My mind is boggled, so help me out, folks. Poll after poll confirms that Canadians are turned off by politics. In fact, only 15% still pay attention to political news. Hence, fewer and fewer voters bother to turn out on election day in federal, provincial and municipal elections. One thing most people criticize about politicians is that they won’t tell the truth. They accuse them of saying one thing, but believing something entirely else, which, surely, must mean that they have some sort of “hidden agenda”.

Why, then, must a politician who, in a refreshingly overt manner, speaks straight from the heart, as senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu did, apologize and allow himself to be exposed to vulgar insults? Shouldn’t his colleagues and the public congratulate him for breaking the stereotypical mould of politicians?

Boisvenu, whose own daughter was raped and murdered by a repeat offender who shouldn’t have been allowed to roam freely, shared his true feelings about hardcore killers, saying that they should be given a rope so that they can hang themselves, if they so choose. Call it “DIY death penalty”, if you will.

He knew full well that his musings wouldn’t result in a new bill, let alone a law, that would provide for just that: a rope in every jail cell for killers to hang themselves with. Let’s say he vented, and in his position and with his background, that’s more than understandable.

In return for his remarks, he was called an “asshole” by NDP MP Pat Martin. In recent weeks and months, there’s been a veritable epidemic of foul and four-letter language coming from the left-wing opposition benches, from NDP MPs and also Liberal MP Justin Trudeau, who referred to a Conservative minister as a “piece of shit“. Not exactly the decorum one expects of elected officials.

That’s not surprising, because left-wingers, when (not if) they lose an argument with someone from the right, resort to insults, threats and even, in extreme cases, violence. This is part of their genetic code; they just can’t help themselves. They’re like preprogrammed robots in this way.

Let’s be clear: Boisvenu has no reason or cause to apologize for his remarks. For one thing, he was truthful and candid about his feelings, which is exactly what Canadian voters want to see more, not less, of. For another, he said what a majority of Canadians think. A clear majority of Canadians would actually vote to bring back the death penalty, as evidenced by several polls taken on the subject over the last few years.

Canadians haven’t suddenly developed some kind of blood lust, but they have been exposed to stories of horrendous and brutal murders over the years, such as more recently the vile Shafia “honour killing” case. It is in such cases of immense brutality and disregard for the value of human life that most Canadians have come to agree that the perpetrators of such crimes should be eliminated permanently, instead of wasting millions of dollars on their upkeep behind bars.

Boisvenu’s suggestion of issuing rope to such killers is actually quite a humane solution to the vexing question of capital punishment. Despite his own tragic loss, Boisvenu still finds enough compassion in his heart to grant those monsters the right to make the life-or-death decision themselves, rather than imposing the death penalty on them.

The senator should be praised and celebrated for his candour and truthfulness, not to mention the ingenuity and magnanimity behind his proposal.

We’re not that far from the NDP leadership vote anymore, and frontrunners are easier to spot now. Thomas Mulcair, once touted as the one to beat, has seriously underperformed. Not only did he fail to show up for a leadership debate recently, he’s also still a French citizen (by choice). Even the late Jack Layton was dead set against political leaders maintaining two citizenships (and thus split loyalties).

If one is to believe the reports and analyses in the media, the one to be beat now is Nathan Cullen. Cullen also came clean about the “coalition/putsch fiasco” a few years ago, when the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois decided (weeks ahead of the federal election) that they wouldn’t accept an outcome that returned Stephen Harper to 24 Sussex Drive. The attempt to overthrow the freshly elected Harper government failed, and the majority of Canadians still consider it nothing short of a coup d’état that went seriously wrong for the opposition parties. Some believe, for example, that the Liberals’ abysmal showing in the last federal election was payback for then-leader Stéphane Dion’s audacity to think that he was entitled to become prime minister (after he himself had been rejected by around 77% of the voters).

But for Cullen, the real mistake was not to attempt the putsch in the first place, but that the NDP and Liberal agreed to join forces with the separatist Bloc, resulting in a really lousy “photo op” that still haunts the two federal parties today.

Consequently, Cullen seems open to the idea of cooperating or even merging with the Liberals. At the rate the NDP is losing support, however, the Liberals may have become the second strongest party in popular support by the time of the next election. That would place a gigantic question mark over the Liberals’ willingness to partner up, however loosely, with a much weaker NDP then.

Here’s what we do know: the NDP got to its best place ever last spring on account of Jack Layton. With him gone, most of the one-off NDP voters have begun to lose interest in the party again, both in Quebec and elsewhere across the country. The Liberals would have to make a really big mess of their own leadership vote in 2013 – by electing another dud like Dion, or allowing current interim leader Bob Rae to move into a more permanent position – for the NDP’s fortunes to rise again.

I still think that the Liberals and NDP should go together, regardless. And here’s why: the two parts would likely radicalize each other, to the point where the new party could rightly be called the “Labour Party of Canada” (that is, Labour Party as in Gordon Brown, rather than Tony Blair). That word, labour, alone is becoming more and more of a red rag to Canadians, as they associate it with labour unions that keep taking all the benefits and high salaries, while the ordinary hardworking Canadian ends up with squat-all. And there’s finally a mood building up against unions in this country. (Quite likely, we’ll see our own versions of “right-to-work” legislation in due course.)

Such a “Labour Party” would send a lot of Liberals into the arms of the Conservative Party, while itself becoming highly unelectable. A scenario like this could give us years and years of political peace and actual progress (as opposed to what “progressives” – i.e., regressives – consider progress).

Man, Prime Minister Stephen Harper certainly put his finger into one heck of a hornet’s nest when he announced, from a conference in Switzerland, that his government was pondering some drastic changes to the public pension scheme.

Was it really such a grand faux-pas as the left-wing opposition makes it out to be? He merely reiterated what economists have been saying and warning about for years. At some point in a not-so-distant future, government pension plans will have become unaffordable due to the greying of society. One forecast speaks of government spending reaching $108 billion by 2030, for example. Obviously, something needs to be done now to prevent disaster later on.

Harper didn’t say that he would take away money from today’s pensioners or anyone coming close to retiring. The main element of his plan is to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67. Big deal. Several other countries have already set similar plans into motion.

People live much longer today than in the days when all those government programs were hatched. Nowadays, in fact, we’re seeing cases of people who have been forced into retirement at 65 against their will, and despite still being of extremely sound mind and body, simply because the law says so.

That’s not a socially benign approach at all. A healthy 65-year-old could easily deteriorate mentally and physically and then die when forced retirement takes away his will to live. More flexibility is definitely called for, and adding another two years before an employee can be “retired away” is a good start.

The way we’re going, and with medical breakthroughs hitting the news daily, it’s very likely that those who are in their forties today will be able to work to 70 or 75. Naturally, there will be exceptions, as there are today, and for those there will be early retirement options, perhaps coupled with disability benefits, so there is no reason to force that number 65 down everyone’s throat.

Naomi Lakritz, of the Calgary Herald, may not like it, but that’s just her being contrarian. After suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome and now thinking that she might have to stop writing columns way before the age of 65, she’s probably in a frame of mind right now that would make her call for a reduction of the retirement age, such as to 55, but that’s not realistic.

Her world may look hopeless right now, but she ignores a wonderful world of technical options available to her that she can use to hammer out her columns and articles without straining her typing fingers (dictation software has made tremendous headway, and once Siri becomes available on iMacs, there’ll be very little need for typing – if Siri continues to work as flawlessly as it does on the iPhone).

Carpal tunnel syndrome or no, people with sedentary occupations, such as column writers, can definitely be made to work to 67 or beyond that. If Lakritz were a factory worker who was required to lift heavy loads on a regular basis, but had a really bad back or other physical ailments, it would go without saying that she should be allowed to retire, take her package and call it a day.

And that’s really at the core of the issue: most jobs today, and especially tomorrow, don’t require much physical input anymore. The advances we have made, and continue to make, in technology are simply mind-blowing in terms of the speed with which they arrive when we consider that humanity spent thousands of years in the “wilderness” by comparison before making a huge quantum leap just in the last one hundred years alone, and even more so over the last fifty years.

Manufacturing, that is, hard physical labour, is increasingly becoming the stuff of lore in the Western world, and those few who keep at it will be accommodated for sure when it comes to clarifying the age at which they can retire.

So, the left-wing opposition, and any senior citizens who have been unnecessarily alarmed or panicked by the likes of the Liberals and NDP, should simmer down and chill. All that outrage, feigned or otherwise, will achieve only one thing: members of the left-wing opposition may not live long enough to see 65 candles on their birthday cakes.

Ian Thomson, a farmer in Ontario, was forced to make a tough decision in 2010: when a group of thugs attacked his farmhouse with firebombs and shouted, “Are you ready to die?”, Thomson got out his rifle and fired warning shots at his potential killers. They ran off, but Thomson was charged with firearm violations.

Thomson only did what any reasonable person caught in such circumstances would do: defend his property and his life with everything he got. Hearing “Are you ready to die?” would tell anyone that it’s time to pick up whatever passes for a weapon and start a fight for one’s life, to the last breath if necessary.

In my view, that is, based on common sense, Thomson (unnecessarily) went the extra mile by firing warning shots, instead of aiming straight between the eyes of those criminals. I would not have been as generous had I been in his shoes. The warning shots may have put him at an additional risk. He went back to his bedroom to load a second gun, because, as he says, there was a strong possibility they might come back and finish him off.

And that risk was very real. If he had shot to kill first, that risk may well have been minimized or eliminated entirely.

For the Crown to subject him to a trial is a travesty beyond belief. Not wanting to make light of the very real crime perpetrated against so many women, rape, but Thomson is being raped by the “justice” system again and again. Call it the re-victimization of a victimized victim, if you will – not at the hands of criminals, but those of the state that is supposed to serve and protect, not rape, you.

I’ve always believed in the “castle doctrine” in absolute terms. When someone enters, or attempts to enter, your property in an unlawful manner, you ought to have the right to do to the intruder as you please. Your first priority must be to protect yourself, your family and your property at all cost, and by any means available to you. It is extremely unreasonable to expect a homeowner to run through in his mind the various scenarios developed in case law first before deciding on a course of action – by that time, it will be too late.

Waiting for the police to arrive, sadly, is not an option even under the best of circumstances. I live literally just a stone’s throw away from a police station, but the time it takes to place a 911 call, getting the operator to route it to the police, then waiting for the officers at the station to gear up and jump in their vehicles and come to my home, means that an intruder could have killed me at least ten times over before the police finally arrived. This is even more drastic when you live somewhere out in the boonies.

I’m not saying that there should never be an investigation into what appears to be self-defence. A homeowner who picks up his gun at the first noise and starts firing wildly may hit an innocent person, such as children playing innocently outside a neighbour’s house. Such a person should by all rights be charged accordingly.

But when the police arrive at the scene of a burglary or home invasion gone wrong, with the dead body of the intruder lying there, there can be virtually no doubt that justice has already been served, at which point they should refrain from harassing the property owner. Let the police check out that it’s not some staged “self-defence” for the purpose of committing the perfect murder (e.g., luring your wife’s lover to your house, killing him and making it look like a home invasion), but that can be done quickly and without placing the property owner under arrest.

In Thomson’s case, even the police officers arriving at the scene were shocked by the brutal nature of the attack on his property and life. Obviously, there was no doubt in this case, or at least there shouldn’t have been. Too bad that the prosecutor who decided to file charges isn’t as observant and intelligent as the police at the scene of the incident. Worst of all, however, is that Thomson has been put through the wringer because of that prosecutor’s lack of reason and basic intelligence.

With the number of the self-employed growing in Canada, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the government should be out to extract as much money from them as possible. The ones who are “their own boss” are often considered to be members of the club of the idle rich, so it seems alright to take more money from them than from any other personal income taxpayer.

This is where the government’s calculation is wrong. Most self-employed people aren’t rich, not even close, and they are not really their own boss either. In fact, for all intents and purposes, they are unemployed. They provide their services to clients who then decide to hire them for a limited period of time to complete contract work.

So, when a business journalists announces with great fanfare that the self-employed can look forward to “pleasant surprises” in 2012, that’s not quite true.

The “pleasant surprise” in this case is the new “right” of the self-employed to pay into Employment Insurance (EI) for maternity leaves and bouts of illness (but not, mind you, to cover your expenses if you should remain without a single contract or project for several months). Again, the true nature of self-employment is completely misinterpreted and misrepresented. Under this new EI plan, the self-employed have to pay both the employer’s and employee’s share, bringing the monthly premium to $131.

Obviously, most will forgo this “pleasant surprise” option and merely try to save as much money as possible, so that they can cover themselves should one of the events insured against under the EI plan occur, such as illness. In fact, most of them will be better off not paying the money to EI, because if nothing happens, all that money will be lost. If you didn’t pay into EI and you remain healthy enough to be able to work, the money will still be in your pocket, and should something happen, you’ll have it when you need it.

Why the self-employed have to pay an employer’s share is beyond any reasonable understanding. Under the government’s pension plan, self-employed taxpayers also have to fork over an employer’s share. The self-employed ought to pay only one half (at most), like anyone else among the 9-to-5ers.

We shouldn’t call them “self-employed”; freelancers or contract workers would be more accurate – perhaps, then, the tax and welfare system wouldn’t be so biased against them.

These are people who never work for “themselves” (no freelancer takes money from his left pocket and transfers it to his right pocket and then considers himself “employed by self”). No, they work for clients, individuals and companies, and it is the latter that pay them. If anything, the employer’s share should be paid by them, but good luck enforcing that rule.

There are, of course, some self-employed Canadians who should pay an employer’s share when it comes to pensions and EI – that is, those who actually employ people, including a spouse or relatives, in their (incorporated) business. But an individual merely offering his or her services to the free market – writers, translators, even some lawyers, accountants, etc. – is not employed per se, nor does he or she act as an employer.

Freelancers and contract workers should, of course, be allowed to pay into the government pension plan and EI if they so choose. Since they are technically unemployed without any regular paycheque and don’t receive any of the perks and benefits others receive, particularly those in unionized jobs, they should in fact be required to pay no more than a quarter share to qualify for full benefits under such programs. Under the current system, however, they are forced to overpay by 75 percent.

What the Harper government has done – yet again – is to create even more rules and clauses that need to be administrated by an ever-growing army of overpaid, anything-but-hardworking public servants, without any actual benefit for those whose situation was supposed to be improved as a result of such rules.

As one reader of this column put it in an online comment (grinding his teeth, as per his own “stage directions”): where are the fiscal conservatives when you need them?

Ironically, the only federal politician in recent years to show at least a partial understanding for the lot of the self-employed was the late Jack Layton, who was thinking of throwing some “extra benefits” their way, such as “tax holidays” (paying income tax only every other year or so) and other desperately needed “palliative” measures.

Robert Herjavec, a shark who denies his Canadian roots

Multimillionaire Robert Herjavec is a Canadian success story. The son of Croatian immigrants, himself not born in Canada, made hundreds of million of dollars in the software business after arriving in Canada with just one suitcase, $20 and no English – according to his biography.

The good-natured, big-hearted “rich guy” quickly became a household name when he joined the CBC show Dragons’ Den (playing the role of the “nice” dragon). Several times throughout the life of the show, whenever his immigrant background was brought up, Herjavec’s eyes would well up and he’d reminisce tearfully about the hardship suffered by his family and him growing up.

That’s nothing to be ashamed of, and his early life was certainly no bed of roses. In fact, he’s proud of his parents for everything they accomplished, despite the many challenges, just as everyone else should be proud of the Herjavec family and how they persisted, ultimately enabling their son Robert to make millions – after delivering newspapers and waiting on tables. If you’re looking for a rags-to-riches story, this is it.

On the CBC’s Dragons’ Den Herjavec often waxes patriotic, extolling the qualities of Canada and expressing his heartfelt gratitude to this country for opening its doors to him and family at a time of dire need. One can’t but agree with him, and wish that all immigrants coming to Canada achieved as much as the Herjavecs.

But there’s a sour note to all this. Ever since Herjavec began appearing on the US version of the TV show, Shark Tank on ABC, he’s upset his fans in Canada for denying his Canadian roots on American television.

If you note the show’s intro, there’s no mention of his Canadian background at all. And in a recent episode, Herjavec’s tears were flowing again at the thought of his late father. But in the story he told American viewers, he spoke about how his family arrived in America, not Canada, and how nasty some people had been to his dad, telling him that he wasn’t “an American”. (Well, if that part of the story holds, they’d have said “Canadian”, because the events would have unfolded in Ontario, not in the US, as Herjavec falsely claimed on ABC.)

Why on earth would he falsify his and his family’s biography for American TV? Is it that ABC feels that “Canadian” is a dirty word and therefore demands that Herjavec (and fellow Canadian Kevin O’Leary, who also appears on the American show) cannot reveal his true origin? If so, what does that say about Herjavec’s integrity if a silly TV contract can make him deny who he is? What’s ABC going to do to him? He’s rolling in money; it’s not as if he really needed that additional TV gig.

Canadians who watch Dragons’ Den are bound to watch the US version as well. Hearing Herjavec pass himself off as an American, complete with a new biography straight out of the witness protection program, must give his fans in Canada stomach cramps. No doubt, he’s lost fans as a result.

In a way, whether he does so of his own accord, or because of pressure from ABC, it makes Herjavec look ungrateful to the country he keeps praising so much when he appears on the CBC. It also makes him look like a phoney who will say whatever people want to hear.

Let’s not forget that the Herjavecs would have almost certainly been rejected at any US port of entry, particularly back in 1966 when the US had very little tolerance of, or patience for, asylum seekers or immigrants from Communist countries. But it was Canada that allowed them in and gave them a chance at a better life.

Shouldn’t Herjavec recognize that somehow even on American TV, even if it goes against the wishes of ABC?

He most certainly should. He owes Canada at least that much.

It’s a problem we know from most consumer products and even buildings. Some (supposedly) smart designer, engineer or architect creates a fancy product or structure that looks extremely good on paper, but rarely is any thought given to how the product or structure affects, or is used by, ordinary people and consumers.

Apple is one of the few companies that design products always with the end user in mind, which is why their computers and software invariably work better than, say, Microsoft’s, which couldn’t care less about the user and his/her experience.

The infamous Peace Bridge in Calgary is an example of great “on-paper” architecture, but in real life, the bridge has not only been purchased at a steep, and completely unjustified, premium, but it may also be a tremendous hazard to local residents, as was revealed recently. Naturally, those responsible wash their hands of it and say that the bridge isn’t the cause of the water damage to a nearby condo tower, but common sense and life experience say otherwise. Besides, why would City Council admit to there being a problem when the bridge has been bought for millions over its actual value?

At the time of writing, Calgary has been rocked by extremely strong and destructive winds for 24 hours. It also happened to be garbage collection day in at least one part of the city, so people had their black and blue bins sitting at the curb. After having been emptied early in the morning, there were dozens and dozens of bins everywhere. With most people gone to work or out, it didn’t take long for those bins to turn into missiles, some of them being blown over a distance of two to four hundred metres, posing a major hazard to pedestrians and drivers.

Mind you, those bins are actually quite light, and not very stable when empty. They’ll take off even in winds much less forceful than the ones currently pummelling the city. What is more, most streets in this part of Calgary are not level, so the slightest breeze can send those bins rolling.

First, there was only a blue box, for recycling paper or glass, for example, but then a black one was added for all other types of garbage. Given the strict rules for placing the bins curbside on collection day, the space for going in and out your driveway has been severely limited.

Imagine if the city adds a third, green, bin for kitchen and organic waste. Not only would most people no longer be able to get in or out of their property, but there would also be three types of bins rolling and flying around on windy days – unfortunately, just as Calgary is one of the world leaders in the number of sunshine days (around 335 a year), so does it also take the lead on the number of days with excessive wind. (Chicago, the “Windy City”, is an impostor by comparison)

Clearly, the city’s aldermen weren’t thinking of the real impact on users when they devised the bin system. Hence, also, their most recent plan to add a green bin. Again, it all looks good on paper, but in reality, the bin system has caused many Calgarians a lot of grief.

It’s only been a few weeks now that garbage collection takes place at the same time every week. Before that, the trucks – one for the blue bins and one for the black ones – would show up at all hours throughout the day, and no one knew when they’d be coming around on this street or that. As a result, some people would put out their bins too late and miss collection altogether. And sometimes, the city workers would forget entire streets or neighbourhoods, leaving people stuck with their rotting garbage for yet another week.

Since there’s not a lot of space between houses (which in itself is a big problem, such as in case of fire), and people want to give themselves sufficient room to enter or leave their driveways, the bins get placed in sometimes weird constellations, which might make it difficult for a neighbour to enter or leave his property by car, especially when his or her manoeuvrability is severely limited by a median that divides the street.

Again, now imagine the situation with a third bin thrown into the mix, and keep in mind that bins must be spaced at least one foot apart from each other (and don’t think the rule isn’t enforced: people in my neighbour receive tickets all the time for putting their bins too close together).

Since the introduction of the bins, there’s also a lot more loose garbage everywhere. Even slight winds can blow open the lids and lift out garbage from the bins. In areas where the bins are placed behind the house, that is, on a gravel backstreet alley, one sees prone bins with the contents spilling out all the time. As already mentioned, the bins aren’t very stable, and on the uneven gravel ground, many of them will topple, even on days without any noticeable wind.

Speaking of uneven ground, there’s another problem in winter. Unless you clear your curb of any fresh snow, the snow will become compacted there and make it impossible to place bins there (in compliance with city rules). The slightest trace of ice or compacted snow in that spot will cause your bin to tip over, especially if there’s a gradient involved as well.

Most people shovel the driveway and any portion of the sidewalk, but almost all forget to clean the actual curb. However, even those who do might find themselves in a predicament, for example, if a snow plough “cleans” the street and pushes up a small snow wall against the curb and driveway.

Leaving the bins at the curb, but just inside your property, that is, on your driveway isn’t an option, even though the bins would find more stable footing there. The telescopic arms of the garbage trucks could still easily reach the bins, but the rules are the rules, so unless you have your bins on the street, instead of your driveway, your garbage won’t be picked up.

One bin was manageable. The addition of the second one started making things a lot more complicated. A third one would doubtless cause many Calgarians to disregard all rules and dump it all in a single bin or discard their garbage just about anywhere.

With so many silly decisions under their belt already, city aldermen should tread carefully and really think things through before they implement yet another – expensive and short-sighted – “solution”, such as the “green bin”.

In short, and this is the opinion shared by virtually everyone I’ve talked to about this, the city can keep its green bin and shove it.

Remember when everyone was trying to keep up with the Joneses? Nowadays, it’s not about pulling even with them, but torturing, clobbering, pounding and eventually killing them. That’s the kind of hostile environment that only left-wingers can create (given their congenital penchant for violence), and Barack Obama seems determined to make this mindset the main plank in his platform.

It’s the US of E, the United States of Envy, as one astute columnist called it. In Obama’s America, it’s no longer about freedom and the pursuit of happiness. No, the new mission statement calls for targeting and then taking out those who for some reason managed to be more successful than you.

This manner of thinking is also what created and drove the Occupy movement, a bunch of bums whose brains have turned to mush due to regular consumption of drugs and/or alcohol and who, accordingly, think that society owes them.

The “one percenters”, who in Occupy parlance make all the moolah and leave next to nothing for the other 99 percent, have had a bull’s eye painted on their foreheads, and even the US president now thinks it’s OK to be gunning for them (even though he’s a one percenter himself).

But none of that is actually true, because the one percenters do contribute their fair share, paying something like 60% of all taxes, whereas half the American population pays little or no tax at all. Let’s not forget either that it’s the one percenters who create jobs. Without them, there would be very little economic activity in the US.

Warren Buffett, a veritable buffoon (proved by the fact that he’s best friends with another buffoon, Bill Gates), doesn’t understand how the world works, including the financial one, which is odd, as this is his métier after all. We all remember how he complained last year that his secretary was taxed at a higher rate than he was. Duh, one is tempted to say, because she pays taxes on earned income, whereas Buffett is taxed on his investments. That such a celebrated “financial genius” should make such a fundamental mistake of comparing apples and oranges is surprising, but at least now everyone knows that he really is a buffoon who doesn’t know anything and therefore tends to speak through his derriere.

Obama, primed and ready to start another class warfare, invited Buffett’s secretary to his State of the Union address, showing her off like some weird specimen at a freak show in the olden days. Too bad they didn’t paint a beard on her for added effect.

“Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense,”

proclaimed the Prez in his speech. He, too, succumbed to the fallacy started by Buffett, but added his own inaccuracy to the mix. In dollar amounts, Buffett actually paid a lot more in taxes than his secretary, so he did “pay at least as much as his secretary”, which is precisely what Obama – literally – called for.

Of course, the difference between taxes on income and taxes on investments went straight over the president’s head.

Now, Obama is free to change the tax code so as to equalize those two types of taxes, thus subjecting those who live off their investments to the same tax rate as personal income taxpayers. That doesn’t require a call to arms, as he did, but merely a change to existing laws. He can attempt to push through a bill like that and keep his fingers crossed that Republicans, and many Democrats, won’t defeat it.

Finally, allow me to digress a bit. The “1%” nonsense started by the Occupy movement needs to be put in perspective. Thanks to a left-wing reader of this publication, I can now reveal, yet again, the hypocrisy and sheer stupidity that drives everyone on the (far) left.

The “1% argument” goes something like this: those rich folks roll in money, and we need to force them to hand over more of their hard-earned money to those who don’t want to work hard, don’t go to school and educate themselves, and who generally don’t believe in personal responsibility. To even out the differences between the one percenters and the 99 percent, we have to take from the former and give generously to the latter.

This has been countered by those in the common sense camp who say that it wouldn’t be right to force the one percenters to give up everything, or at least most of what they worked hard to achieve. To which lefties retort that, no, it’s actually the only right thing to do.

As I have said before, the only true one percenters are the unions, especially the public sector unions. They pad their bank accounts, work next to zero hours, never so much as break a nail on the job, and then retire early (some in their forties and fifties) with a defined-benefit, and platinum-plated, pension plan – all things that none of us outside the unions has or can afford, and paid for by the “99%” – you and me, the ordinary taxpayers.

In reply to my “the unions are the one percenters” line of reasoning, said left-wing reader wrote:

So you want to crush their dream of secure employment and a comfortable retirement so that nobody has that.

First of all, I’m not about crushing anyone’s dream, but those fat cats need to live like the rest of us, that is, pay for their own (defined-contribution) pension plans, instead of robbing the rest of us blind and causing major deficits at all levels of government. As a result, we’d all be better off, as we wouldn’t have to pay through the nose to pay off the debt created by public sector unions.

Second, it’s funny how the left rejects the same arguments that it usually wields when attacking the “rich”. To the left, it is thus perfectly alright to crush the dreams of those who work hard and are lucky enough to end up as millionaires or even billionaires, but the union hogs can do as they please, and woe to anyone who attempts to bring them down to reality.

According to my much-appreciated reader, it’s best if we leave the union piggies and their perks alone, so that at least they have a comfortable life and retirement. Why, then, can the left not apply the same reasoning and leave the “rich” alone based on that premise, that is, that it’s better that at least some are fortunate enough to roll in money than taking measures to ensure that “nobody has that”?

The answer to that question is simple and straightforward: because they’re silly hypocrites who can’t, or won’t, think straight and logically.

No matter how successful and rich Steve Jobs was, he never rested on his laurels. There was always the next innovation, the next new great consumer product to be developed. The same can’t be said of Bill Gates or the two now-ex CEOs of RIM, Mike Lazaridis and Jim Balsillie.

That RIM lasted as long as it did borders on a miracle, because the two CEOs were anything but far-sighted. One of them doubted that the iPhone would be a success, saying that no one wants a personal computer on their phone. RIM also had a chance to be the first to bring a tablet to market, a couple of years or so before the launch of Apple’s iPad, but the CEOs axed the idea.

Newsflash: people not only want a personal computer in their pockets, but also a vast library of books, music, movies and TV shows, newspapers, magazines, and ready access to the web.

The Blackberry phone never lived up to any of those demands. To this day, browsing the Internet is a pain, and the number of apps is so small that making phone calls and sending emails or messages is pretty much all anyone can hope to achieve on a BB phone.

The launch of the Playbook tablet was a major disaster. Batteries on the 16GB model don’t hold power for long, forcing people to buy the more expensive 32 and 64 GB models. The Playbook didn’t have a native email application either. One had to tether it to a BB phone to use the tablet for email. Its biggest claim to fame, that it came with Flash capability, was heavily advertised in TV commercials, yet users complain of major issues with viewing videos on YouTube, City TV and many other sites – it is one of the leading Google searches related to Playbook issues.

Only recently was it revealed that RIM didn’t offer an email app because the company hadn’t managed to figure out how to put email on the tablet. Apparently, the way RIM email servers are set up, each registered user can access the network only from one device. If they had email on the phone, there was no way of also using it on the Playbook. How to port the popular BB Messenger service to the Playbook was another problem that RIM failed to solve.

That revelation by itself is proof that the company really doesn’t have a clue (anymore) about what it’s doing.

Soon after the Playbook’s launch, RIM promised to improve things, such as by providing an email app and the option of using Android apps on the tablet. If everything goes according to plan, all this will finally be released in February, almost a year after the original promise. Sorry, but by the standards of today’s tech market, that simply isn’t good enough. And even if RIM releases “Playbook 2.0″ in February, which is still highly doubtful given the company’s track record, it’ll be a case of too little, too late – especially so since Apple will release its much-improved, slimmer and lighter iPad 3 by the end of February or early March.

As Margaret Wente explains in her column, the two former CEOs were more interested in using their personal wealth for their own edification – building mansions or trying to purchase hockey teams. If they had spent this much time and energy on creating smartphones and tablets that people actually enjoy using, the company wouldn’t find itself on a precarious precipice today. (Many expect RIM to be history by the end of this year.)

The new CEO Thorsten Heins, who spent some time at Siemens in the past, may not be the right person for the job. Siemens had major problems with its mobile phone division, and if Heins was anywhere near that unit, he’ll be very likely to drive RIM into the ground.

Heins has also indicated that he’d like to license the new BB 10 operating system to other device makers, the way Android is licensed by Google to Samsung or HTC. While this strategy has worked quite well for Google, because it was never really tied to the hardware side of the process, for RIM this would result in a large-scale dilution of the brand.

It will be interesting to watch Heins and the direction in which he takes the company, but if investors’ and analysts’ initial reactions are anything to go by, he’ll face an uphill struggle against all odds. RIM’s share price keeps dropping, despite the good news of the departure of Lazaridis and Balsillie.

The more time passes, the more likely it is that RIM will eventually be broken up and its patents snatched up by the big players like Apple and Google. A takeover by or a merger with another IT company is increasingly out of the question at this time, as any such company strong and solid enough to consider such a risky move has already ixnayed the idea.

RIM … RIP?

Venezuela is led by a murderous, despotic Marxist who is bosom buddies with one of the world’s most dangerous terrorists, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a physical midget who seeks to build a nuclear bomb for the sole purpose of blasting Israel off the map.

Oil from that banana republic, nay, rogue state, is extremely heavy on carbon emissions – if one is so inclined as to believe the nonsense of “greenhouse gases” and “man-made global warming”.

US President Barack Obama once famously promised an American nation hanging on to each and every word flowing from his lips that he would end America’s dependence on oil from rogue nations, such as any country in the Middle East and, of course, Venezuela. The latter, in particular, was in the sights of the president. Being a left-winger, Obama believes in the new age religion (not science) of “man-made global warming”, so the heavy Venezuelan oil would have been an immediate target.

Wrong. A bit more than three years into his first (and most likely, only) term, Obama has blatantly broken almost every promise ever made. Ironically, the promises he all broke are the ones he made specifically to cater to his left-wing support base – pro-Islamists and labour unions. As a result, Guantanamo is still very much open for business, and jobs are in ever shorter supply.

The Keystone pipeline delivering Alberta oil to the US, which Obama just rejected again, would have created tens of thousands of jobs and gotten America closer to weaning itself off “bad” oil (especially oil from Venezuela). Thanks to Obama’s decision, however, no American jobs will be created, environmentally harmful oil will continue to be pumped in from a rogue nation whose leader, Hugo Chavez, is openly conspiring with an Islamist terrorist and Israel-hater to cause death and destruction to the US and the West in general, and it has driven a wedge between America and its next-door neighbour, Canada, a country that Americans will come to rely on more and more in future for goods, services and jobs, while their own country is becoming a third-world country thanks to the flawed ideological choices made by Obama and his fellow Democrats.

An editorial in the Washington Post has called Obama’s decision “insane“, and even left-leaning CNN calls it a big mistake. What Obama has done goes against anything that is deemed common sense from an American perspective, regardless of whether one favours the right or the left. In fact, Obama’s action is nothing if not anti-American.

Many of Obama’s actions throughout his first term can be described as anti-American and anti-West. From his repeated kowtowing to Islamist nations while simultaneously flagellating America to his dealing an ailing economy fatal blow after fatal blow. Maybe it was his upbringing in Indonesia as a child that inculcated him with a (subconscious) loathing for America and Western civilization.

For someone so concerned about keeping his own job, rather than protecting and creating jobs for all Americans, Obama has a strange way of going about achieving that goal of his. All he’s doing is ensuring that virtually any Republican candidate looks positively competent by comparison (that is, except for Ron Paul).