Something on my Mind: What? Hollywood has Morals?

I have been very disturbed with the sexual assault movement that has been growing for these past few months. I thought that by the time I sat down to write at least one column about it, it would be old news.

Sorry to say, it is more relevant and growing more than ever before. And it's long overdue.

What started out as an isolated charge against a twisted Hollywood mogul has exploded into many charges against the same individual, now multiplied against many others in Tinseltown. And from there it has spilled over to the media and politics. Some church systems and schools, of course, have been at the forefront of sexual impropriety for years.

I can hardly think of anything more reprehensible than taking advantage of vulnerable young women to satisfy one's sexual fantasies. And on the other hand, it takes a lot of courage and moxie to stand up and speak against such evil. And I believe that when the charges are proven, the perps should have the book thrown at them.

Whether justice will be served is another question.

I am isolating Hollywood for most of this column, though the media, politics, and other contexts could easily apply. Hollywood seems to be having its disproportionate share of these accusations, so a thousand thoughts flood my mind. Okay, maybe just a few, but enough to fill a column.

For starters, when I think of Hollywood, I think automatically of sex and sleaze. In other words, I would be more shocked if I read of these things happening, say, with the RCMP and schools. Why? Well, because the Hollywood environment is ripe for that behaviour to take place, though I see now that the RCMP and schools are not too far behind.

When it comes to what Hollywood represents, it's not surprising, then, that that abuse occurs. The environment for such sordid behaviour is there and it's surprising there aren't other charges of inappropriate behaviour. Maybe there are and we'll hear about them in the months to come.

I am aware of the cinematic filth that Hollywood produces these days and it angers yet saddens me that the studios—from actors and actresses to directors and producers—have to stoop to that level. And what we're hearing about now is actually going on behind closed doors. Very grievous, indeed.

Movies can be such a vital tool for education and entertainment that there is no need to sell themselves at the sex level. However, Hollywood has sold itself that way for decades, and is getting worse by the year—that is one reason why it's in the trouble it is.

Then just out of the blue, when I think of the MSU situation (Dr. Larry Nassar), I see a completely different set of circumstances. For years Nassar preyed on innocent young women, in varying degrees, creating moral, sexual, and emotional havoc in the lives of those who came to trust him.

These were not women who were compromising their morals to climb a career ladder. These were not women who, in turn, were involved in the moral cesspool that Hollywood is known for. These were not women who have displayed some loose living.

Rather, these were women were young, promising athletes who suffered the humiliation of sexual abuse at the hands (literally) of a sexual predator whom they trusted as a doctor and mentor. Over the course of time, they lost their innocence, trust and hope—all virtually irreplaceable qualities.

I wonder when and where it will end. For the myriads of us men who do keep our hands and thoughts to ourselves, who are not guilty of committing sexual crimes against women, and who do not feed an insatiable appetite of flesh, are we ourselves safe? That is, safe from trumped-up allegations and innuendos, or worse, baseless charges.

An over-reaction to this would be the end of kind warm genuine hugs, looks, or even words that could be misconstrued for something inappropriate. That's a very unfortunate fallout which will result from this whole crisis, but what can we do?

Better to be safe than sorry. It's just too bad we have to learn this lesson from Hollywood.

Something on my Mind: Don't Cook the Golden Goose (4)

I never thought that such a simple story about a goose and golden eggs could produce as many columns as it has. Are you still with me?

A quick review is in order here: The goose could represent big or small business and industry, or individual families or people agencies. There is economic benefit, both directly and indirectly, by not being taxed and regulated to death. By over-taxation and over-regulation, the producer of what is good (the bird itself and the eggs it produces), is stifled, squashed and finally taken out—all to the detriment of a free society.

There: Strange, isn't it, how I am able to summarize in one paragraph what took me three columns to write?

The application of business or volunteerism (I am isolating one sample from each application) is very relevant to where we are in Alberta today. When there is a top-down government motivated by a socialist worldview, we have this golden goose scenario played out. When there is no fresh, unrestricted, healthy economic environment providing opportunities to build, sell, serve, or give, the results can be a very difficult place to thrive.

The spirit of of free enterprise must not be reigned in. We need to encourage ambition, initiative, and creativity. Again, whether it's at the business investment or the local service level, it's all the same.

Government at any level should be pro-business and pro-family. The two work together for the good of society on a large scale and for the individual on a small scale. When the "goose" thrives, good results, and all benefit. Anything less is simply not good enough. In fact, it is counter-productive.

This province has so much untapped potential, both to restore what has been stripped away and to create what has never been done before. There needs to be freedom that stimulates entrepreneurship and imagination.

I want to say "no strings attached," but that may be too generous. Also, so long as the string doesn't become a noose or restrictive tether, I'm good.

When government is good, there's nothing like it; but when government is bad, there's nothing like it either. (That, by the way, applies to all governments.)

The key is to unbind the entrepreneurial free spirits, whether they are corporations, industry, or small mom-and-pop enterprises, or individual families, and agencies, and let them go.

I think the goose analogy is a perfect illustration of what this is all about: feed and nourish vision, get the community working together, have limited government interference, then sit back and watch things grow.

I was a kid in British Columbia when W.A.C. Bennett ruled. Since then, BC has never been the same, even though it's the same province, same populace, with all the same ingredients.

I see the same destructive, erosive potential for Alberta. We've just got to create that optimum environment for the "golden egg-layers" and let them thrive.

Bring on the birds!

Something on my Mind: Don't Cook the Golden Goose (3)

I don't think I have to go over the details of a modern-day application of the golden goose story; just re-read last week's column, if you need to. Suffice to say, there's a lesson here for all of us in how we handle the golden goose of economics.

You will recall that the two options are to either foster its growth or kill it slowly through taxation and regulation. The choices are really quite simple: sustain its development by sound financial and common sense rules or run it out of town, to flourish elsewhere.

With this business model, I suppose there's a third option, though it's tied into the second one: Keep it alive, somehow, but restrain and restrict it so much that it may survive but will never thrive. I see this happening in my travels throughout the province. My angst is the loss of what could be happening.

And when I speak of business, I don't limit my thoughts to huge corporations. That's a good place to start, but I'm also thinking of fast-food outlets, agriculture-based businesses and dealerships, and all types of services agencies, just for starters.

Actually, the metaphor of the golden goose has yet another application. Not a better one, necessarily, just another one: Lessons about individual families and people agencies are easily found in this metaphor.

The golden goose = families and agencies) will produce so much gold (= service, volunteerism, and charitable giving). Muzzle them, deceive them, even control them, and we get...well, we get what I see developing here in Alberta.

I side with the Oxford Canadian Dictionary , by the way, because it defines families this way: [they are] comprised of "a couple and their children regarded as a basic social unit." I am not excluding singles or grandparents, or other volunteer organizations, not for a moment. In fact, I see them them as extensions of both.

When families and agencies are unleashed, and are allowed to carry out their heartfelt, genuine response (and responsibility) to meet certain needs, there is no limit to what "golden eggs" of goodness and random acts of kindness they can produce.

How? Let me repeat those three ways: service, volunteerism, and charitable donations. What part of the free-will giving of time, money, and availability do you not get?

I do not have documented facts and figures at my fingertips, in terms of the power of a free and freed people. But I have read of the disproportionate giving (of selves and money) that marks this element of society. Curtailing consistent goodwill would be a devastating blow to our economy.

I speak specifically of service agencies, camps, schools, medical clinics, homes for abused women and children, street ministries, drop-in centres for youth, food banks, soup kitchens, thrift stores, and the list goes on. Multi-generational and multi-layered areas of society rely heavily on the good work and goodwill of dedicated volunteers, without one dime of government money to help.

Denying, then destroying, the populace the opportunity to serve, volunteer, and give, is the mark of a short-sighted leadership. Then to finally do away with the golden goose of free labour is detrimental to a huge component of the society that benefits the powers-that-be both time and money. Why don't they get it?

I know of many from this area who have volunteered their time for decades in Haiti and seen their success there. I've heard of others recently who went to help in Puerto Rico, for example, after its recent devastating hurricane.

Then there's a parallel account for both countries, except the workers were paid. Which model had the most publicity? Right. But which one had the most success? Right again. And which one didn't cost the government a nickel? Boy, you're good!

My point is that there is a real shortsighted danger—even "irresponsibility"-- to disregard the goose producing the golden eggs of "service, volunteerism, and charitable donations" by over-taxation and over-regulation.

My computer is starting to steam, so I better back off. I'll finish next week.

Something on my Mind: Don't Cook the Golden Goose (2)

Last week I left you hanging with the now tarnished golden goose. Shortsighted wise guys got in the way, as they always do, shutting everything down.

To recap: after all these years, the goose was eliminated, the farm was shut down, the houses were boarded up, as the families have moved away, and all the goose-related jobs have moved elsewhere—probably to Mexico—all for want of shortsighted and ignorant economics.

This "golden goose" story has nothing to do with food, eating, or meat. It actually has everything to do with how we treat business and industry through sound economic strategies. I'm sure you got that, but I'm spelling it out for you, just in case.

There's actually a further application, but that will in another column.

I'm also sure you understand that business and industry, both big and small, drive the economy. They, in turn, draw from natural resources. The former is the steering wheel, the latter is the engine, if you will. By doing so, they create multi-layered success in every nook and cranny throughout the province.

Shortsighted, wise guys will often step in and attempt to kill the proverbial golden goose. The eggs themselves are the outcome, the benefit of a healthy laying goose—which is the primary focus here. This is a sad tale all across our land, where job-generating business are able to move into an area that's abundant in primary resources, turn them into secondary resources (maybe even tertiary resources) creating a win-win (-win) situation.

The spin-offs are enormous: greater tax base, direct and indirect employment, with workers bringing their families. The direct pin-off effect is housing, schooling, and shopping opportunities. The shopping needs then produce further businesses to service the growing population, and the cycle continues.

However, the powers-that-be, with all their silly restrictions and senseless restraints, step in and impede progress. The abuse of this individual rights notion, the alleged environmental issues, and even money natters, all factor in to why geese are being slaughtered everywhere these days.

And so the word gets out: this land or that community is not a good place to invest in geese. So all the potential investment gets held back or pulled out—that's shortsightedness of the highest order.

You see, on the one hand, if there are genuine issues with individuals rights, the environment, and money, they must be dealt with swiftly, logically, and reasonably. Sometimes they do pop up.

But on the other hand, my sincere loathing is that this limited understanding of the economical benefit to encouraging a free enterprise, open market system works is what really butchers the bird.

Shortsighted wise guys often get in the way With their limited economical savvy, they kill the very thing that is producing so many good things for the local and provincial economy.

Probably the best (or is it "worst"?) way to kill any economical golden goose is through taxation. Say what you like about Donald Trump: his recent adjustment on taxation is putting the American economy over the top. It's thriving like it hasn't in decades.

A second way to kill the goose is over-regulation. I know you know that; it's those in a position of power that don't seem to grasp it. Even those who manage to survive initially will eventually just pack up and fly the coop elsewhere.

Conversely, giving businesses more freedom and less restriction is one of the greatest decisions any government can do for its people, economically. Backing off is what a reasonable, rational government should do; stepping in is a shortsighted way to quash economic growth.

There is a further application of the golden goose, which we shall look at next week.