure because they were going through hard times. And really, we hear about the ones who get caught, not those that get away with corruption.
Don't think I'm am a rebel. I love Canada, I love the people and society; I like our system...but it needs to be updated. I don't want to burn for my words, but as a citizen of a country that is supposed to be free, I would feel neglect if I didn't offer my insights.
The illnesses don't only plague our system, but every first world country. After all, Canada's parliamentary system is modelled after Britains' , just as Australias' and other Common Wealth countries. American influence is felt everywhere but more-so in Canada, being neighbours. (A quick note on that- it should be noted that the American system is effective for unifying a great number of people, where-as our system causes dissention and we have much less people)
With the revolution of the global market, the entire first world is reeling from corporate influences unfelt in human history.
If we want to be a corporation with just a few benefitting, then our system is okay...for now...until too many people get pushed out of the inner circle and the dissention grows...or we find we can't sustain our sytem because it has become too imbued with inefficiency and corruption... or we can't compete in the global market and as people we aren't an asset to a corporation, so we're left to starve........but if we want to be a country, made of people, we have to re-assess our system, find out where the problems are, correct them, and carry on.
It would seem one important lesson from the twentieth century is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have tried to deal with this by removing dictorships such as Idi Amin, Hitler, and Hussein. Their demise meant freedom for people from oppression. The move from imperialism to a parliamentary system that swept the world saw us trying to displace a centralized power to a more equitible, broader base. So it would seem the trend is to steer away from elite leadership, but the door is always left open for greed and ambition to make its way to the top. Ambition is not a bad thing, but if the ambition is displaced it could be. Indeed, our structure is such that the highest position attainable (Prime Minister) is greatly respected, and therefore noble to pursue. As long as the definition of that position remains true, it is a noble pursuit, but if the definition becomes a smoke screen for what the position actually is, then the system itself is gimped.
I was just being sarcastic about whether we want to be run by a corporation or be run by people. Of course the majority of us feel the best way to govern people is by being represented by people, but if that idea is tainted, and the leadership starts representing corporate interests instead of the peoples, then the system itself is gimped.
So it would seem the first logical step would be to remove the ability of the leadership to represent anything else besides its' intended office. This could be accomplished by making all goverment branches, such as the Ministry of Transportation, a neutral, non-political arena. I realize that it is supposed to be already, but patronage has been an issue in the past and continues to be with increasing boldness. (Look at the example with FIMA and the New Orleans disaster in the US) The problem lies with the political connections to the office. For example: the liberal party wins a majority and appoints the winner of the Kaupacang riding as the Minister of Transportation. Even though there aren't complex city infrastructures in the Kaupacang area, his/her liberal laurels got him/her the position. He/she, in turn, surrounds themself with people they know they can trust, some less competant then themself.
And so on, down the line.
If we voted for a person for the office, then their credentials would allow them to step into a neutral position much easier. To elaborate: There is an election, and Jan Jones from Bruce Mines is running for the position of the Minister for Finance. Her economic brilliance has shone throughout her career, beginning with top marks in university. She's running against Dave Dewly from Dain City, who has excellant credentials as well. In fact, everyone running seems capable. Jan wins, and steps into her office with non-political aspirations. She has to prove her abilities while in office, to ensure a chance in the next elections for her as well as the party which represented her. Her victory was sponsored by the liberal party, and they backed her for her credentials. For their support, her victory entitles them to a seat in the senate, where they can seat the slickest polititian they can muster. (It's okay, it's the proper arena for them.)
The senate would be responsible for 50% of the decision making. The other 50% would come from either an internet or intranet presence which would allow all citizens to cast a vote for any issue; whether it be local, provincial or federal. So if your a farmer in Saskatchewan, and you're concerned about rising insurance rates for your crops, as a citizen, you can initialize a vote. You are offered a space on the web to present your case, as is any opponents you may have. If there are enough other people who feel the same way as you do, it can be carried to the appropriate level of government, whether it's local, provincial, or federal. The issue is then presented as a vote, and the outcome worth 50% of the decision. The other half is then presented to either the provincial or federal senates or local councillors, (deepending on its level classification) They vote on the issue, and their result is added to the citizen vote. So if the citizen vote was 40% yeh, 60% nay, and the senate vote was 30% yeah, 70% nay, the result would be 35% yeh, 65% nay. It's not as if everyone has to sit around keeping tabs of every little issue to vote on, but they will have a choice when it's something that concerns them. So the farmer in Saskatchewan actually has a chance at quelching the approval to Insurance Companies for a rate hike. As well, it would add a much needed humanitarian touch to our system.

Let's look at the number of deaths that have occured in Toronto due to exposure to the elements. When I was younger, you hardly saw homeless people in Toronto, but now there are many more, as I'm sure statistics could attest. Despite the reason they are there, it is still indicative of a societies charity. The sickening statistics of those of them that don't make it through a winter, is more indicative of a societies' inability to show benevolence. The issue is like a hot potato that gets tossed from hand to hand, but nothing has gotten done. Meanwhile, on the same street, (let's call it Bay St) there's a lot of business as ussual. People have to weave around the sleeping bodies to get to work. They are a business, which is it's own entity, so only responsible for conducting their business. They haven't the slightest responsibility to the homeless, and if there isn't a profitable reason to help, why should they. It wouldn't make any business sense.

It would be very easy, however, to inniate a vote that offered, as a solution, a tax break to companies that accommadated a certain square footage somewhere in their building for homeless people to sleep. The scenario proposed is a worthwhile tax break, but not every company could do it, to prevent every company from doing it. The goal is to provide enough shelters in enough areas to prevent them from dying of exposure. It didn't have to be fancy, yet warm enough in winter, and clean enough so that illness due to germs can't result. Showers and mats must also be provided.

So the vote goes forward on-line and all those citizens that are concerned can vote on it.  The employees of those companies concerned can also vote, but the company can't.  If it is important enough to them, they can present their case to a senetor, and get more votes there.  Their individual votes combined with the senate votes might be enough to carry their concerns, but if enough people feel strongly enough about the opposing vote, it probably won't.

It seems a truer democracy, and if we want to remain a democracy, perhaps we have to up-date it with the modern tools that have become available to us.

Games in Play

fun n games
fun n games
it's insane
the fun n games

blocks n tops
a jack in the box
cowboys, indians, robbers n cops

dice to roll
remote control
raggedy tragedy dolls

ladders n snakes
splits n shakes
croquet with no stakes

tag n twister
I'll miss her
I almost kissed her

bowling pins
bottle spins
everybody wins

fun 'n games
fun 'n games
no shame
ah the fun 'n games

Unstill Life

If I rolled a poem

Thru the thoughts of my soul

Tried and true

Just for you

If I rolled an ode

Thru the hole of my soul

Of an angel blue

Just for you

And you thought

Maybe

And I thought

Perhaps

You'll be with me

At the door we go thru

Into the chrystal labyrinth

We once knew

If I painted a portrait fine

Thru the eyes of my mind

Would dawning drown what I drew

Just of you



If I sang a sample song

Would the pre-amble be wrong

And change everything I knew

Just of you



And I thought


Maybe

And you thought

Perhaps



You'll be with me

At the door we go thru

Into the chrystal labyrinth

We once knew

Profiting From Poverty

The is a warning to all societies which wish to maintain a semblance of civility and intellectual growth. There is an inhuman poison; a beast of sorts; that threatens to erode or utterly destroy everything positive we have strived for as a people.

This evil is the ability to profit from poverty.

Should an unfortunate person find themself in that position, there are predators that will swoop down and render them helpless if they could, and leave them as carrion.

For example; if a person can't afford auto insurance for a month, their rates skyrocket.

If someone gets their car repossessed and can't afford to get it back from the impound, the financier sells it at an auction, and the person who lost it must pay the balance on the loan. So, they are now making payments on something they don't even own anymore...yet they may still have to drive to work.

Every late payment fee and insufficient funds charge is another way to profit from poverty.

These hits can cripple a working person, making them unproductive to society, and thus a burden.

It almost happened to me. The income tax return I was expecting to get me on track financially never came because my own government decided I had to prove I wasn't a liar, even though I had never been shown to be one before. So when I showed them the proof, instead of giving me the money, they randomly chose me two more years in a row to accuse me of being a liar. So, not only have I still not received the $2500 from the first time, but now they're going to rob me of another $2500, even once I send them the proof they need.

This started a metaphoric snowball rolling down the hill that ended with over $1200 in nsf charges, my insurance rates to double, the loss of a freezer full of food, an $11 000 debt from a repossessed car, and a lot of stress. This all because I was layed off from my construction job over the winter.

I'm back to work, with the grey cloud of severe debt shadowing me for years. Many aren't so lucky. Others end up homeless and destitude.

So when I speak of this evil, it is from experience.

It is illogical that a society would allow someone down on their luck, or a victim of circumstances, or even a victim of oppression, to not afford the space to rebound from their loss and regain their productive position in the workworld, and senseless to attack them further.

Is it too bold to say there should be laws in place that prohibit the ability to profit from poverty? Does the bank not have the right to the money they lost in a bad investment, or cost of the process for insuffient funds not get covered? (Truthfully, the idea that auto insurance rates would double because one is poor has me at a loss)

A monkey will never buy a banana, and an oxe has never received a paycheck. What that means is, the idea of a corporation, a business or a government is solely human and is regarded only by people. Therefore, the idea that a business or corporation is a separate entity is bogus. Through their perpetual tenets, they can become perfect, where-as humans aren't perfect. They are succeptable to drawbacks even beyond their control. It is not right to define an entity that does not regard the vulnerabilities of its' makers. Without consideration for who it is supposed to serve, it does not become symbiotic, but rather, a beast running amok.

So while we need legistlation to prevent anyone or anything to profit from poverty, there still has to remain the rights of the entity to exist. Yes, banks have the right to make a return from their investments, but if the person they chose to invest with forfeits on the loan due to inescaple circumstances, they should realize not all investments are guaranteed.

One would argue that the banks would never loan any money unless it was 100% guaranteed in such an environment, but it is completely their decision how much money they wish to make. There is always someone else willing to take the chance.

But not leaving businesses in the cold, opportunities should be offered for recognizing humanity:  such as tax breaks for writing off bad loans or; allowing a substantial tax break for alotting a certain square footage of their office building for homeless people to sleep;  or incentives for offering willing participants to re-enter the work force.  If all the employees in an office building did a food drive once in a while, the food banks would be much fuller.  The point would be to add a human touch to an otherwise inhuman entity. 

If humanity can be instilled into the character of the beast, perhaps the problem of "profiting from poverty" can be better dealt with.

To tackle the problem would require human endeavor above and beyond the criteria set out by business practices.  And if it were to be achievable, there would still not be any easy answers.

Perhaps citizens can be offered an anmesty period if their circumstance gets too dire.  Some businesses might lose small amounts from these amnesty periods, but at least they won't lose the true asset.

Perhaps, like the benefits reeped by a corporation for community involvement, it could be extended to a more personal level, where they work on problems in the community, such as poverty, the easing of local economic hardships (such as a plant closing) or sponsoring someone who has claimed an amnesty period.

In the long run, if we could inject a humanistic environment for unfortunate people to rebound, it would help maintain a stronger, healthier and productive work force, which will reflect a vibrant economy, where-in there would be fewer circumstantial tragedies.

Poverty makes us all a little poorer. The profit a business makes off of the poor, could end up costing us a lot more.  It would seem the sound, sensible thing to do would be to address the problem for future prosperity.