Occupy Wall Street, Greenspan's Your Man.

Occupy Vancouver outside the Art Gallery in October

The Occupy movement message has turned into a muddled mess. It's too bad, because there is a problem that needs addressing. However the poor delivery of a confusing message, from what appears to be a disgruntled group of anarchists and socialists, now appears to overshadow the occupy movement, and has done little other than get people talking about the spectacle and even ridiculing those involved.

Let's properly define the problem, who to blame and how to fix it.

The Wall Street and bank bailouts are a symptom, not a cause. The cause, is a culture of borrow and spend and tax and spend. The root of the problem is that we've been comfortable for too long in North America (and Western Europe) as it became the norm in the second half of the twentieth century to spend money before it was earned. This went for governments, corporations and individuals. The idea that we've been too comfortable may come as news to many people that have been barely making a living, however remember everything is relative; after all a bad day for a poor person in North America, could be considered a good day for someone with a disability on the streets of Calcutta. However, this notion has not stopped people, and probably rightfully so, from becoming angry and frustrated that their expectations for a high or even a decent paying job are dashed. When one observes the wealth particularly in a place like North America, it's only natural to want some of it. It's galling for a low or moderate earner to think he or she has had income confiscated to help corporations that lavish large salaries, bonuses and benefits which enabled the kind of extravagances that caused the envy behind much of the anger.  Let's be clear, contrary to popular belief, bank and wall street bailouts are NOT capitalism.

We do not have pure capitalism in North America, rather we have a form of corporatism or crony capitalism (socialism and favouritism for corporations) so those who keep pointing the finger at capitalism for today's problems are really misplacing their blame. Intuitively, most people know this but probably don't understand why. Many don't have the wherewith all to bother examining it anyway because they are still comfortable themselves. For the most part, people are still making money and able to afford cheap travel or the odd meal out which gives them the illusion of being a part of the American Dream and acts as a pacifier. The politicians know that as long as the illusion continues, they can continue business as usual. So it continues.

At some point, when you spend more than you earn, there comes a day of reckoning; you reap what you sow. We've been at that day, for over a decade, maybe longer. However nobody is prepared to take the medicine, endure the pain and correct the system so it does not happen again. So we and our governments kick the can down the road, pay people and corporations entitlements, and hope somehow that some growth, new technology or a new economic paradigm will magically arrive to solve the problem. Most of us, and all levels of government, owe more than we own which inhibits our ability to afford things we've come to expect.

Who can we blame? The Federal Reserve led by Alan Greenspan played the most integral role in the whole process of overspending, while preaching capitalism and practicing socialism. The central bankers around the world are squarely to blame for the current mess we find ourselves in. When they reduced the cost of money to below the cost of the risk borrowing represented, they encouraged banks to lend and corporations, businesses, individuals, and for that matter, governments, to borrow.  They were aided and abetted by government organizations such as Fannie and Freddie that were underwriting risks that never would have been taken if left to a free (capitalist) market. This resulted in a flood of new borrowing and spending that in many cases never should have taken place. This loose money policy was the kool-aid everybody drank, designed to encourage as much spending as possible in order to postpone the bitter medicine that should have been swallowed in 2001. If we had dealt with it then, as we should have, we (North Americans led by the US and their Federal Reserve / Central Bank) might have begun a road to some moderate fiscal health which would have prevented the meltdown in 2008, which precipitated the bank and Wall Street bailouts, currently the source of all the anger and the sound bites for the occupy movement.

What's the solution? Certainly not class warfare which seems to be the direction of the Obama administration and many in the Occupy movement. Blaming capitalism isn't the answer because we've not had it in our lifetimes. And for that matter, wealth has never been created by governments who confiscate wealth in order to function. Honestly, it's a difficult question to answer and as long as the can keeps getting kicked down the road with more loose money, bailouts, spending.... and debt, it's not a question many are willing to answer with honesty anyway. The Federal Reserve's sole function has been to line the pockets of the well to do and the banks. It should be abolished.
Related Reading: Greenspan's Bubbles: The Age of Ignorance at the Federal Reserve

The Babysitter's Away And The Kids Will Play

My friends from other countries express surprise at the outcome of last night's hockey game. My response is, why would you be surprised? You cannot fart in this province anymore without permission from the state. This is how kids behave when the babysitter's back is turned. And turned it was last night. The idiots were given a free pass to behave like anarchists. Notwithstanding, on one hand the police must be congratulated for not overreacting as they have been known to do, and I know this is going to be an unpopular comment as it is not PC to criticize Emergency Response; but police response (or lack of it in many cases), did not help much. It was way too little too late.

Armchair expert? I don't think so, I was right there. I am one of those so called "gawkers" who went downtown last night to witness what was going on. I drove a scooter down nearly every alley and street downtown and here is what I saw: I saw small numbers of idiots who were the instigators breaking things, over turning cars, burning things and breaking glass completely unchallenged. The rest were onlookers, some being entertained and some completely aghast.

The onlookers were there for the spectacle. Let's face it, that's why people go to hockey games (I am not a hockey fan) in the first place. And a spectacle they got; vandals and firebugs operated with complete impunity sometimes within feet of cops. I am convinced that if some of those idiots had been grabbed by the scruff of the necks by cops and taken away, it could have been nipped in the bud right away. Instead the cops waited, formed their riot lines with artillery and horses, waited, then threw out flash bangs and occasionally rushed the crowds. This did two things in my opinion; it further incited the crowd, which allowed the followers the time to join the leaders (who by now had momentum) in wrecking things and second it gave the gawkers the spectacle they came to see.

Look, we know the police have a tough, tough job. We appreciate what they do (for the most part). However, I have to ask the question, why are the police so afraid of heavy lifting?  For the most part they watched, apparently afraid, helpless or perhaps tethered by their own bureacracy that was unprepared. There were idiots breaking stuff right in front of them and they have to wait to do something? For what? Even I told a few people to fuck off and stop, but I was not wearing riot gear and armed. Foolish? I don't know, but my intuition and experience was that most people there were on my side and not a threat. However I quickly determined nobody was about to help me. What about getting the fire department to turn a few hoses on people?

This event reminds me of an experience I once had outside a bar in Gastown. There, two men were kicking cars and threatening bar patrons who were waiting in a lineup. I phoned 911, and the police took what seemed like forever to arrive. One showed up on a motorcycle and waited a safe distance away. Meanwhile the two guys took off, so I pursued them. I motioned and yelled to the cop to give chase with me. Only he was not about to give chase without backup which took another minute. The result? The two guys got away.

I might understand this if our cops were not armed to the teeth (but I doubt it as they are trained, which I am not). But contrary to other jurisdictions where police simply carry billy clubs, our police are armed like militia and they still cannot give chase and take them down? Excuse me?? We needed some heavy lifting the other night, not seat belt checks or to be told we cannot enjoy a glass of wine on the beach. Instead, the anarchists got symbolic victory after symbolic victory.

Oh, I can hear the spin now from mayor and chief and the predictable outcome of last night's event from the law and order types will be that we need more restrictive laws and more law enforcement. I don't think so. In fact, I think that one could instead argue that in highly restrictive environments, people do not learn personal responsibility. We've been working for decades on eroding personal responsibility in BC. And as a result it seems some even resent the nanny state so badly that they lash out whenever the opportunity arises.

So I revert to my earlier statement that you cannot fart in in this province without permission. Smoking laws, liquor laws, helmet laws, seatbelt laws, petty parking restrictions, dog leash laws, noise bylaws curfews in parks and beaches... just to name a few.  To some degree you reap what you sow.

Valentine's Day...Just Say No!

Nothing quite captures the essence of what’s wrong with modern romance than Valentine’s Day. Men emasculate themselves, while encouraging and enabling a sense of female entitlement, with the purchase of overpriced cards, flowers, dinners and other assorted trinkets. By the same token women often find themselves measuring their own worth, as they do with engagement rings, by comparing the dollar value of their haul with their friends and colleagues. It is a day which, roughly four decades after women’s liberation and feminism emerged, should be boycotted by all self respecting men who truly believe in women’s equality and who don’t need to beg for sex. More important, women who value both their own self esteem and the concept of unsolicited affection and romance, need to give this sordid hallmark moment a big miss.

It may come as a surprise to many women, and some men for that matter, that men don’t buy gifts on VD (an appropriate acronym) because they want to, rather they do it because (perhaps mistakenly) they believe women expect it. And nothing takes away the pleasure of doing something for another person, and says “forced romance” more than thinking generosity is expected. Media personality and author Marc Rudov conducted an informal poll a few years ago where he asked men and women “If you will buy your mate a Valentine’s Day gift, is it out of pure desire or a feeling of obligation? Men felt obligated over desirous by a factor of 2 and women felt desirous over obligated by a factor of nearly 4 times. Rudov’s conclusion was that men dread Valentine’s Day while women love it because as he wrote, “It’s simple: men are obligated and women are not... It’s a luxurious pleasure for a woman to give when there is no pressure for her to give, when there is no expectation for her to give.

Rudov calls chivalry “benevolent sexism” or “BS” for short and calls it phony romance. Speaking of BS, there have been lots of books written lately lamenting the shortage of good men with tips on how to find and keep the good ones. How ironic is it that men are in short supply and yet BS is expected from men instead of women? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? The pricing of commodities is dictated by the law of supply and demand, meaning that if a commodity is in short supply (healthy men with no addictions, straight white teeth, who walk upright) the price goes up. Vancouver is laughable when you consider that women still behave as if they are offering a scarce commodity when in fact, the opposite is true. Valentine’s Day is the epitome of legal prostitution and the stupidity of it is that there is no reason for it.

Notwithstanding the above, there are lots of women who don’t like VD. In fact, February 14th is really a miserable day for both genders, single or attached. If you want proof, go to any restaurant on that evening and check out the uncomfortable tie-wearing, crestfallen, suited up guys looking like beaten dogs. It is a safe assumption they would sooner be anywhere else but that table. By the same token watch for small groups of women out together. They are miserable, because they have not been invited on a date yet they feel duty bound to go out anyway. By the way boys, I am sure it does not need to be mentioned that women, out with their girlfriends on Valentine’s Day, make the easiest marks. Why? Because it is the moment in time when their self esteem is ebbing at an all time low. As radio personality Tom Leykis has suggested, surely as a man if you possess a pulse, you will get them to do unspeakable things they will inevitably regret afterward. Very good indeed.

Nobody is better off for Valentine’s Day other than the retailers. Do yourselves a favour and get lost on Valentine’s Day.

This blog is copyright Ian Tootill 2009 to 2013. All rights reserved. No unauthorized reproduction in whole or in part without permission.

The Cell Phone Ban....How's it Workin' For Ya?

Last night I spent a frustrating five minutes behind a driver who must have been paid by the hour. When it was finally safe to pass him, sure enough he was on his cell phone, despite the fact that BC has now joined many other jurisdictions in passing legislation to ban hand held device usage. As a friend of mine recently said, "I am sure glad they banned cell phones because now everybody will have their hands free for a cigarette and coffee."

What's the problem on the roads in North America really? I suspect, but cannot prove it, that driving has been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Although people have a natural inclination to get from A to B as quickly and safely as possible, and perform tasks efficiently, they have been lulled into a sense of complacency on the roads and therefore have lost their fear. A good dose of fear is what is necessary to keep ones' wits. However,fear is absent in BC where driving the speed limit on the Coquihalla Highway will put you to sleep. Below is a copy of my July 2009 essay written for The Mark online available at http://www.themarknews.com/articles?search=ian+tootill

It’s true, cell phone drivers can wreak road havoc and people should not be driving while using their phones. However, cell phones are not nearly the only or the most prevalent cause of bad driving. Politicians are falling over themselves calling for cell phone bans for drivers, but are they missing a bigger problem in the process?

Although outlawing the weapon may seem sensible, it is the traffic safety fad du jour, and will do little more than create a perception of improved safety.

Many actions besides cell phone use cause varying degrees of poor driving. This list includes reading, attending to children, personal grooming, operating various electronic devices, holding pets, eating, drinking, etc. These are all symptoms of a driving style that promotes cognitive distraction.

North American driving culture is for the most part sloppy. It is characterized by big vehicles with soft rides, creature comforts, cruise control, and space ... lots of space. Highway speed limits across Canada are set to recognize and include the skills of the lowest common denominator and the condition of the largest and worst vehicles. In turn, speed limits are routinely ignored.

Many drivers see it as perfectly OK to impede traffic on a highway by occupying a left lane, or on city streets by double-parking while engaging in casual conversation. North American consumers and governments alike have embraced this mindset.

In short, driving is not taken seriously. Is it any wonder that people comb their hair and text while they drive?

But attempting to micro-manage drivers is not the answer. Instead, we should empower competent drivers to make better decisions. Where possible, we should be educating, not legislating. Take away decisions and you lose thinking drivers, of which there is already a dearth.

Laws should be designed to be obeyed, not ignored. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in its Speed Zoning Information circular says that “laws cannot be effectively enforced without the consent and compliance of the public majority.” Laws banning cell phones will not be obeyed, and will be impractical to enforce.

The unintended consequences of a ban are likely to be dangerous. For example, in California, simply the act of holding a cell phone will net the driver a ticket and fine. So how do cell phone drivers avoid a ticket? They hide the phone in a less visible place. This will result in more danger than currently exists as the driver must shift both vision and focus.

Another unintended consequence will be merging or rear-end crashes resulting from drivers stopping or pulling over unexpectedly for an important call, causing a sharp interruption in traffic flow. Speed variance is a known cause of crashes, more so than speed itself.

According to a recent British Columbia Automobile Association (BCAA) poll, while almost 60 per cent agreed cell phone use should be restricted, nearly 50 per cent admitted to using their phone while driving. So unless many of the respondents to the poll were not drivers there exists a significant number who believe they are, or will be, above the law.

In any event, the case for a ban should be supported by more than anecdotal or circumstantial evidence showing usage and crash correlation.

The B.C. government recently published a discussion paper describing the types of research being used: observation, data using correlations, and experimental. While the first two types provide some information about contributing factors, they show correlation and not causation. The third type of study is far more engaging, but the results lead to the conclusion that the overall problem of distraction is what needs addressing.

Governments need to take the lead. They should minimize the causes of cognitive distraction and promote the safe and efficient movement of goods and people through education. The laws are already in place to punish drivers who transgress.

Driving without due care and attention should be enforced and applied to many things besides cell phone use. Cell phone distraction is merely a symptom of a greater problem that police and safety advocates should be addressing with effective public relations and existing enforcement tools.

Realistic Speed Limits Prevented by BC Politics

The Vancouver Sun originally posted this in May 2009 (I am the author), however it is gone now. Currently the BC Solicitor General is considering the merits of "Keep Right Except to Pass" so I thought a good idea to republish....

In 1996, 25,000 names were gathered in British Columbia for a petition calling for the removal of photo radar and an independent review of speed limits. The review was completed in 2002 and it revealed what most drivers already knew; that limits on some B.C. highways are set incorrectly, mostly too low.
Over the past 20 years, the B.C. population has increased by more than 30 per cent and roadways have been busier than ever thanks to a recently robust economy. Despite this, we have enjoyed a reduction in crash-related fatalities of nearly 40 per cent from a peak in 1990 -- more cars, more trips, and fewer deaths.

Yet the shrill cries of "Speed Is Killing Us" are still heard. Ironically, the enforcement emphasis during the past six years, during a period of dramatic economic growth and road use, has been rightly redirected toward offences with a higher correlation, to at-fault crashes rather than speeding.

The RCMP now issues about 250,000 tickets per year for speeding, less than half issued during the peak of photo radar. If proponents of more speed enforcement were correct, there should have been a noticeable increase in fatalities during this time. It has not happened just as it did not happen in the United States subsequent to the 1996 removal, despite intense lobbying of special interests, of the federally mandated 55-m.p.h. limit.

The RCMP leadership in B.C. can be given credit for implementing a new philosophy of targeted enforcement which has produced real improvements in highway safety, moving from speed traps to crash black spots. However, the baseline -- the law -- remains flawed.

Laws must be set with the reasonable actions of the reasonable majority in mind, and there is no value in legislation that there is neither the will nor the means to enforce. Anything to the contrary and the door opens for arbitrary abuse, as is the case with photo radar.

If a particular limit is routinely and safely disobeyed by the reasonable majority, it can hardly be called valid. Incorrectly set speed limits are a guarantee of non-compliance, necessitate more police for enforcement, are expensive for motorists (increased fines and insurance), reduce road capacity and efficiency, increase disrespect for laws in general, and can even embarrass politicians whose actions are not consistent with the laws they oversee.

So why then, did the Ministry of Transportation refuse to implement the recommendations in the report it commissioned? Further, why spend taxpayer money in the first place, if there were no plans to act on it? Answer: Politics.

Judith Reid, then minister of transportation and highways, told me during a 2003 meeting that the optics of raising speed limits were bad. Nobody wanted to be the minister during a crash fatality on a road with a higher speed limit -- especially after the public had been bombarded for several years with ICBC's "Speed Is Killing Us" propaganda. Additionally, the change needed to be approved by then solicitor-general Rich Coleman, and that was not going to happen.

An odd thing occurs with the subject of speeding; few drivers see themselves as speeders. While many gasp at tickets for 40 km/h over the posted speed, few connect the dots and realize that most drivers are technically speeding when conditions are good. So if the legal speed limit on a highway is 90 km/h and 85 per cent of the drivers are travelling 110 or 115, the question should be: Are they travelling excessively over the safe speed for conditions? In B.C., the answer is often no.

Highway safety requires two key ingredients: minimal speed variance and reduced traffic volume. Increasing highway capacity and design speed is one way the government reduces volume, but danger increases when vehicles impede others.

A much-needed improvement in B.C. is "Keep Right Except To Pass" legislation allowing police to enforce signage recently placed on highways to enhance safety, by reducing both vehicle interactions and speed variance, HOV lanes included. The Institute of Transportation Engineers recommends setting speed limits based upon an upper limit (85th percentile) of free-flow vehicle speeds.

Drivers naturally comply with limits viewed as reasonable, thus reducing speed variance and potential interactions between vehicles. Everybody wins; scofflaws are fewer and easy to apprehend, drivers are safer and politicians need not fear their driving records.

Send Money Where It's Needed?

A letter appeared today in The Vancouver Sun from Dr. Tom Perry as follows:

"Is it ethical to proceed with spending more than $1 billion on security for the "Olympic family" or should we divert at least some of those dollars, police and military personnel and health workers to Haiti, where they could really make us proud to be Canadians?
I volunteer my share of Olympic tax dollars for Haiti, instead of Whistler. How about it, Prime Minister Harper and Premier Campbell?"

Dr. Perry is the former socialist Vancouver MLA that brought us the bicycle helmet law among other NDP annoyances. In his letter he can be seen arguing for the freedom to choose however, judging by his letter and past intrusive (albeit unenforceable) legislation, dictating how we dress to ride our bicycles, he clearly does not support freedom to choose for others beside himself.

You see the questions he should really be asking in his letter are: "Is it ethical to confiscate tax dollars to pay for a party?". Or, "Is it ethical to ask only Vancouver citizens in a vote whether they want the Olympics, only to go ahead and proceed anyway while expecting the rest of BC and Canada to pay?" Or maybe, "Is it ethical to confiscate money to pay for discretionary events, thereby reducing money available to devote to more important events... like helping the people of Haiti?".

He does not ask the above, rather he wants Canadians and BC'ers to divert his tax dollars being spent on the Olympics security to be spent in Haiti instead.

I don't get it. Presumably in the eyes of anti choice tax and spenders like Dr. Perry, Olympics security is a discretionary expense and not one of necessity.

Wrong...unless complete incompetence reigns over those responsible for Olympic security budgeting (admittedly a distinct possibility) and we have been misled, security is not discretionary.

However, the Olympics themselves were discretionary and if taxes were only imposed strictly for necessity, Dr. Perry and the rest of us would not have to pay for the Olympics. Therefore redirecting taxes from security would be a moot point and the Dr. would be free to take his money and send it where ever he wants. I wonder if he voted yes for the Olympics?

Ironically the outcome, of this "no choice" discretionary spending for a party which has been imposed on Dr. Perry and everybody else, has been and will be less choice in both where and how we spend money.

Haiti should be a wake up call in defining discretionary vs necessary.