Foremost on my Mind: Fiscal Cliff on Skates

I don't know if you were aware of it, but there were two—count'em, two—big stories in the news these past few weeks. (There were actually far more than two, but it just dawned on me that these two weren't actually the same story!)

The first one has to do with something called a “fiscal cliff”--more money troubles for our friends south of Sweetgrass. Then there was something called the NHL lockout. It's confusing to a simple man like me: When I heard comments about one, I thought it was the other. And while I don't believe they are one and the same, they could easily have been--if you take a deep breath and work with me.

When I think of “cliff,” for example, I think of lemmings running off one, with reckless abandonment. I like the lemmings imagery, so let's work with that. You see, with lemmings, I think of a mindless mass of followers, chasing something elusive and imaginary, all to their self-destruction.

To repeat: Mindless people following something that leads to nowhere but down. Whether they're coming or going, you might say it's downhill all the way for politicians and athletes. And I think we have our first link between these events.

You're saying to yourself: Is that nutcase columnist talking about the American Senate or professional hockey players? My short answer is, Yes; and my long answer is, Yes, Yes.

Here's another connection: It's all about the misuse of money. Whether it's Obama and his cabal of clowns, or Fehr and his insatiable greed for power—as he leads the players with their insatiable greed for more money—the link is just too obvious to ignore.

Two questions come to mind when it comes to both dilemmas: How do you spend what you don't have, and how much is too much? I could reverse the questions (uh, Maurice, that means the first one could be for the hockey players and the second one is for the politicians), and it would still work.

I wonder what would happen if the roles were reversed; that is, if the politicians played hockey and the hockey players tried to ruin, sorry, run the country. The hockey players would likely lobby for longer terms in office, with no possibility to be cut from congress and an increase in salary for every year served. And the politicians would likely do something idiotic, like shoot on their own net.

At the end of the day, it comes down to irresponsible thugs looking out for themselves.

I can't get my head around the gazillions of dollars that's at stake with the so-called fiscal cliff. I'm a Language Arts guy, not a Math guy, but I do run a home based on a budget. If I want to stay out of financial trouble, then I spend no more than what I take in. Too much C-R-E-D-I-T, you might say, is a four-letter word in our home.

As someone once said, if my output is greater than my income, then my upkeep will be my downfall. Too bad the government and the NHL don't live by that maxim.

I think I found another connection between fiscal cliff and hockey lockout: Don't punish the wrong people. The politicians want to increase the tax on the rich, the entrepreneurs, the self-starters, and the job-providers. Stupid move, I say, on their part. I suggest start with the politicians themselves: Cut their own incomes and perks by a third, and take it from there. Lead by doing.

And the same goes for those hockey players: Let's start with those abominable salaries—provided by the very owners who locked them out. But their obstinacy never affected the rich (read: the owners, the very people the fiscal cliff is impacting—ironically, another link); no, it affected the middle-class, the ordinary, common people like, well, you and me.

Either way, the whole bunch of them are, ahem, skating on thin ice.

Foremost on my Mind: More Idle? No!

I was thrilled when I was first apprised of the Idle No More movement.

Finally, I said to myself, they are going to be “idle no more.” It has been a genuine concern of mine to see the massive unemployment rate that pervades the First Nation culture, a problem on the reserves since their inception.

You, my readers, along with millions of Canadians, of course, are aware that the Idle No More is the farthest thing from my initial (mis)understanding. Only people who are still idle (as in doing nothing constructive on a regular basis) would be free to plant themselves on national and provincial highways, border crossings, and train tracks, in order to make their so-called plight known.

At the point of writing, there have been no arrests, no overtures, and in fact, no discussions.

In a world that has turned upside down in these past forty years, I am not surprised. However, decades after decades of mismanagement and misinformation has produced a spirit of entitlement and disillusionment, and Idle No More is the (direct) result. A generation ago, these people would be arrested and hauled off to court, rightly or wrongly. I'm sure there's a happy medium in there somewhere.

If I did it, for whatever possible legitimate cause, I would be arrested. Even places where they butcher unborn babies, there's such a thing as buffer zones—a territory set apart where people who care for the lives of innocent victims are disallowed. In fact, when I was at one of the two rallies for parental rights at the Legislative Building last winter, we respected where and how we could protest our indignation.

Civil protests are not only allowed in a democratic society, they are encouraged. But Idle No More has crossed the line (and there could be a pun in there, if you want) too many times.

There's no way that my advice would be sought—wrong skin colour, wrong gender, wrong genetics—but if it was, I would give a couple of sincere suggestions:

One, talk to your chiefs, your elders. Press them to interface with the government and its agents (also known as ministers and bureaucrats). You are directing your venom at the wrong people. There is a process in place, as part of the Indian Act, whereby money and rights are passed along to the reserves by parliament—not newspapers and common citizens. In a civilized culture, where we dialogue (even with those with whom we disagree) and discuss our differences. There is no place for public defiance and disruption. Disturbing the peace is cultural terrorism and it doesn't work.

Two, talk to your chiefs, your elders. Again, if the first attempt doesn't work. Ask them, politely yet pointedly, where is all the money that has been earmarked for employment, education, and health. Hold those elders accountable for the money they've received. For that matter, I'd like to know, too.

You see, there's a lot of money being deposited into every reserve in Canada. As a taxpayer, I like to know why it isn't producing positive results; and as an educator, I am very alarmed at certain classroom trends.

I think that could sound racist, but it's not: These are first-hand reports and have nothing whatsoever to do with anti-native sentiments.

But my Idle No More friends, please don't take your anger, frustration, and anarchy out on the ordinary common citizens of Canada. I never wrote the Indian Act; I never put your forefathers on reserves; I have never told a racist joke; and I have no power to improve your situation.

I humbly posit that you have been fed a pack of lies from your leaders, who got them from their leaders, and so on. Trashing the land and threatening the economy will get you nowhere, whether you're on or off the reserve. We don't; that's just not how a civilized culture works.

As a student of history, by the way, I would like to sit down with those who have presented you with a revisionist form of history, and discuss with them the other first nations that may have preceded you—the Irish, the Phoenicians, Scandinavians, and the Egyptians, for starters. Bet you never learned that in Socials 10.

If you really don't feel you've been given a fair shake, please cross over to my world. I would welcome you with open arms. We'd have a better Canada if we operated as one voice, one unit, yet respecting the many varied cultures that make up its mosaic.

Just don't be “idle” no more, please. It doesn't, uh, work.

Foremost on my Mind: Name It and Claim It

One of the things I would give even more serious consideration to, if I were starting a family over again, would be the naming of my children. I like the names my wife and I gave our kids, and I think they do, too. We gave them three each, and of the 27, only one is a traditional, family name: One of my second son's middle names is that of my father, who had just passed away weeks before his birth. (That actually worked out well, as my father-in-law bears the same name.)

My eccentric idea would be to name the children after geographical spots in British Columbia or Alberta—be they lakes, rivers, or towns. I would do it in a tasteful way, as I don't think Stony Plain Funston or Spruce Grove Funston would fly. However, Camrose Funston or Bentley Funston sounds kind of cool.

The same could be said for the other side of the Rockies: Not sure if Salmon Arm Funston or Deep Cove Funston would be a hit with the kids, but I think Chetwynd Funston or Nelson Funston would.

Then there are the the nicknames: Vanderhoof could become Hoofy, Revelstoke to Revey. What's a nickname for Vauxhall—Vauxy? Vulcan—Vully?

(It's okay, Maurice, I am getting to my point.)

There are a host of Biblical names that I would like, too, but such monikers would become proverbial albatrosses, if said child didn't embrace the faith of his or her namesake. Same could be said for historical names. What would happen if, say, I produced a Winston Funston, but he ended up being more like Adolf? Reagan Funston, but she ended up being more like a Clinton?

Touchy, tasteless, and tormented, indeed.

So far as I know, I am not in the baby-naming business anymore. I just name cows, that's all. But if I were--that is, if someone like you asked me for suggestions--I would have a short list of names not to have. You may think of others may as you read this.

For the sake of the your children, especially the boys, don't name your kids any of the following: Gary, Bill, Donald, or Steve. Just for the record, these are the guys that bring you NHL hockey—or, in today's context, appeared to try to not bring you NHL hockey.

And for the sake of your children of the girl type, stay away from the following: Gaga, Madonna, Alison, or Sandy. The first two are fairly obvious (= questionable role models), and the next one is suggested only because of my personal right-of-centre leanings. (That's too bad, as I like the name personally, and have a cousin by that same.) As for Sandy, well, hurricanes and devastation, anyone?

As you know, I am not called by my first name, for which I thank the stars up above, Statistics Canada, and my parents—hey, wait, they're the ones who gave me the name!--and I like the name Craig, thank you very much.

It's my last name that gives me fits, and I have been called any number of things—Funkston, Fungston, Fungus—but my most common first name has never been messed up. Let's keep it that way, please.

But please, don't you ever call me Craigy-Baby.

Foremost on my Mind: With no Reserve

I still long for the day that free speech will once again be permitted in a country once known as Canada. Free speech is the opportunity to express one's opinion, conviction, and even alarm at trends that are threats to a stable economy or religious freedom, even family life—or at least appear that way.

Many of us who cherish the values and virtues of a former Canada are duly alarmed at the inability to speak up and speak out, for fear of being labelled as hate-mongers, bigots, or racists.

Funny how, when the proverbial shoe is on the other foot, there is no issue whatsoever.

Here are my credentials for expressing a measured opinion: I have been married to the same wife for almost 32 years (and never been unfaithful to her or my family), have always paid my taxes (and on time), have stayed out of jail (so far!), have lost the odd job but have always been employed, and so on. I believe that gives me some weight to express my concern when it comes to the current state of abuses of public money.

I am thinking this time of the Department of Indian Affairs. And reading blog comments from a variety of sources, I am not alone. What shocks me (and thrills me, via a strange, ironic twist) is the fact that many of the comments are coming from First Nations people, who have left the reserve system themselves.

A case in point is the financial challenges on the Atlawapiskat First Nation in northern Ontario. According to an independent and objective audit, between April 2005 and November 2011, $104.0 million passed through that reserve's hands.

After all that money went through, targeted for “sewage, housing, education, and other services,” there was no documentation for 60% of the money, and a whopping 81% had inadequate documentation. Many of us are aware of the allegations of corruption at the leadership level on these reserves, but this takes one's breath away.

That's one reserve in Canada alone. Multiply that by the number of reserves in Canada, and the amount could be in the billions of dollars. Are they are all like that? Don't know: Maybe there should be more audits.

By the way, that's your money that is being unaccounted for. It's going somewhere, to be sure, just not towards the intended targets, namely, “sewage, housing, education, and other services.”

No wonder there is a spotty paper trail at the top.

(To be sure, I am well aware of certain bands in BC—Osoyoos, Westbank, Kelowna, and Kamloops come to mind—who are wonderful models of the free entrepreneurship system. At least they're spending our money well, with strong economic advances to show for it.)

In my opinion, the whole reserve system has been a colossal failure; it has been broken for decades. I have often thought of them as social, moral, financial, and cultural ghettos. They are marked by isolation, double-standards, and complete lack of accountability. Between government expenditures as well as vocational and educational outcomes, one wonders how much longer this system can survive.

It would be of great benefit for all stakeholders—government, First Nations, and taxpayers—if this issue was re-visited and dealt with, once and for all. I have some concrete suggestions, but they may be construed as hate-mongering.

Stiffing our First Nations by isolating them in these ghettos was the first mistake. However, continuing to keep them there, with absolutely no future has become another mistake. Pouring yet even more money, with less-than-ever accountability would be a further mistake.

But the worst mistake would be limiting the taxpayer, like me, from at least expressing a sincere outrage at this cultural circus.