The Future Is In Our Past -
It's all about the optics! Hold a meeting of the most important global leaders, dish up plenty of that self-serving publicity and return home. It has been the right of leaders, since the concept of globalization, to get together for a bit of a show, make a splash and fade away quietly.
No one has questioned this right, but then no one remembers the show. They came, they saw, they went and no one remembers a thing about it. No one even asks, "What's it all about?"
The earlier summits seemed to have some importance, when leaders projected power. Think about it! If Winston Churchill were about to arrive, there would definitely be some interest in the man and not the security bill. But nothing really concrete and strong ever came out of any summit, except wishy-washy wishful thinking.
The more we know the more disillusioned we become. It turns out that the leaders, powerful though they may seem, have, in fact, very little control and power, especially compared to the invisible hand of the market which is now in full Parkinson's crisis. Can anyone tell where the last summit was held and what important decisions were taken, with what results?
It is just Stephen Harper's luck that the costs of security for Canada's G8/G20 summits have gotten well out of hand. One billion dollars for protecting 20 leaders for three days! The cost of security for three days is one billion dollars!
Is the outrageous sum of one billion dollars the straw that will break the camel's back? Will voters ever forget Canada's hosting of the G8/G20 summits? The jury is still out but, safe to say, it is not only the security bill that is being questioned.
Canadians are asking questions about the purpose of the summit itself. We know it's impossible to get our money's worth, but are we likely to expect anything except a photo op from this meeting of leaders? The eyes of Canadians are being well and truly opened to the two bit posturing.
Stephen Harper, who can't win a majority government, is clearly not able to win, period. He must be wondering why such exposure is happening on his watch.
Mr. Harper, who waxed poetic about being fiscally conservative, is not able to keep his hands out of the purse, it seems. First there was a billion for security for the Olympics and now a billion for the G20/G8. A billion here and a billion there ... small change really, in the minds of big spenders.
Perhaps it's true! Maybe we ordinary mortals don't understand money. Maybe a billion is not so much. But when the Harper government is cutting funding in the thousands of dollars, a mere pittance, to social groups, we have to wonder about the agenda.
If the government doesn't like Status of Women's groups or events like Gay Pride Day, $40,000 can represent a large amount of money. Fear rules the day for Mr. Harper and his government, so any money that goes toward security is well spent.
Maybe what these examples are saying is that it isn't about being fiscally conservative; it is not about conserving finances but it's about furthering the conservative agenda. It is political, not financial. And in politics, to be sure, there are some friends that think forty thousand is big, while other friends don't bat an eyelash at a billion, depending on whom/what they fear.
Still, in this day of technology, there is no need to spend a billion dollars on protecting twenty leaders. Leaders can meet as often as they like via video conferencing and it is all in a days work.
Ward Elcock, Ottawa's security Czar, defended the spending by saying hundreds of security agents will be watching each leader's back. (Let's hope they do a better job than Jesse James, who was watching Sandra Bullock's back.) This begs the question, "Why?"
It also begs the question, "Who are the people providing security?" It has been reported that 10,000 RCMP officers will be deployed. Will there be any security fallout elsewhere when 10,000 officers and others leave their usual jobs for this assignment?
Are leaders so fearful that they can't travel without extraordinary security measures being taken? Do we know of any plot that has been thwarted by spending obscene amounts of money? We do know that in spite of blanket security, a number of high profile persons have been killed or injured.
Security has gone off the wall since 9/11. Yet, in spite of it all, anyone who wants to break security has been able to do it. The sad part of this attention is the more security becomes avant-garde the more it gains acceptance. It becomes as necessary as the air we breathe.
And Canada's debt? A quick check online turned up some interesting information. It was said to be $578 billion in 2000, $805 billion in 2005 and a whopping $1.4 Trillion in 2009. And how did it all add up? For sure it was one billion at a time. Is this being fiscally conservative?
info@ganderbeacon.ca
.jpg)
.jpg)
