You're Canadian First

Wow, I actually agree with something a Liberal said, though I strongly disagree on why she came to Canada in the first place. Yasmin Ratansi, MP for Don Valley East Toronto told immigrants that they should not marginalize themselves. “You should not ever say (for example) I’m Indo-Canadian. No, you are not. You are a Canadian first. India is the country with which you have your heritage, yes, but you are Canadian first.” Ratansi is originally from Tanzania and immigrated to Canada in 1974.

Ratansi's words echo what I have said in the past. The so called Canadians of convenience who marginalize themselves by shutting themselves up in immigrant enclaves and never interacting with or contributing to society at large. I think this is why so many older immigrants feel resentful of newer ones. I remember a story my Grandma told my about my Granddad when they first came here in the 1950s. He was working a carpentry job (he was a carpenter by trade) when he commented that the method one of his buddies was using was not how they did it back in Britain. His friend turned to him and said something to the tune that this was Canada and this is how they do it here; and that he should adopt the Canadian way of doing things. Somehow this became lost in the foolish idea of "salad bowl" multiculturalism, which I feel has utterly failed. Few new immigrants rally behind Canadian identity beyond the occasional cup of Tim's. In the United State's, you're always an American first, and damn proud of it. We may mock them for that but maybe our Yankee cousins are onto something.

Source: CNEWS

read more...

Report Card Time

As other pundits like to give out report cards to our political leaders at the end of the parliamentary session, I thought I'd do my own too. Unoriginal yes but some of my grades might surprise you.

Michelle Jean: A
Michelle had shown a leadership role in the class and is not afraid to take on continental bullies. Definite signs of improvement

Federal House of Commons

Steven Harper: B-
Steven did a good job weathering Canada through the most bitter recession in recent memory. However, he did hand billions of tax dollars to the undeserving auto industry and created a massive deficit. Has shown willingness to work with others, a definite improvement.

Michael Ignatiff: B+
Michael brought decorum back to the Liberal party and has shown a willingness to work with others. Needs to familiarize himself though with content discussed in previous grade levels.

Jack Layton: F
Jack has failed this year's class. He has shown more interest in furthering his own greedy desire to land a cabinet position that he threated Canadian unity and tossed democracy out the window in the process. He knows his plans are far to radical. Other classmates view him as nothing more than a s--t disturber with no real agenda.

Giles Duceppe: N/A
Wants to transfer to a French immersion school.

Stephane Dion: F
Absent for much of the year, threatened to tear Canada apart over his bitterness in loosing the election. Pushed his radical, economy punishing environmental agenda even when his own party warned him to drop it.

Ontario Legislature

Dalton McGuinty: F
Dalton failed to complete any of his assignments. The work he did hand in not even a dog would eat.

John Tory: D
John shows effort but a lack of leadership skills hampers his ability to learn.

Andrea Horwath: A
Andrea has shown intolerance toward bullies and holds her other students accountable for their actions.

read more...

PEPSI: Twice As Much Zionism for A Nickle

On today's theme of weird political stuff, we have a Muslim religious leader in Egypt saying that soft drinks contain hidden Zionist messages. Pepsi, he claims, is an acronym for "Pay Every Penny to Save Israel". I think he may be onto something. I discovered a secret message hidden in a Pepsi bottle once. It said "please play again". What could this ominous message mean?!

Source: National Post

read more...

Disney Not Gay Enough? Have They Been to Drama Class?!

Politics has it's own unique way of making us laugh. Some of my favourites are the bizarre, politically motivated "scientific" studies that come out from time to time. The semi-satirical British tech website the Register published an article regarding a study that says that G-rated Disney movies aren't gay enough. The study was conducted by Emily Kazyak and Karin Martin, who examined the top grossing G-rated films for their hidden sexual content. According to the pair, the movies "send a memorable message to impressionable young viewers that heterosexual love is not only the norm" (which it is) "but that it is also exceptional, powerful, transformative and magical". Kazyak and Martin went on to say that heterosexuality is "construed through depictions of overtly feminized women and masculine males, with the male characters spending much of their time longingly gazing at the former". Hey, that last part is what made Hugh Hefner a millionaire. He must be doing something right. They concluded that "both ordinary and exceptional constructions of heterosexuality work to normalize its status because it becomes difficult to imagine anything other than this form of social relationship or anyone outside of these bonds."

I personally think they're not giving Disney enough credit. I mean Timon and Pumba from the Lion King were obviously gay. Let's not forget the movie's soundtrack was done by Britain's Other Queen himself Elton John. The silliness of these studies comes from people reading far too deeply into things than they were ever meant to. As Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Most Disney movies are based on classic fairy tales, many produced during the romantic era. The highly exaggerated romance of it all is simply a characteristic of that time. Interestingly, most recent Disney films during the period they looked at have not included any romantic content what so ever. Namely the Pixar movies, with Wall-E being the exception. The fact that this study exists though does highlight a major milestone for the gay rights movement. You know a movement has come far when they no longer have anything important to complain about and they start focusing on the stupid stuff. These are probably the same academics that would have you believe that every important figure in the history of man was gay.

It's also important to point out that the media is reflective of society, not a director of it. Disney wouldn't produce a G-rated movie involving homosexual romance simply because American society is not ready for it. It would likely bomb at the box office and attract all sorts of undesirable attention from the religious right. The gay community is at vary least partially at fault for this. When so called "mid-westerners" turn on their TV during pride week and see a bunch of flamboyant men parading around wearing assless chaps in what is essentially a sex orgy sans intercourse itself, they believe that's what being gay is. The gay community has done nothing to dispel their stereotypes and indeed has done the exact opposite. Maybe it's time for them to reconsider the way they reach out to the public.

Source: The Register

read more...

Canadian Broadcasting: Radio Raise Further Questions

I wasn't sure whether I was going to post this story or not but it ties in with my article of TV versus radio in Canadian broadcasting. Sorry for this story being a couple of weeks old. In that article, I looked at the double standard between radio and TV. Namely that TV is given certain protections, notably against international broadcasting, that radio does not. Despite Canadian radio stations being fed to the international wolves, they are actually making money, in fact considerably more money even though we are in a recession. According to the Financial Post, radio profits before taxes for 2009 are up 12%. Revenues are up 5% across the board. Higher ad revenues are being credited for the success. Television by contrast is loosing money and saying that their ad revenues are declining. Therefore they are demanding we pay more for TV to compensate. Canadian radio faces stiff competition from satellite and Internet radio providers while TV is protected from this. This seems to point to the fact that perhaps it's because Canadian TV is being poorly managed. It could be argued that TV content costs more to produce, which is true. Most radio stations, music ones anyway, don't produce their own programming and they require less equipment to operate. However, CTV's claims that ad revenues are down don't hold up if they're actually increasing in another, similar medium. TV networks need to take a serious step back and reevaluate their business practises. Enough trying to squeeze more out of the recession battered consumer.

Source: Financial Post via Canada.com

read more...

Union Irony: Protecting Workers At the Expense of Others

The National Post is reporting that 400 seasonal workers have been laid off indefinitely at Centreville Amusement Park . The park, located on Toronto Island, has been closed due to the cancellation of ferry service to the island as a result of the CUPE strike that has hit the city. Ironic isn't it. Just yesterday I talked about how I thought people would feel bitter and even hostile toward CUPE for striking over such a petty issue when others are being forced to do with less and less. I wonder how these 400 people feel. The vast majority of them are students who will be struggling to pay their tuitions come Fall thanks to lost hours. There's definitely not going to be any labour soliderity here.

Source: National Post

read more...

Unions Are Loosing the PR Battle

During this recession, a great deal of people have lost their jobs. Those fortunate enough have had wages frozen and benefits clawed back, or are stuck working part time for relatively low pay. Retirees, most without private pension plans, have seen their savings dwindle as stocked crashed. Many of them are questioning whether they can afford to maintain their current quality of life. Retired workers are now flooding into the part time market, taking jobs away from younger people, in order to supplement their incomes. Yes, it's tough times for all, unless you happen to belong to a big union. Toronto's city workers have gone on strike over what amounts to whether or not they can bank their 18 annual sick days and cash them in when they retire. Government workers have long operated on a culture of entitlement and believe that regardless of what happens in the outside world, they should be left untouched. Toronto's concessions to maintain labour peace is a large part of what has led to the city's near bankruptcy. Simply put, the city cannot afford to be paying these huge cash bonuses as large numbers of employees start to retire, many of who are eligible to do so at 55 instead of 65. CUPE claims it did not want to go on strike but obviously, I'm not buying this. Oh, it just happens they set their strike deadline at the beginning of Pride Week, an event which brings millions to the city and generates a heck of a lot of garbage. That was a coincidence I'm sure, no extortion here. All it will do is parade the city's incompetence and the union's greed before the world.

There is some backlash against big unionism starting to appear. It has marked a drastic change since the strikes during past economic downturns. Back in the 1930s and 1970s, workers were fighting for fair wages and better job security during bad times. Today, they are seen to be fighting for petty issues, such as the right to cash in sick days, or to grab tax dollars as was the case with the CAW's negotiations with GM and Chrysler. Toronto's CUPE workers are basically fighting over something stupid while at the same time putting people at a huge inconvenience and putting public health at risk by not picking up trash. Even many socialists will have trouble defending this while their non-union brothers are getting thrown through the shredder for no fault of their own as private companies struggle to survive and remain profitable. Most people recognize cut backs during hard times as inevitable. As other pundits have pointed out, unions however, particularly in the public sector, soon see minor perks as becoming inalienable rights. To add insult to injury, Toronto's non-unionized staff have seen major layoffs in order to pay for the perks of the union. In some perverse way, the big unions see this as incentive for more to join their ranks. In reality, it has drastically soured the relationship between unions and the general public. People see them as snivelling, entitled, cry babies. Civil servants are quickly loosing their golden boy status. They need to get their butts back to the bargaining table as soon as possible because they're not going to get the public sympathy that they did in the past. In the end, they look and largely are just as bad as the fat cat managers they're fighting against.

read more...

What's Wrong With Canada?

I often ask myself this question and I keep coming to the same answer. The biggest problem with Canada is Canadians themselves, or more specifically their attitude. Pulling a file out of the large virtual filing cabinet of issues I follow, I select one that's close to home. It regards the unwanted mall and sound barrier issue I discussed last month. At one meeting, neighbours cautioned my family not to upset the bureaucrats because they were "trying to help us." My father being a retired civil engineer and myself a political scientist & quasi-journalist, we knew better. Civil servants filibuster and have little interest in improving the lives of people they serve. They're mostly brain dead robots serving a higher power who can't be bothered with a bunch of nobodies trying to get money out of them. The remark from one of my neighbours came after my father pushed one of the bureaucrats into answering a vital question they had been dodging. Don't upset them. That was a moment of epiphany for myself. It confirmed something that I had suspected for some time. The problem with Canada is that Canadians refuse to rock the proverbial boat. You can decrease their quality of life, you can take away their rights, you can undermine democracy, but still they will stand there unwilling or uninterested. It's a dictator's dream come true.

The million dollar question is why do Canadians behave this way. It's certainly in stark contrast to our neighbour to the south. Americans get riled up over things at the drop of a hat. It's guaranteed somebody, somewhere in the US is protesting something. A lot of that comes from Americans having a vary different heritage from us. When the Thirteen Colonies suffered gross democratic abuses at the hands of the British Empire, they rebelled. America fought for their independence, we asked nicely and even then we weren't truly free of Britain until the 1980s. Canada was built by the loyalists who did not want to rebel for one reason or another. We're quite satisfied with the status quo regardless of whether we're being subject to abuse or not. This way of thinking has opened us up to gross abuses. I already discussed the increasing number of immigrants who only come here to collect our social services. We don't speak out against them for fear of offending people. Meanwhile they offend ever other immigrant who can here and struggled to make a life for themselves. It's not just them. Powerful NGOs, various special interest groups, land developers, large corporations, drug dealers and petty criminals, con artists, labour unions. They all want a slice of the pie and they take it regardless of who's toes they step on. We do nothing to stop them because we simply do not like confrontation.

The government itself is probably the biggest abuser of them all. The politicians themselves are unwitting pawns in the game that is entirely controlled by fat cat bureaucrats who sit around and freely and openly abuse and neglect the public interest for one reason or another. Over the years, they've been handed a considerable amount of power and obtained golden idol status. Every criticism slides off them as if they were all coated with Teflon. Take the Walkerton incident for example. When water engineer Stan Cabel neglected his duties of making sure the town's water had enough chlorine in it, an e. coli outbreak resulted causing several deaths. In a logical world, Cabel would have been fired at the vary least, though I would have gone as far as to charge him with criminal negligence. Through union trickery and politicking, the blame somehow went directly to Mike Harris for not properly funding the civil service. Despite willfully falling asleep at the switch and killing several people in the process, Cabel walked away a hero and the public ate up the rhetoric like Oprah on a baked ham. Pretty much every other scandal involving the bureaucracy has received a similar outcome and it effects all levels of government. The Toronto Catholic School Board, eHealth, the human rights commissions, the Sponsorship Scandal, or just being mouthed off to at the MTO licensing office. I know someone who works at a receptionist at one of the municipalities. She has actually be verbally assaulted by bureaucrats for putting their phone calls through to them. It happens on an almost daily basis. (incidentally, I believe voice mail and Microsoft Solitaire to be the most important inventions in bureaucrat history) Despite abusing a fellow employee and refusing to do their jobs, they receive vary little recourse if any. Usually the latter. These are the same bureaucrats who I've been fighting with over the mall. The public knows this behaviour is wrong but they don't do anything about it for fear of upsetting the goldenboy image. After all they are just trying to help us, right? So says my neighbour. This is allowed to go on because people don't fight it. Our apathy is destroying this country.

Am I being cynical when I describe Canadians as a bunch of lazy idiots living in fear of rocking the boat? It's hard not to be when that is all one sees. Even the media is just as guilty of this; choosing to focus on petty issues while virtually ignoring discussion on the major ones. If it wasn't for amateur bloggers, many of these issues would never see the light of day. The vast majority of protests one sees here are the big, corrupt stakeholders or new Canadians fighting for some issue back in their old country that no longer affects them. It's vary easy to become jaded. However, I would be more than thrilled to be surprised. I was quite surprised in fact when Canadians came out in force against the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition late last year. That is probably the only time I've seen Canadians react so strongly to an issue. The problem is it being an isolated case when it should be the norm. Canadians need to wake up and stop being so fearful of challenging authority. For God's sake it only takes 10 minutes out of your day to pick up a newspaper or watch the evening news to inform yourself. It only takes 10 minutes out of your day once every three or four years to vote. Write letters to representatives, start your own blog, get out and protest. Get with the program and stop letting the government and corrupt organizations walk all over you. Canada is our country. Let's start acting like we care.

read more...

PETA Finally Goes Right Round the Bend

You thought PETA (People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals) couldn't get any more bizarre. Apparently you thought wrong. Earlier this week, US president Barack Obama swatted a fly that was disrupting him during an interview with NBC. The animal rights group came out today announcing that they were vary disappointed in the president for doing that. The group's spokesman Bruce Friedrich said that ""We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals, we believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals." Friedrich went on to say that while they approved of Obama's voting record on animal rights "swatting a fly on TV indicates he's not perfect, and we're happy to say that we wish he hadn't." PETA suggested that he should have used a more humane method that allows flies to be trapped and released outside. I had often joked that PETA would soon equate swatting flies to murder. Now I can say that they finally have. This is just too funny. PETA members really need to find something better to do with their time.

Source: CNEWS

read more...

What's A Canadian Citizenship Worth These Days?

The United States takes its sovereignty vary seriously, arguably far more than most other democratic nations. This is precisely the reason why US presidents must be born and live within the country. In Canada, the only requirement to vote or run for office is simply having Canadian citizenship. A proposed plan by Toronto mayor David Miller would see that soon change. Miller wants to allow non-citizens, in other words landed immigrants, to vote in municipal elections. His argument is that if they pay taxes, they should be allowed to vote, going as far as to compare it to "taxation without representation." On the outset this makes some sense but if we allow landed immigrants to vote, what is the purpose of Canadian citizenship? If this goes through, citizens will only have the "privilege" to be conscripted against their will for jury duty. I'm hardly a nationalist but this bothers me because it seems as if we are throwing away both our sovereignty and identity. When I think of my parents coming to Canada and working hard to gain citizenship, I cannot help but feel a little screwed if this goes through. Citizenship privileges have been slowly dwindling over the past few decades and even now it doesn't give you special treatment when you travel. So basically, Canadian citizenship is meaningless. I would gladly do as Conrad Black did and have my own citizenship revoked just so I don't have to ever sit on a jury. It's not as if it is doing anything else for me.

The whole issue brings up a questions of immigration. Miller's obvious motives I'll leave for another discussion. The big issue this country is facing today is so called "Canadians of convenience". The media coined this term during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War when Canada mounted the nation's largest sea evacuation since World War II. Thousands of Lebanese-Canadians were evacuated from the war-zone. However, it turned out that most of them had few ties to Canada at all other than citizenship papers. Basically, they had only held onto citizenship for easy access to social services and relatives. However, these are not the only people who are Canadians of convenience. There is a small but growing problem within Canada's immigrant communities that involve people who are little more than long term tourists. They are those who remain in immigrant enclaves their entire lives without learning our language or even interacting with Canadians in general. A growing number of them are elderly relatives here simply to collect social services. Large numbers of whom do not work, do not contribute financially to the system, and most do not contribute to society in any other ways. In cities such as Brampton Ontario, they can be seen wondering the streets and malls in middle of the day during the week. It is well known that the majority of these people are only here to collect socialized medicine. This is painfully evident when going into places like Brampton Civic Hospital, which is sometimes referred to as the $750 million free walk-in clinic for Brampton's Punjabi community.

When questioning immigration, the left usually labels you as racist or against multiculturalism. However, Canadians of convenience throw a monkey wrench into their logic. An immigrant who never learns Canada's official languages and never interacts with the world outside ethnic enclaves does not fall under the umbrella of multiculturalism. Canadians are encouraged right from childhood to learn about and interact with other cultures. To me, this has always been the definition of multiculturalism. It is not enough to simply have multiple cultures in a society to call it multicultural if said cultures do not interact with one another. The problem is that we have to interact with Canadians of convenience eventually and due to the fact many of them cannot communicate in either official language, it has placed an enormous burden on businesses and governments. Is it right to accommodate people who make absolutely no effort to accommodate you? Of course it is difficult to learn a new language and embrace a new society but millions of immigrants have done so with great success. The problem is the people who simply don't care and are just here for the perks rather than trying to build a nation.

One way to solve the problem of Canadians of convenience is to change who is eligible for social services. In order to receive health care and welfare, I believe you must be either a full Canadian citizen or contribute to the system by paying income taxes. Non-citizens and landed immigrants who do not work should not be allowed to collect social services. Of course this would exclude children under 18. Is this harsh? I don't think so. The welfare system acts as a sort of state run insurance. Just like private insurance, if you don't pay into it and never did pay into it, you should not be able to collect. This would eliminate people coming to Canada for "free" health care. I would go even further to say that immigrants should have lived here for a minimum number of years before being able to collect social services, or even that only citizens can collect. Of course the left would never approve any of this but it would certainly raise the value of Canadian citizenship and encourage more immigrants to get their card. Another idea would be to require all new immigrants who cannot speak French or English to take a mandatory ESL or FSL course to be able to communicate with Canadians. As long as they at least make an effort to learn, they should be granted full immigrant status but those who do not should not be allowed in. Radical? Yes, but the current system is just throwing up more and more walls between peoples and is allowing a small but growing minority to take advantage of our generosity. This, quite frankly, is an insult to all those immigrants from every background who built this nation. Things need to change to keep the freeloading Canadians of convenience out.

read more...

The Curious Case of Canadian Broadcasting

Internet radio is great. I can listen to thousands of stations anywhere in the world right from my computer. Even Canadian radio stations have grown a small international audience judging by the ones who phone in to talk programs. Try watching international TV on your computer and you'll get a completely different and wholly negative experience. I use IGN a lot for my MMNTech site but I find a lot of the videos they've been using to show clips and trailers of TV shows are through Hulu. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp owns both Hulu and IGN so naturally they're going to use the service. Unfortunately, Hulu is not available in Canada or anywhere else for that matter besides the United States. Pretty stupid for a website with an international audience. Copyright problems are usually blamed but I don't buy this since audio falls under the same umbrella as video. So why am I free to access international audio broadcasts online but not international television?

To answer this question, you have to go a few years back with a struggle over Apple Corp.'s iTunes and the Canadian networks. When Apple launched the iTunes video store back around 2006, they wanted to put TV shows up for all customers. However, this was blocked in Canada because Canadian networks refused to hand over broadcasting rights. As usual, CTV was the leader, meaning popular American shows like South Park took a long time to reach Canadian internet shores. It doesn't matter that CTV doesn't own the copyrights to these shows. They had been handed exclusive broadcasting privilege from the CRTC. Much of it has to do with laws concerning Canadian ownership of broadcast outlets and Canadian content laws. Apple is an American company after all. What confuses me is why such a double standard exists between TV and radio in Canada. To tell Apple they can't sell TV episodes in Canada would be equivalent to them saying they can't sell music on iTunes because it would hurt Canadian record stores and radio stations. Obviously that never happened. The problem still exists today with a great deal of television content moving online. Direct feeds from American networks are off limits to Canadians let alone huge archive sites like Hulu. Canadians are met with the message that they are not permitted to use the service. So let me get this strait. We live in a multicultural society that praises our international heritage but the government won't let me watch international broadcasts online. Does that make sense? I didn't think so.

The CRTC recently decided that it would not try to regulate new media at this time, although they are already doing it by proxy. They also left the door open for future regulation. As I've said many times before, the whole Canadian content rules are anti-multicultural and are vastly outdated for our current international society. The laws only exist at this point to keep the likes of CTV, Bell, and CBC in exclusive communications monopolies. It is worth noting that radio doesn't have the lobby power that the TV networks do. The CRTC needs to get with the program and open the doors to international television broadcasting, no matter what the medium, to put it on equal ground with radio.

read more...

Radio MMN

The beauty of the Internet is being able to produce content free of charge. If you're cheap like me, that's great. It's what's kept this blog going for four years now. I've been toying with the idea of adding a multimedia feature to MMN or MMNTech. I got the idea to do an enhanced podcast as a project of mine just to see how it works out and what kind of interest it generates (likely none. lol).
I'm in the planning stages of it right now but I have worked out a loose format. Each episode, I'll discuss two or three current events topics just like any pundit show. No schedule. It will be done when its done if it gets done. Here's the plan for my first episode.

Episode 1: Food For Thought

-Food Inc.
Discuss the topics Robert Kenner brings up in his new documentary Food Inc. Why are we so afraid of industrialized agriculture? Is Ronald McDonald really the spawn of Pennywise? Plus my secret to good health and why I will relish my 30th birthday when it comes.

-Places to Mow (Down)
Is the 2005 Places to Grow Act of Ontario accelerating urban sprawl? Is the Greenbelt just a myth? Why is it that "Big Mayonnaise" seems to be the only realistic organization fighting sprawl? Plus a look at the issue of broken municipal planning and I rant about my fence.

read more...

Harper a Bonehead, but Another Election? Really?!

The Harper government has done some boneheaded things in the last couple of months but the empty sabre rattling from the left wing makes me wonder just how together the Liberals are. The NDP had proposed widespread changes to Employment Insurance in order to make it easier to get since many people do not qualify for it. Namely those who work too few hours or are self employed. I suppose that's fair enough even though the last thing we need in this country is an expanded welfare state. Whether it's an issue of confidence in the House is a completely different question. If a Federal election were called this summer, it would be the third is as many years. Given the dismal voter turn out last October and the flat rejection of the Liberal coalition, one has to wonder whether even bringing up the possibility is a wise idea. Judging by polls, any election is just going to return us to the status quo. We either have a narrow Conservative minority (most likely) or a narrow Liberal minority. Either way it would be a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars. Canadians are already beginning to show strong signs of election fatigue.

The Liberals are just doing what they do best, politciking without really accomplishing anything. The party has major image issues and the unelection of Michael Ignatiff has done nothing to help their cause. Stephane Dion was an academic with a loose grasp on what Canadians wanted. Ignatiff is a Harvard professor who has lived outside of the country for the past several decades and has a loose grasp on what Canadians want. Really, the two men show little difference other than the latter passing off as more of a sleazeball to Dion's wussyness. Canadians see this. So, I'm going to give the Liberals a little advice. Get rid of Ignatiff and find a home grown leader who isn't Quebecois. Focus on the economy and take the carbon tax completely off the table. That's what killed them in the last election. The environment really only has mass appeal for yuppies, crunchy granola types, and academics; not blue collar people who see it as another expense. There's lots to attack Harper on but so far the Liberals have only focused on petty things, which doesn't sit well with the people at home. The Liberals are their own worst enemies simply because they cannot connect with average Canadians.

Secondly, I want to deal with the issue of Ignatiff being outside of Canada for some twenty-seven. The Conservatives have been attacking him heavily in various ads over the last couple of weeks over this vary issue. The ads have been criticized by people supporting multiculturalism and immigration, with critics saying it's equal to attacking new citizens for living most of their lives outside Canada. However, I think the Conservatives do have a large point to make, whether intended or not. A person who has been out of the country for that long and has only returned recently does not have a strong grasp of the specific issues. A lot has happened since Ignatiff left, stuff that effects us profoundly today, and surely he wasn't glued to Canadian papers on a daily basis. Picking someone like that as leader was a really dumb decision on the Liberals part as it further paints their party with the notion of being out-of-touch. In the United States, the qualifications to become president require one to be born or naturalized in the US, be at least 35, and lived there for 14 consecutive years as a permanent resident. Canada has no such restrictions but it would be worth considering them for adoption, namely the last two. To be Prime Minister, you should have to be at least 35 and have lived in Canada for at least 10 consecutive years before you can run for office. Under this, Ignatiff could not qualify since he has only been back in the country as a permanent resident for four years. Rules such as this are necessary for making sure leaders are informed and have the best interests of Canadians in mind. It also doesn't exclude immigrants which should pacify the multiculturalists. Surely the Liberals could find someone who has lived here, though they did entirely rule out Rae for the candidacy. The fact that they didn't even bother to elect their leader as everyone else does shows their mentality.

read more...

Idiots Hall of Shame: April & May

We had a lot of idiots for these two months so I'm archiving them early to make more room.

May Inductees
John Lennon & Yoko Ono -- Special lifetime award on the 40th anniversary of their Montreal bed-in for peace. I'm still puzzled as to how they thought lying in bed for a week was going to stop the Vietnam War.

Ruby Dhallah -- claims allegations of abusing live-in caregivers is a Tory conspiracy against here, despite lack of proof. Gives Garth a run for his money.

CTV -- Attempting to screw consumers by trying to force extra fees on cable customers who receive network stations because it bought too many assets that it could not afford. Blackmailing the CRTC and attempting to brainwash the public.

Elizabeth May -- Funny how the only goal of her plan to enhance democracy seems to be getting herself a guaranteed seat in parliament. No conflict of interest there.

PETA -- Would rather let humans starve just to protect cute seal pups.

April Inductees
Harmid Karzai -- Tried to legalize spousal rape in Afghanistan to cajole the Taliban and Al Qaeda

G20 Protesters in London -- How is beating cops going to fix the economy again? I think we should ask North Koreans how well that whole communism thing is going.

Ken Lewenza -- CAW president thinks Ontario taxpayers are morally obligated to pay his huge union pensions when so many other retirees are living on less and less. Talk about a culture of entitlement. He'd do the Liberals proud.

Milton Canadian Champion -- Local newspaper that insulted me by refusing to publish my letter, publically stating that I was basically lying. Incompetent at best, in bed with developers at worst.

Milton Town Council -- Ignoring their constituents in old Milton

First Capital Development -- Building a giant mall that nobody wants or needs, creating noise, air, and light pollution in the middle of a residential area.

Ontario Municipal Board -- For making decisions undemocratically, rubber-stamping development projects without any knowledge of the community and never asking for their concerns.

The Entertainment Industry -- For turning copyright law into an absolute farce.

Tamil-Canadians -- For trying to get Canada involved in a war it has no business being involved in, and for openly supporting an internationally recognized terror group.

Janet Napolitano -- US Homeland Security Secretary within the Obama administration. Falsely accused Canada of allowing terrorists to entre into the US.

Garth Turner -- Honorary lifetime inductee. Betrayed his voters, makes offensives comments, and paranoid statements. In regards to the latter and in all seriousness, I think he may have a mental illness and needs to seek help.

Steven Harper -- Bailing out Chrysler. Yeah, like we'll ever see that money again. Isn't he supposed to be an economic conservative?

Barack Obama -- Failed his first 100 days by wussifying America. Bailed out the automakers and partially nationalized Chrysler. Three international incidents started with Canada by people under his watch... plus all that sleezy stuff he did during the election. Far too much to cover for this section.

read more...

...But Do I Get a Free Car?

I own GM now, apparently. I must say I feel wealthy along with my 32 million other shareholders who have just purchased 12% of a car company to the tune of $10 billion. Now, this seems great until I realized that I don't get a dividend for my stocks. In fact I don't get anything except an inevitable paycheque decrease thanks to the future taxes I'll have to pay for this colossal blunder. Steven Harper is pulling the "following orders" excuse as to why the government bailed out General Motors. According to the PM, they would not have done it had Obama not bailed out the US arm of the company, and it was only done to keep jobs in Canada. Fair enough but I cannot help but wonder whether it's just delaying the inevitable. All throughout the bailout negotiations, GM management and the CAW/UAW have taken an apathetic stance on restructuring. The CAW still considers being docked down to the same level of every other worker, blue or white collar, to be a major concession.

Now that two of the largest companies in the world have been nationalized, what's in it for the rest of us who are forking out this money? One leading bankruptcy lawyer noted that Chrysler will be unable to repay its loans to the government. What makes General Motors any different? It's simply putting good money after bad. GM has put a great deal of funding into the Camaro and the Volt, two cars which will supposedly save the company. Unfortunately, pony cars and hybrids aren't selling and the company has grown a reputation for having unreliable vehicles. GM's plan for profitability is relying on niche products, which may work for smaller companies or those in strong financial shape, but it's not viable in the long run. If this recession has done anything, it has shown that Keynesian economics, or rather the distorted version being used today, simply no longer works in modern economies. It's important to keep banks stable and inject cash into infrastructure projects to create jobs but Keynes to my knowledge never said anything about bailing out the failures of others. However, that seems to be the government policy de jour. The problem is that all political parties seem to be supporting this yet Canadians and Americans alike are not liking it one bit. The Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP have all been pushing for bailouts. Sure it keeps people working but at what cost? If GM collapses again in the near future, which to me seems inevitable, we'll be out double rather than just letting them fail now and worrying about EI. We've lived to survive another day but at what cost? We now risk governments micromanaging the economy and getting more bloated than ever before. Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan must be turning in their graves.

Steven Harper has failed on this issue but would Michael Ignatiff had done anything different, or Jack Layton? Already government deficit is ballooning out of control, both at the national level and in Liberal controlled Ontario. The United States is in no better shape. The two North American powers desperately need to return to the Reganomics model. While Canadians have criticized such models for cutting services and cutting back the "saintly" civil service, they worked; something that cannot be said for the hypergovernment models of today. Governments are simply getting far too big and too intrusive for their own good. We've been down this path before, and have always emerged worse off than when we went in. If we must suffer this, at the vary least I should get a free car; seeing as how I paid for it. I'll take a Corvette please, in black if possible.

read more...

An Email From Tony Clement on Bill C-61

A while ago, I wrote my MP in regards to the resurrection of Bill C-61, also known as the "Canadian DMCA", which proposed sweeping changes to Canadian copyright law that I felt were inherently anti-consumer and anti-free market. Interestingly, I received this email on Friday claiming to be written by Tony Clement, the industry minister. It's your typical generic form letter but it's nice to actually hear back from a government official.

Thank you for your e-mail expressing your views on an Act to Amend the
Copyright Act, or Bill C-61, which was introduced in the last Parliament.

In my view, the Copyright Act must continue to reflect current
technological and legal realities, while supporting innovation and the
needs of consumers. Adequate protection for Canada’s creators must be
balanced against the access needs of Canadians. As you may be aware, Bill
C-61 died on the order paper with the dissolution of Parliament on
September 7, 2008. At this time, I am carefully reviewing the copyright
bill, taking into consideration the views of stakeholders in order to
determine the appropriate next steps in the reform process. In this
regard, I am working closely with my colleague, the Honourable James
Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Once again, thank you for writing, and please accept my best wishes. Rest
assured that your concerns will be taken into consideration as we move
forward on copyright reform.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Clement

This doesn't sound promising though. However, it's a good example as to why you should write MPs about major issues. Often the only way to get heard is to talk to them directly, or make a big media fuss. I prefer to do both.

read more...