by Jill Severn | Jun 16, 2016
Poor Paul Ryan. The nation’s highest ranking Republican and Speaker of the House describes comments by Donald Drumpf about a judge with a Hispanic surname as “a textbook definition of racism,” but can’t quite bring himself to withdraw his endorsement of the candidate. Most of his party colleagues concur, fearing that an open split in their party will cost them seats in the House and Senate this fall.
Thus, the leadership of the Republican party – the party of Lincoln – has sold its soul. By accepting Drumpf as their standard bearer, they’ve lowered their standards right down into the gutter.
This is a sad time for those Republicans like Senators Lindsey Graham and Mark Kirk, and for Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and others who have the integrity and courage to oppose Drumpf. And for those still on the fence, it must be sobering to read the very moderate Tom Friedman, writing in the New York Times, “If a party could declare moral bankruptcy, today’s Republican party would be in Chapter 11.”
Having once climbed into bed with them, Republican leaders now find themselves locked in a smothering embrace.
But Drumpf didn’t suddenly fall out of the sky. His candidacy is, as many have noted, the full flowering of an eight-year- old backlash against the election of our nation’s first black president. Obama’s success drew America’s most virulent strain of racism out of hiding and was a major driver of the Tea Party’s “take back our country” rhetoric.
During those eight years, Republicans slid slowly into acceptance of an ever more extreme cadre of birthers, bigots and buffoons. Having once climbed into bed with them, Republican leaders now find themselves locked in a smothering embrace.
Last week, Ryan’s painfully illogical position of disavowing the racism of the racist candidate he supports overshadowed his attempt to gain some media attention for his proposals for a new Republican agenda to address poverty. Republican positions on international trade deals, immigration reform, foreign policy and other issues are also being pushed aside by Drumpf’s insistence on representing only the reality TV audience that attends his rallies.
Tom Friedman proposes starting a New Republican Party from scratch – one that is committed to some basic principles such as “pluralism, immigration, democracy, trade, the rule of law and the virtue of open societies,” and free from dominance by special interests. Today’s Republican party, he believes, is now beyond redemption.
But of course the problem isn’t just that Drumpf is ruining the Republican party; it’s that if elected, he will ruin the country. And ruining our uniquely powerful country will surely wreak ruin on the rest of the world.
The alternative, Hillary Clinton, may present another dilemma. If electing the nation’s first black president caused this incredible backlash of nativist, racist energy, what will electing the nation’s first female president cause? Are Drumpf’s statements and behavior regarding women red flags?
If the popularity of Donald Drumpf shows us anything, it’s that a lot of people are nostalgic for the bygone era of white supremacy and male dominance, and willing to support an authoritarian leader in a vain attempt to return to that past.
It will be a happy day when our country is finally beyond these first-of- a-kind candidates, and beyond the backlashes they provoke. Until that day, our challenge as both Republicans and Democrats is to clearly and unequivocally reject those dark impulses, and keep working to create a civic culture where the quest for full equality and moral progress matters more than transitory partisan advantage.
by George Le Masurier | May 31, 2016
British Columbia, a province usually anxious to tax anything within its reach, has curiously kept its hands off of a large source of potential revenue: marijuana.
While Washington state, Colorado, Oregon and Alaska inhale multi-millions of dollars of tax revenue by regulating the production, distribution and retail sale of marijuana for medical and recreation use, British Columbia lets this windfall slip away.
British Columbia could help shape the federal legislation expected next year by putting a regulatory system in place now, and jumpstart its revenue stream.
This wouldn’t take as long or be as difficult as it might seem. Our neighbors to the south in Washington state have an excellent model for a system that could be more or less copied and pasted into B.C. law.
Washington state collected $67.5 million in 2015, its first full year of operation. This year, it expects to collect $154.6 million. The state’s Office of Financial Management predicts a whopping $1 billion of new revenue over the next four years.
Imagine if B.C. injected that much new money — taken away, in part, from gangs and outlaw drug dealers — into early childhood education, better access to services for people suffering from mental illness and support for affordable housing projects.
And a windfall revenue isn’t the only benefit of a fully regulated system.
Right now, marijuana growers and sellers are running loose in the province. It’s a wild west environment. Nobody can verify who’s growing the pot sold in stores, who they are selling it to or what’s in it.
From Sidney to Vancouver to Toronto, marijuana retail stores are popping up as fast as the RCMP can raid them. The Liberal government says it’s committed to legalization, but while it dithers over the details of national legislation, the market is spinning out of control.
Instead of rushing into a national marijuana legalization program, the federal government should look the other way while British Columbia develops a regulated market that includes rules pertaining to DUI, banking, public consumption and retail store locations. A smaller provincial experiment can expose weaknesses and oversights and enact quicker corrections.
Those real life test results can lead to a better-written federal law.
For example, let’s not go down the road of simple legalization. Without provincial control over who’s growing and selling marijuana, gangs and Mexican cartels will continue to siphon off money that could be used to improve the quality of life in British Columbia.
Smoking pot outside the old Lorne Hotel, circa 1975
We must merge the recreational and medical markets. Let’s shake off the nudge-nudge, wink-wink reality of medical marijuana. Yes, it’s been a help for people with certain medical conditions, but it’s also been a false front for people who just want to get high.
In Washington state, it was estimated that 90 percent of cannabis sold for ostensibly medical purposes was, in fact, consumed recreationally. Interestingly, the medical market ballooned in 2011 when naturopathic physicians were added to the list of providers who could write pot prescriptions.
A regulated system should include a patient registry to differentiate bona fide medicinal users, who could qualify for tax exemptions, from recreational users.
If there is sufficient legitimate demand for the low-hallucinogenic, high-analgesic cannabis preferred by medical users, retail stores will provide it. And medical users would have the option of growing their own.
The province will also need to use some of the new tax revenue to fund substance abuse awareness programs, primarily aimed at children. Of course, parents must play an important role in educating their children about marijuana, and that includes keeping any edibles at home securely out of their reach. Colorado experienced a surge of hospital visits by children who accidentally ate pot-laced treats.
Marijuana legalization advocates have successfully argued that smoking marijuana poses no greater threat to society than drinking alcohol, and that prohibition will not work. Both are true. Like alcohol, marijuana is not risk-free, which argues for a government-regulated system of production, distribution and retail sales.
The federal government has recognized the historical transformation of social values during the early years of the 21st century. Whenever communal morals shift so significantly, governments must eventually conform their laws to reflect the public’s will.
British Columbia could and should generate millions of dollars in revenue and lead the nation in clearing up the current tangled mess of conflicting laws and regulations.
by George Le Masurier | May 24, 2016
During the latest Comox Official Community Plan process hundreds of Valley residents made it abundantly clear they wanted Point Holmes maintained as it was: large, single family lots and plenty of green space. To their credit, most of the Comox Town Council agreed and the plan was adopted.
But that may now be threatened.
Ever wonder how Comox town boundaries developed in such an odd fashion out here? Back in the day, Kye Bay, then in the Comox Strathcona Regional District, had a real problem with their water and septic systems. Annexation by Comox solved those problems but others saw that as an opportunity to do something the RD zoning bylaws had not permitted.
Between Claddagh Estates on the bluffs at Cape Lazo and the property south of the Lazo Campground there are some quite large properties. Claddagh was in the planning stages, and both the Campground and another property were slated to be multi-story condo complexes. A number of smaller properties were also being considered for multi-home development. But zoning under RD rules did not permit that.
Owners of these properties then applied to Comox for annexation. They claimed they too had water and septic problems. Problem was, a septic study clearly showed septic systems were not a problem, so they doubled down on the water issue.
But many of those who complained of inadequate or tainted water had very shallow wells. Experts felt strongly, digging deeper wells was the solution. Most who did had excellent water.
Annexation became a divisive issue but the proposed area had a bare majority of people who wanted it. Had Simon Crescent, Wireless Road, even properties on the north side of Lazo as it leaves the oceanfront been included, the referendum would have failed. But it was craftily managed and it passed. That’s why the Town boundaries out there are so crazy.
A cynic would say it was never about water or sewer, it was always about development.
Fortunately, at this time, Comox was developing its Official Community Plan. Two very different visions evolved. The developers saw Point Holmes with hundreds of new “doors”.
But in meeting after meeting, the vast majority of Valley people said they valued Point Holmes as it was: large single family lots with plenty of green spaces. That vision prevailed in the OCP.
It didn’t take long for the Claddagh Estate developers and others to apply for variances. Only Claddagh was successful. They were allowed to develop several slightly smaller lots in return for opening up their gated community and dedicating land to parkland. Many of us thought that was a good trade.
Forward to today. Once again the Claddagh Estates developers are looking for a variance to permit subdivision into smaller lots. I won’t go into how some of those who built homes there feel betrayed by this and are concerned the value of their homes will decline. That fight is theirs. But I am concerned for other reasons.
This new variance application threatens the OCP. If approved, the owners of several other large lots in the Cape Lazo area could also apply to subdivide. Once that variance is in place, it will be difficult for Council to deny other variances.
Developers will chop up Cape Lazo against every intention of the community plan.
I’m also concerned about traffic on Lazo Road. It is unsafe now. There are no shoulders on the road for the many cyclists, walkers and joggers that use it every day. In fact, there is barely enough room for cars.
Problem is, there’s no hope of widening the road. First Nations consider the foot of the hill going up to Kye Bay a burial ground and the whole area of cultural significance. When the road was widened a number of skeletons were unearthed. Another skull was found recently. With the new walking path in place along the water, traffic could be a nightmare. The Claddagh variance will only make that worse.
Comox Council will consider this variance soon. If you share my concerns and want to see Point Holmes remain the gem that it now is, send a message to the mayor and council and attend that meeting. This little change could have very big consequences.
by George Le Masurier | May 12, 2016
Don’t want a toxic waste dump built on the vacant lot next to your home? Better enlist someone from a neighboring province to become the face of your Stop the Dump! campaign.
Otherwise, you’ll be dismissed as a NIMBY.
People who live in Victoria neighborhoods near Clover Point, and who oppose building a sewage treatment plant in this popular city park, have been labelled as NIMBYs. The mayor of Comox has used the NIMBY term to describe residents of a neighborhood just outside the town’s boundaries where a sewage pump station is proposed.
The acronym stands for “not-in-my-backyard,” and it’s almost always used in a pejorative sense. It’s a way to suggest that any opposition originating out of self-interest could not possibly have merit.
And the term is meant to imply worse: it stereotypes individuals or groups who oppose projects as selfish, or as hypocritical people who would turn a blind eye if the project were built somewhere else. In some cases, that may be true.
But the dirty little secret is that people usually throw out the NIMBY label to feel ethically justified when they stop listening to opposing viewpoints. If you want to dismiss someone’s concerns without having to address them, just call them a NIMBY. As if that term alone explains everything.
British Columbians should leave this type of name-calling to the Donald Drumpfs of the world. There’s nothing wrong with speaking out about projects that affect people’s quality of life or the character of their neighborhoods.
… self-interest can blossom into important policy debates.
What homeowner would honestly say they hope someone builds a sewage plant or nuclear waste dump or a fracking operation next door? Or that they’re glad a stinking hazardous waste plant will likely devalue their home?
But those developments are going somewhere, so it’s natural that those who live closest to an environmentally or culturally sensitive project will be the first to ask hard questions. And that self-interest can blossom into important policy debates.
Was the decision-making process fair? Were conflicts of interest overlooked? Did municipalities make decisions without studies that were recommended, but never completed? Were undemocratic deals made? Are there better options?
These are questions that might never get answered unless the people most affected have the courage to ask them.
When civic activism rises out of self-interest, it can drift in essentially two directions. If the siting of a project was fair, and there are no better options, and the opposition is based on nothing but a narrow self-interest, the movement will usually fail.
But if the neighbors’ initial hard questions are ignored, or not answered rationally and respectfully, if it turns out the process wasn’t fair or better options were not explored, then a “not-in-my-backyard” campaign can easily transform into a “not-in-anyone’s-backyard” community movement.
More often than not, it’s someone who’s been labelled a NIMBY that exposes flaws in the decision-making process, and makes the larger community aware of important issues that otherwise would have remained hidden.
Bullying and bullies have no place in a civil society.
Only the saints always act out of altruism. The rest of us usually vote in our self-interest. We select candidates who we believe will focus on the issues important to us.
When we’re passionate about something, we support it. We’re most likely to give to charities that help family members or people we know. We support museums because we like history or art, and parks because our kids play baseball.
But there’s no good reason to deny people a democratic voice simply because they have a self-interest rooted in geography. Their motives are just as important as the developer who wants to make a profit, or the elected official who acts only to appease his or her voter base. Those are self-interests, too.
The Leap Manifesto offers a glimmer of hope that Canadians have gotten past using NIMBY name-calling to intimidate people. Supported by a wide variety of Canadians and elected officials, The Manifesto includes this sentence: “The new iron law of energy development must be: if you wouldn’t want it in your backyard, then it doesn’t belong in anyone’s backyard.”
Bullying and bullies have no place in a civil society. So let’s stop labelling people to avoid debate on the merits of their arguments.
by George Le Masurier | Apr 21, 2016
You know what I like about the U.S. presidential campaign? Sex.
That’s right, we are learning so much about the Republican candidates’ sexual preferences. It’s kind of like the Kardashians, except with angry, middle-age white guys.
Here’s what we know so far:
Donald Drumpf has guaranteed the American public that he has at least a normal-sized penis. This is important for the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth. Sometimes, the U.S. president has to stand toe-to-toe with bullies like Vladimir Putin and compare the size of their nuclear arsenals. How could Drumpf dominate the little shirtless Russian if he’s sporting a genital comb-over?
Drumpf also has a hotter wife than challenger Ted Cruz, which he proved in a “hot-or-not?” national ad campaign showing a side-by-side comparison.
The First Lady in a Drumpf White House would not waste time trying to reverse the trend of childhood obesity, supporting military families, encouraging national service, promoting the arts and arts education, or starting conversations about how working women can balance their careers and families, as Michelle Obama has done. Drumpf’s First Lady will make America great again by just standing behind The Donald and looking hot.
“Let me be clear: although Donald Drumpf is a rat, I have no desire to copulate with him.” But doesn’t this raise more questions than it answers?
We have not yet determined with any certainty whether Ted Cruz had an affair with one of this campaign staff, as Drumpf has alleged. It’s possible this is true, given the number of God-fearing anti-gay Republicans caught soliciting sex in airport bathrooms or flying to South America for extramarital affairs while supposedly hiking the Appalachian Trail.
But this is also Drumpf, who alleges President Obama was born in Kenya and is a devout Muslim, and that most Mexican immigrants are drug dealers and rapists.
Ted Cruz appeared to come clean about his sexual preferences, stating in a news conference, “Let me be clear: although Donald Drumpf is a rat, I have no desire to copulate with him.” But doesn’t this raise more questions than it answers?
Would Cruz copulate with other rats, just not one that turned out to be Drumpf? Would Cruz copulate with other animals? Isn’t this illegal in most states, outside of the South?
How does a human copulate with rodents? Was this a comment on Drumpf’s penis size?
Cruz did, however, clarify his position on sex toys, to the relief of many Americans.
As the former Texas solicitor general, he argued to ban the sale of vibrators and other “obscene” sex toys, equating them to “hiring a willing prostitute or engaging in consensual bigamy.” But on a radio talk show, Cruz stated emphatically that he won’t ban the sale of sex toys if he’s elected president.
It was a clever political strategy to win over women — I may want to control your ovaries, but I won’t take away your vibrator.
And, finally, we have the third wheel, John Kasich, whose comments don’t matter all that much, except maybe to young women voters attending college.
In response to a woman concerned about rape on college campuses, Kasich said, “don’t go to parties with a lot of alcohol.” So that means pretty much no parties. Or, maybe it means don’t go to parties where there are predatory, hormonal men emboldened by booze to act without respect for the dignity of other human beings?
It’s good that the Republican presidential candidates have talked about the “birds and the bees” so candidly. They have given American voters real substance upon which to cast their votes.
by George Le Masurier | Mar 13, 2016
By Donald J Drumpf —
I have a pretty good idea whose woods these are, believe me.
And let me tell you something, my people say he’s a complete nobody.
This guy lives in the village. So what if he sees me stopping here?
I dare him to sue me! I dare him!
And by the way, this snow is pathetic.
These are by far, the least downy flakes ever!
I hear they had to import them from Canada.
I don’t know. Maybe they did. Maybe they didn’t. We’re looking into it.
My horse – he’s the most incredible horse, seriously,
I have the greatest, the classiest horses –
My horse doesn’t even know what the hell we’re doing here.
The horses love me though. They do.
They’re always shaking their bells at me, it’s very loving.
It’s a beautiful thing.
Let me tell you something, these woods are an embarrassment.
They’re not dark. They’re not deep. They’re nothing. They’re for losers.
And I cannot wait to sue this guy.
I cannot wait to sue this guy.
Please check out other fun pieces at the rottingpost.com. Here are direct links to a couple of them: http://bit.ly/1WrQLq6 http://bit.ly/1qRtlP9
