More “You Can’t Have it Both Ways”

I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.

Will Rogers

Summer must be the hardest time to write, particularly when you put pressure on yourself to produce.  After two false starts, let’s see what we can come up with today. 

There have been a few examples of people or organizations trying to have it both ways recently.  Actually, people are trying to do that all the time, but here are a few that stand out.

A few months ago, one of the large media companies was trying to buy a smaller company in the same business.  At the hearings before the Canadian Radio Television Commission (CRTC), who must approve such a sale, the main rival of the buying company insisted that the sale should only be approved if the buyer was forced to sell one of the entities of the company to be bought.  And oh by the way, the rival said, we would like to buy the entity when it is sold. 

Our dear federal government is refusing to turn over documentation about military procurement projects to the Parliamentary Budget Office, an office that they themselves set up.  Their argument is that it is “beyond the mandate” of this organization.  This at a time when government procurement, particularly for the military, is in the worst shape it has been in for as long as I can remember.  You would think in these circumstances, the government would appreciate any help they could get.  This is the same government that wanted to monitor your e-mail and tap your phone calls without a legal warrant.  Maybe our government should heed the words of John Stuart Mill, “If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind.”

It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem.

  - Malcolm Forbes

The Ottawa Mayor and council have got themselves in trouble because they wouldn’t listen to the people about whether or not they wanted a casino, or two, or three, but who’s counting.  They are charging ahead with decisions that aren’t even required yet and getting themselves boxed into a corner of their own making.  They have committed to one location and operator for something that cries out for a competitive process.  By doing so, they run a real risk of being sued by other potential bidders.  Now their only hope is that the next level of government will bail them out by allowing them to have two casinos, something that the provincial government has indicated they are not willing to do.  Even Toronto only gets one.  This is all being decided when they don’t even know if the majority of city voters want even one casino.  As one eminent personage from the past has said, “When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision.”

In the United States, the “stand your ground” laws of several states are coming under attack.  The problem is not with those laws; it is with the whole concept of the “right” of gun ownership as it is practiced there.  Once you have allowed unfettered access to the sale and ownership of guns, the “stand your ground” laws are inevitable in order to justify the possession and use of the weapons.  After all, what is the use of buying these weapons if you cannot put them to good use in defending yourself?  And if the usual definition of self-defence limits your ability to do that, then you have to have laws that condone the action.  It’s just common sense, or complete nonsense, depending on your point of view.