I remember speaking to a classmate in my Canadian Politics course after seeing him read the National Post, and saying "ah, you're a conservative." He said he wasn't, but he read it anyway, along with the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star. I found his answer odd at the time, yet I just had the same experience a few days ago when a coworker was surprised to find me reading the National Post, and said he didn't think I was a conservative. I said I wasn't, but I read it anyway.
Until I diversified my political exposure, I was the type of lefty I now criticize. I loved Michael Moore's books and movies, 9/11 conspiracy theories, blaming America for all of the world's ills, and had an illogical suspicions of anything to do with the private sector.
Then I found out that Moore is a hack who fabricates and deceives frequently, and my outlook started to change. A good friend of mine (you know who you are) smashed up some of my leftish economic arguments with cold logic, I started reading the Economist, and I discovered the one great Christopher (Hitchens) the two great Andrews (Sullivan and Coyne).
I wouldn't say I've become a conservative, but I am on the right-wing of the Liberal party, which puts me with the left on (most) social issues and with the right on (most) economic issues.
Allright, time for some politics. There has been some buzz recently about job losses in the manufacturing sector and the selling of Canadian companies to foreign investors.
If you're someone who is against foreign takeovers of Canadian companies, then humour me for a minute. Let's say you own something, like a house. You'd do whatever the hell you want with it as long as it was within the bounds of the law. It's yours. Someone comes along and offers you a great price on it. If you sell, you make a profit. Wouldn't you do it? Would it be fair for someone else to tell you that you can't sell something that you own? It's the same case with these Canadian companies. Their owners (i.e. shareholders) are getting great offers on them, and they will vote on whether or not they will sell their company.
As for the job losses, this one hits close to home because my family has been the victim of layoffs before. But look at things from the company's perspective. The primary purpose of a company's existence is to make money for its owners. Now the company can either can pay Canadian employees a certain amount or foreign labourers half (or even less) than that. Why wouldn't they do it? I know it sucks for the families that lose their incomes and livelyhoods, I've been there. Luckily Canada has (or had if you ask some people) a great safety net. We have Employment Insurance (EI), free training programs, subsidized housing, and in the worst case scenario, welfare. I know that all of these programs have flaws that need fixing, but I think the solution is to strengthen the social safety net instead of trying to tell companies who they can hire.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Corrections and Responses
I just attempted to edit my last post for a couple of corrections, and now the comments that prompted the corrections have disappeared. I'll re-post the comments here (from my email).
g has left a new comment on your post "News Roundup":
This whole paragraph is untrue:
Morales is the Chief at Tyendinaga, not Six Nations. There are no ships either place, and nobody blocked a ship.
Fontaine does not support blockades, but he does support a day of protest and demonstration.
The OPP did not ignore a court injunction, they carried it out April 20 2006. After that, the Court of Appeal overturned the injunction and everything else.
Assertions of aboriginal land rights are a Constitutional issue, not a policing issue, and the legal course of action is negotiations.
The reason for that is that Canada does not have title to the land.
It is Canada that is there illegally.
If you are going to trash people, at least get your facts right. Otherwise, it is libel and you can be sued. I am sending this to Morales.
Posted by g to TDot Grit at May 17, 2007 5:50 AM
I do stand corrected. I misread the article that prompted my post. Robert Morales is the Chief Negotiator for the Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group. He had nothing to do with the blockade, which did occur. The blockade was carried out by six First Nations canoes, not Six Nations as I originally posted. I apologize for the error.
"g" is incorrect in stating that nobody blocked a ship, unless the Vancouver Sun just made the story up. Fontaine can't say that he doesn't support blockades, but a day of protest and demonstration, when some of the protest and demonstration will involve...blockades.
I wasn't talking about the first injunction carried out on April 30, but the one after that. The first injunction was enforced, but native protesters returned and created a new blockade, against which another injunction was issued. The second one was not enforced, and when the Ontario government bought the land from the developer, the second injunction was moot. There are news stories pointing out that the judge who issued it was angry about it not being enforced.
I agree that assertions on land are a constitutional issue, but they do become a policing issue when laws are openly broken by people who create illegal blockades. The constitutional issues will be dealt with by the government and the courts, but the when laws are broken the police need to step in.
Canada's legal/illegal presence is an issue that has yet to be worked out by the courts, neither you nor I are legal experts.
I corrected my inaccuracies. Now since you trashed me, try to get your facts right as well.
Now for the second comment:
Anwar has left a new comment on your post "News Roundup":
The thing is a "few buddies and you" have not been systematically discriminated against for hundreds of years. Even a couple of days ago the Pope himself said the natives of Brazil wanted to be converted, thus ignoring the history of oppression against them.
It is for the same reason black community need special help with crime, and the native community need special help with social projects. Ignoring them isn't going to make the problems go away.
Posted by Anwar to TDot Grit at May 17, 2007 10:50 AM
I agree that the Canadian government has a lot of skeletons in its closet when it comes to its policy towards native Canadians. But you're trying to justify a crime by pointing to past injustices. Two wrongs do not make a right. If blockades are illegal, they should be removed by law enforcement. If they're legal, then anyone should be able to block train tracks. It can't be legal for one racial group and not for the rest. The pope is an idiot who has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about, and I'm not even sure why you're bringing him up.
I'm also not sure why you bring up the black community in this post. But yes, ignoring native complaints will not make them go away. Conversely, breaking the law and disrupting the lives of your fellow Canadians doesn't help your cause either.
g has left a new comment on your post "News Roundup":
This whole paragraph is untrue:
Morales is the Chief at Tyendinaga, not Six Nations. There are no ships either place, and nobody blocked a ship.
Fontaine does not support blockades, but he does support a day of protest and demonstration.
The OPP did not ignore a court injunction, they carried it out April 20 2006. After that, the Court of Appeal overturned the injunction and everything else.
Assertions of aboriginal land rights are a Constitutional issue, not a policing issue, and the legal course of action is negotiations.
The reason for that is that Canada does not have title to the land.
It is Canada that is there illegally.
If you are going to trash people, at least get your facts right. Otherwise, it is libel and you can be sued. I am sending this to Morales.
Posted by g to TDot Grit at May 17, 2007 5:50 AM
I do stand corrected. I misread the article that prompted my post. Robert Morales is the Chief Negotiator for the Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group. He had nothing to do with the blockade, which did occur. The blockade was carried out by six First Nations canoes, not Six Nations as I originally posted. I apologize for the error.
"g" is incorrect in stating that nobody blocked a ship, unless the Vancouver Sun just made the story up. Fontaine can't say that he doesn't support blockades, but a day of protest and demonstration, when some of the protest and demonstration will involve...blockades.
I wasn't talking about the first injunction carried out on April 30, but the one after that. The first injunction was enforced, but native protesters returned and created a new blockade, against which another injunction was issued. The second one was not enforced, and when the Ontario government bought the land from the developer, the second injunction was moot. There are news stories pointing out that the judge who issued it was angry about it not being enforced.
I agree that assertions on land are a constitutional issue, but they do become a policing issue when laws are openly broken by people who create illegal blockades. The constitutional issues will be dealt with by the government and the courts, but the when laws are broken the police need to step in.
Canada's legal/illegal presence is an issue that has yet to be worked out by the courts, neither you nor I are legal experts.
I corrected my inaccuracies. Now since you trashed me, try to get your facts right as well.
Now for the second comment:
Anwar has left a new comment on your post "News Roundup":
The thing is a "few buddies and you" have not been systematically discriminated against for hundreds of years. Even a couple of days ago the Pope himself said the natives of Brazil wanted to be converted, thus ignoring the history of oppression against them.
It is for the same reason black community need special help with crime, and the native community need special help with social projects. Ignoring them isn't going to make the problems go away.
Posted by Anwar to TDot Grit at May 17, 2007 10:50 AM
I agree that the Canadian government has a lot of skeletons in its closet when it comes to its policy towards native Canadians. But you're trying to justify a crime by pointing to past injustices. Two wrongs do not make a right. If blockades are illegal, they should be removed by law enforcement. If they're legal, then anyone should be able to block train tracks. It can't be legal for one racial group and not for the rest. The pope is an idiot who has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about, and I'm not even sure why you're bringing him up.
I'm also not sure why you bring up the black community in this post. But yes, ignoring native complaints will not make them go away. Conversely, breaking the law and disrupting the lives of your fellow Canadians doesn't help your cause either.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
News Roundup
Jerry Falwell croaked. For those of you who don't know, he was a major force in the religious right of the American political scene. Many lefties/liberals are cheering his death, mostly because he was a bigot. I look back at his antics fondly. After all, he sued Hustler and lost, only making the magazine and its owner Larry Flynt more famous. He also suggested that 9/11 was god's punishment for feminists, homosexuals and the ACLU. And in my favourite Falwell moment, he wrote that Tinky Winky of the Teletubbbies is a secret homosexal signal because he is purple and carries a handbag. Ok so he might be right about that one.
Six Nations Chief Negotiator Robert Morales has threatened more blockades after blocking a ship. First Nations Assembly chief Phil Fontaine has decided that he will no longer be Mr. Nice Guy. Blocking rail lines, blocking roads, blocking ships, etc. are all illegal. But somehow, law enforcement (you know, the guys who are supposed to enforce the law) sit around and twiddle their thumbs. If a few buddies and I had grabbed a couple of cars and parked them on the train tracks, the police would not hesistate one bit to pull us off (as they shouldn't). But since the perpetrators are native Canadians, they will not do anything. This is one of my biggest disappointments in Canada. Openly race based policing is just disgusting. Let's also remember that the Caledonia occupation continues, with the OPP sitting around and doing...nothing. This is even after a judge ordered the eviction of the occupiers. Let me restate that, an Ontario judge's explicit orders were ignored by the OPP.
On a lighter note, the Tories are now banning foreign strippers from working in Canada. I think I speak for many Canadians when I say that this is an outrage. If you're a strip club customer, it reduces the variety of choices, and if you're a multiculturalist, then it also goes against everything you believe in.
Six Nations Chief Negotiator Robert Morales has threatened more blockades after blocking a ship. First Nations Assembly chief Phil Fontaine has decided that he will no longer be Mr. Nice Guy. Blocking rail lines, blocking roads, blocking ships, etc. are all illegal. But somehow, law enforcement (you know, the guys who are supposed to enforce the law) sit around and twiddle their thumbs. If a few buddies and I had grabbed a couple of cars and parked them on the train tracks, the police would not hesistate one bit to pull us off (as they shouldn't). But since the perpetrators are native Canadians, they will not do anything. This is one of my biggest disappointments in Canada. Openly race based policing is just disgusting. Let's also remember that the Caledonia occupation continues, with the OPP sitting around and doing...nothing. This is even after a judge ordered the eviction of the occupiers. Let me restate that, an Ontario judge's explicit orders were ignored by the OPP.
On a lighter note, the Tories are now banning foreign strippers from working in Canada. I think I speak for many Canadians when I say that this is an outrage. If you're a strip club customer, it reduces the variety of choices, and if you're a multiculturalist, then it also goes against everything you believe in.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Cyclists vs Drivers
I just watched this video on Youtube.
It was accompanying this article. Students out on an assignment filmed a fight between a driver and a cyclist at Queen and Bay. Apparently the cyclist stopped at a yellow light, which prevented the driver behind him from going through, which set him off. If this is true, then the driver is a jerk and should go to jail for assault.
There was a similar incident back in January at Kensington Market. The driver threw food out of his car window (he was littering). A bike courier who was nearby picked up the food and chucked it back into his car. He then retaliated by throwing coffee on her. She responded by keying his car, which prompted him to get out, kick her bike down, and try to beat her up.
In this particular incident, even though the driver is a dick, I understand why he did it. I hate people who litter, but its just moronic to pick up garbage and throw it into someone's car. The courier started the altercation by doing this. The driver simply responded by throwing his coffee on her. She then keyed his car! After she damaged his vehicle, he damaged hers by kicking it down. Now apparently he also tried to beat her up. This is where he crossed the line, and should have been charged with assault.
Dear bicyclists, there are a lot of aggressive/stupid drivers out there, us regular drivers have to deal with them as well. This doesn't make you angels though. There are way too many bicyclists who disrupt the flow of traffic on purpose and break traffic laws frequently. Other drivers will know what I'm talking about here.
If you want respect from drivers, then obey traffic laws like they do. When I stop at a red light, you should stop right there beside me instead of zooming through. You shouldn't randomly jump in front of a car without making sure that the driver has seen you. I've had way too many close calls with cyclists doing that. There are many other offences, too many to list here. I always have (and will) do my best to accomodate cyclists when I'm driving, but I will stop accomodating you as soon as I see you breaking traffic laws.
A great solution to most of these problems is the proper implementation of bike lanes. We don't have nearly enough of them in Toronto. They benefit both cyclists and drivers by ensuring that cyclists have their own designated space on the road.
One of my biggest pet peeves is cyclists who switch between driving mode and pedestrian mode by using crosswalks to get around. Crosswalks are for pedestrians, roads are for vehicles, got it? If you want to be treated like a vehicle, then act like one. If you want to be like pedestrians and use the crosswalk, then stay off the road and use the sidewalk.
It was accompanying this article. Students out on an assignment filmed a fight between a driver and a cyclist at Queen and Bay. Apparently the cyclist stopped at a yellow light, which prevented the driver behind him from going through, which set him off. If this is true, then the driver is a jerk and should go to jail for assault.
There was a similar incident back in January at Kensington Market. The driver threw food out of his car window (he was littering). A bike courier who was nearby picked up the food and chucked it back into his car. He then retaliated by throwing coffee on her. She responded by keying his car, which prompted him to get out, kick her bike down, and try to beat her up.
In this particular incident, even though the driver is a dick, I understand why he did it. I hate people who litter, but its just moronic to pick up garbage and throw it into someone's car. The courier started the altercation by doing this. The driver simply responded by throwing his coffee on her. She then keyed his car! After she damaged his vehicle, he damaged hers by kicking it down. Now apparently he also tried to beat her up. This is where he crossed the line, and should have been charged with assault.
Dear bicyclists, there are a lot of aggressive/stupid drivers out there, us regular drivers have to deal with them as well. This doesn't make you angels though. There are way too many bicyclists who disrupt the flow of traffic on purpose and break traffic laws frequently. Other drivers will know what I'm talking about here.
If you want respect from drivers, then obey traffic laws like they do. When I stop at a red light, you should stop right there beside me instead of zooming through. You shouldn't randomly jump in front of a car without making sure that the driver has seen you. I've had way too many close calls with cyclists doing that. There are many other offences, too many to list here. I always have (and will) do my best to accomodate cyclists when I'm driving, but I will stop accomodating you as soon as I see you breaking traffic laws.
A great solution to most of these problems is the proper implementation of bike lanes. We don't have nearly enough of them in Toronto. They benefit both cyclists and drivers by ensuring that cyclists have their own designated space on the road.
One of my biggest pet peeves is cyclists who switch between driving mode and pedestrian mode by using crosswalks to get around. Crosswalks are for pedestrians, roads are for vehicles, got it? If you want to be treated like a vehicle, then act like one. If you want to be like pedestrians and use the crosswalk, then stay off the road and use the sidewalk.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
No One is Illegal? Bullshit.
Immigration is an issue that gets me riled up quite easily. I recently came across an organization known as 'No One is Illegal.' Before I start, let's have a bit of a backgrounder.
I am an immigrant turned citizen. My family immigrated to Canada in 1995. It's almost been 12 years, and they have been the 12 best years of my life. I am a proud Canadian citizen.
How did my family get here? Well we applied for immigration, had enough points, and were granted entry. Millions apply each year, only a few hundred thousand are qualified enough.
It was a deal that benefitted both my family and Canada. Canada got a skilled worker (my dad), and two future citizens with high earning potential (myself and my brother). But I think my family got the better end of the deal. We got security, education, healthcare, and most importantly, freedom.
What's the point? Becoming a Canadian resident (and then citizen) is a privilege, and it's for a privileged few. If it were for everyone, then we'd have to throw our borders open and let over half the world's population in. Very few people are foolish enough to suggest that, so let's move on.
I reently received an email about No One is Illegal (NOII) having a rally today to "Stop the Deportations." Let me state this unequivocally: Let the deportations continue. Let's start cracking down on illegal aliens like never before.
There is a huge, huge difference between legal and illegal. Organizations like NOII seek to blur the line, and convince Canadians that they are the same. They are not. They are here illegally. That means against the law. I really shouldn't have to explain that, but it seems people have forgotten the basic meaning of illegal.
If illegal aliens are granted the same rights and privileges as legal immigrants, then what does that say to people who play by the rules? Canada is a society of laws, rules, and structure, or so I thought. Canada told my family to fill out an application and get in line. We did, and now we're here enjoying the benefits of being Canadian. We played by the rules. The people who are here illegally did not play by the rules. They didn't get in line. They and their enablers will try to convince you that it is your moral obligation to give them the same rights and privileges you gave me. You shouldn't.
According to NOII: "Everyday over 500,000 undocumented people across Canada, and over 80,000 in Toronto, live in daily fear of detention and deportation. They are our coworkers, fellow students, political activists, family, friends, and community members. Working in the backs of hotels and restaurants, as domestic and agricultural workers, as taxi drivers and construction workers, and in other jobs, undocumented and immigrant communities experience racial profiling, exploitative working conditions, and lack of access to city services."
I have a few responses to this:
1) They shouldn't have gotten these jobs in the first place. Their employers are supposed to get verify their SIN cards, so we obviously have many employers breaking Canadian law. They need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and the laws governing them need to be tightened.
2) Racial profiling? Bullshit. There are millions of LEGAL immigrants in this country, and they are from every imaginable race.
3) Exploitative working conditions? Meaning that an employer gave you a job at a shitty wage because you couldn't give him a SIN card? That you can't complain to the authorities because you're a criminal?
4) City services? Are you out of your mind?
Canadians are oh so afraid to speak out against illegal aliens for fear of being labelled racist. Well I'm a brown guy and I will not keep my mouth shut. We have a system, and the system has rules. According to these rules, illegal aliens will have an opportnity to make a case as a refugee and be granted refugee status. If that fails, they must be deported.
My family worked damn hard, followed the rules, waited for a long time, and spent a lot of money to get what we have now. Illegal aliens did none of these things, yet they want the same privileges and benefits as me? I don't think so.
I am an immigrant turned citizen. My family immigrated to Canada in 1995. It's almost been 12 years, and they have been the 12 best years of my life. I am a proud Canadian citizen.
How did my family get here? Well we applied for immigration, had enough points, and were granted entry. Millions apply each year, only a few hundred thousand are qualified enough.
It was a deal that benefitted both my family and Canada. Canada got a skilled worker (my dad), and two future citizens with high earning potential (myself and my brother). But I think my family got the better end of the deal. We got security, education, healthcare, and most importantly, freedom.
What's the point? Becoming a Canadian resident (and then citizen) is a privilege, and it's for a privileged few. If it were for everyone, then we'd have to throw our borders open and let over half the world's population in. Very few people are foolish enough to suggest that, so let's move on.
I reently received an email about No One is Illegal (NOII) having a rally today to "Stop the Deportations." Let me state this unequivocally: Let the deportations continue. Let's start cracking down on illegal aliens like never before.
There is a huge, huge difference between legal and illegal. Organizations like NOII seek to blur the line, and convince Canadians that they are the same. They are not. They are here illegally. That means against the law. I really shouldn't have to explain that, but it seems people have forgotten the basic meaning of illegal.
If illegal aliens are granted the same rights and privileges as legal immigrants, then what does that say to people who play by the rules? Canada is a society of laws, rules, and structure, or so I thought. Canada told my family to fill out an application and get in line. We did, and now we're here enjoying the benefits of being Canadian. We played by the rules. The people who are here illegally did not play by the rules. They didn't get in line. They and their enablers will try to convince you that it is your moral obligation to give them the same rights and privileges you gave me. You shouldn't.
According to NOII: "Everyday over 500,000 undocumented people across Canada, and over 80,000 in Toronto, live in daily fear of detention and deportation. They are our coworkers, fellow students, political activists, family, friends, and community members. Working in the backs of hotels and restaurants, as domestic and agricultural workers, as taxi drivers and construction workers, and in other jobs, undocumented and immigrant communities experience racial profiling, exploitative working conditions, and lack of access to city services."
I have a few responses to this:
1) They shouldn't have gotten these jobs in the first place. Their employers are supposed to get verify their SIN cards, so we obviously have many employers breaking Canadian law. They need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and the laws governing them need to be tightened.
2) Racial profiling? Bullshit. There are millions of LEGAL immigrants in this country, and they are from every imaginable race.
3) Exploitative working conditions? Meaning that an employer gave you a job at a shitty wage because you couldn't give him a SIN card? That you can't complain to the authorities because you're a criminal?
4) City services? Are you out of your mind?
Canadians are oh so afraid to speak out against illegal aliens for fear of being labelled racist. Well I'm a brown guy and I will not keep my mouth shut. We have a system, and the system has rules. According to these rules, illegal aliens will have an opportnity to make a case as a refugee and be granted refugee status. If that fails, they must be deported.
My family worked damn hard, followed the rules, waited for a long time, and spent a lot of money to get what we have now. Illegal aliens did none of these things, yet they want the same privileges and benefits as me? I don't think so.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Private Clinics
There was an interesting article in the Economist about a month ago. The concept is to make quick visits to the doctor much, much faster than they are now. Rather than wait a week to get an appointment, then another hour at the doctor's office, you swing by one of these 'McClinics' and get a doctor to see you very quickly.
Reasons why I like this service:
-It allows you to quickly see a doctor for minor health problems.
-It is relatively cheap, often charging you half of what a doctors' visit would charge you.
-Many health insurance services are already covering these clinic visits.
-They are becoming widely available, in chain stores (Walmart), pharmacies (CVS), transport hubs (Europe).
-They often use nurse-practitioners instead of doctors. What's the difference? Nurse-practitioners can not only diagnose common minor health problems, but also write prescriptions. That leaves the doctors to deal with the more serious health problems.
It would be nice to see more clinics like this here in Canada, but I need to do more research about why they aren't widely available already.
One of my favourite services in Ontario is Telehealth Ontario. You get to speak to a Registered Nurse (RN) and ask them general health questions, or specific ones to determine if you need to go see a doctor. I've used it on several occasions. I think the Ontario Ministry of Health does a bad job of publicizing the service though, since a lot of people don't even know it exists.
Reasons why I like this service:
-It allows you to quickly see a doctor for minor health problems.
-It is relatively cheap, often charging you half of what a doctors' visit would charge you.
-Many health insurance services are already covering these clinic visits.
-They are becoming widely available, in chain stores (Walmart), pharmacies (CVS), transport hubs (Europe).
-They often use nurse-practitioners instead of doctors. What's the difference? Nurse-practitioners can not only diagnose common minor health problems, but also write prescriptions. That leaves the doctors to deal with the more serious health problems.
It would be nice to see more clinics like this here in Canada, but I need to do more research about why they aren't widely available already.
One of my favourite services in Ontario is Telehealth Ontario. You get to speak to a Registered Nurse (RN) and ask them general health questions, or specific ones to determine if you need to go see a doctor. I've used it on several occasions. I think the Ontario Ministry of Health does a bad job of publicizing the service though, since a lot of people don't even know it exists.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Sponsorship Fun
I came across this just now, and was pleasantly surprised. I'd always wondered about new Canadians coming to Canada through family class sponsorship, then immediately going on welfare. It turns out that the provincial and federal governments will come after the sponsor to recover the money paid out to the new immigrant (through welfare and other such payments). Apparently the sponsor is financially responsible for the new immigrant for 10 years.
I wholeheartedly support this policy, and believe it should be strictly enforced. The premise is simple. You, the sponsor, are bringing a relative into Canada. If the relative has marketable skills, they'll get a job and be self sustaining. If they don't, then you'll have to take care of them, not the taxpayers.
I wholeheartedly support this policy, and believe it should be strictly enforced. The premise is simple. You, the sponsor, are bringing a relative into Canada. If the relative has marketable skills, they'll get a job and be self sustaining. If they don't, then you'll have to take care of them, not the taxpayers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
