Ever heard of “collusion”? I am sure you have. Just in case the word has somehow escaped your vocabulary, I’ll break it down for you. Collusion is generally an agreement that is kept secret but sees rivals cooperating with one another for mutual benefit. An example? Price fixing is a form of collusion. Let’s say Sony and Samsung decide to up the price on their standard 32” LCD TV. Generally speaking, these companies are consistently in direct competition with one another. However, if they agree to increase the price on one of their products – and they both follow through with the increase – consumers will not be able to choose one or the other based on the price. Starting to see why this is illegal? And morally wrong? Starting to see how this fits in to politics yet? No?? Let me draw you a map…

City of Calgary Alderman recently voted to have their websites – used to promote themselves – paid for by taxes. Shocking, right? Not over here, it wasn’t! Let’s be honest, here and consider the alternatives.

Possibility number one would be the obvious: Aldermen would have to pay for the costs of owning and operating their own sites out of pocket.

To me, this seems like an excellent solution. I have never been to an Alderman’s website unless it was to check out some of their ideas and plans before an election. At that point, I suppose they would be potential Aldermen (or Alderpersons, if one council member gets her way) and the costs of the website would be paid out-of-pocket or by their campaign dollars.

Possibility number two would be slightly less obvious: The City of Calgary could dedicate a section of their webpage to the existing Aldermen that highlights who they are, what they want to do and what they have done. Our tax dollars already pay for the operation of that site; what’s a few extra dollars in the [webmaster’s] pocket?

I don’t really know what the drawbacks would be to this option, I can only see the positive side of this: we pay for something that we’re already paying for and (in my mind) currently has a proven benefit. I have been to the city website on numerous occasions to check out various items of interest such as garbage pickup times, tax assessment details, parks information and bylaws.

Possibility number three, which was unanimously voted as the “right” way by the city’s Aldermen, was to have the tax payers continue to pick up the tab for their self promotion.

The reason I feel that this is wrong is that if you were to go to, say, Ric McIver’s website (www.ricmciver.ca) you’re hit with the following headlines: “Ric is Voted Man of the Year.” and “McIver Launches Mayoralty Campaign”. There are also a few semi-blog posts by the Alderman that let us know how he’s feeling about some of the things currently pulsing through the city council. Actions speak louder than words, though, and I’d rather see what they’re doing about these “hot button” topics and not hear about what they wish was happening. We elected you ‘cause we thought you’d do something about how we felt!!

Do you see how when they’ve all banded together to achieve something that’s in their best interest? Is it in our best interest?

Think about it.

The Blonde.

Do you really know what it means for something to be illegal? Sure, if I asked I’d probably solicit the following more times than not. “If something is illegal it means it’s against the law.” Well, that’s not untrue.

Perhaps the better question is do you know the difference between something that is illegal and something that is against the rules? (And by “rules” I mean socially…what our society has deemed acceptable)

I’d like to give you an example.

This week, I was attempting to link a Twitter account to the blog. Lo and behold, all the names I was hoping for were already taken. (Shocking! I know!) There was one moniker, however, that was high up on my list of wants; its owner was using it as frequently as I trust the Government. My publisher encouraged me to negotiate the release of this name and an attempt was made to persuade the owner to transfer said account to me. I thought that this was a simple request and would maybe take some smooth talking but would be highly doable. (Hopelessly optimistic! I know)

Boy, was I wrong.

When I first approached her about the switch, the response I received was instantly forwarded to a myriad of my friends and colleagues. This was a truly giving Blondes the world over a bad rap. “I think it’s actually ILLEGAL to transfer Twitter accounts. It’s a violation of privacy because of e-mail sharing.”

Wait, WHAT?!

Newsflash: The Government is now the controlling body of Twitter. They’ve passed Laws on Tweeting?? When did this happen and where the hell was I??

So really, it begs the question; do people really know what it means for something to be illegal??

Think about it.

The Blonde.

What is a democracy?

When asked if they know what a democracy is, many people will nod their head – albeit with a slightly blank, deer-in-the-headlights look on their face as they madly try to recall a piece of information locked away in their brains in the box labeled “Fifth Grade Social Studies”. When probed further, I found that while many folks “knew” what it was, few could really explain what the word Democracy meant. I swear, asking 20- and 30-somethings to explain democracy was like watching an episode of Kids Say the Darndest Things! (Though I am far from resembling Bill Cosby) So, as not necessarily requested, but greatly needed, a brief rundown in plain terms of what democracy means.

Way back when, before we had a formal process of electing people to make our decisions for us, we used to do it ourselves. (shocking concept, I know) This was known as a direct democracy. It was truly a government of the people, for the people. Nowadays, though, we pick and choose the folks we want to make our minds up for us. That is to say, “act in our best interests” so long as our interests coincide with what their plans are. Thus, we call this our Representative Democracy. Pretty self explanatory. The majority of people voted for them because they (hopefully) have the same views and thoughts.

To get right down to it, the very basic characteristic of a democracy is that majority rules. I think we can all remember a time we exercised this as kids. I am sure you all remember something that went a little like this:

Frank: “I don’t want to play TV Tag, I want to play Freeze Tag!”

Joey: “Well, I vote TV Tag!”

Walter: “Me too!!” (insert chorus of voices in support of TV Tag)

Joey: “TV Tag it is. Sorry Frank, majority rules! Sucks to be you!”

So the idea of majority rules is great … if you’re part of that majority. If you happened to want to play Freeze Tag, though your reasons may have been superb, your argument sound and your logic air tight, if the rest of your group of friends sided with Joey, you’re shit out of luck with little recourse.

Now, deciding on which game of tag to play seems of little consequence. No one is really going to suffer if you choose Freeze over TV or vice versa. But let’s, for a moment, rub the seedy underbelly of Democracy and look at what happens when the majority makes a bad decision.

Let’s say that Walter had a much-coveted lunch time favorite: a cupcake. Let’s also say that Joey was used to getting what he wanted and he decides he wants Walter’s cupcake. There’s no way that Joey can just go up and demand that Walter surrender his tasty treat, but in a democracy, if Joey can convince Frank to back him up, he can. So Joey tells Frank that he’ll share the cupcake with him if he helps him get from Walter. Frank agrees, seeing that there is a win-win in it for both of them. In a Democracy, if the majority wishes for something to be so, it is.

Is it fair that Walter had to lose his cupcake just because Frank and Joey wanted it? Is it fair that a majority can vote for something that will benefit them – not us – and then force us to fund it?

Think About it.

The Blonde