Cuba no vacation spot

Many Canadians are lured to Cuba for it's white beaches, azure seas, and rum & colas a plenty. But that's only what the government wants you to see. Beyond the tourist areas, Cuba is still a rundown island controlled by a ruthless dictatorship. Wander off the beaten path and you're likely to get caught up in the web of corruption that rules the island.

Nineteen-year-old Simcoe, Ontario teen Cody LeCompte learned that the heard way. He was visiting Cuba when his rental care was sideswiped by a pickup truck. Unlike Canada, you're not innocent until proven guilty. Especially if you're a foreigner. Many Latin Americans have a fierce dislike for gringos (white English-speaking foreigners). It might shock some to hear this, but few can tell the difference between Canadians and Americans. Even though there was proof LeCompte didn't cause the accident, Cuban officials cared little. He has been held on the island since April before they decided to let him go this week.

There's very little the Canadian consulate can do in these situations. They have no jurisdiction there. The Cuban government is entirely within their rights not to cooperate. LeCompte got lucky because the Cubans didn't want to damage the tourism industry. But, it stands as a stern warning to other would-be travellers.

Cuba won't respect the rights of its own people, so why should they respect the rights of a rich gringo? Canada can't help you once you leave the country. You absolutely have to maintain extra vigilance at all times when you're visiting places like these. Better yet, take a trip to Florida instead.

read more...

Ground Zero mosque a mistake

I was reading New York City has approved the construction of a major mosque right next to Ground Zero. The Islamic centre is run by a cleric that has been extremely critical of America. He has accused them of indirectly causing 9/11 by pushing the Muslim world to far. In all fairness he has stated that terrorism is not the Muslim way. On the other hand he has tried to absolve the hijackers by blaming US policy. Reading the comments on news sites, a lot of people seem to be applauding the NYC decision. Many commentators say it's a victory against the "bigots" who wanted to stop the building of Cordoba House.

Feisal Abdul Rauf, the above mentioned cleric, says he's building the mosque to bridge cultures. Let's say I believe him for a minute. Even if that is his intended purpose, there are plenty of Muslims who won't see it that way.

The name Cordoba House is provocative in itself. Cordoba was the seat of power in Muslim occupied Spain. Regardless of his intentions, to the families of 9/11 victims, it's offensive. It would be like Japan erecting a war memorial in Nanjing, or someone putting a Nazi flag over Auschwitz. Intentional or not, it's a subtle display of power and supremacy. There's a lot of people who will take it that way.

Nobody is saying that Feisal Abdul Rauf can't build Cordoba House. Building it next to Ground Zero just isn't an appropriate place. Especially with memories of that day still fresh in people's minds. Three-thousand people of all faiths and backgrounds died that day. Not all terrorists are Muslims but the 9/11 hijackers were, and did it in the name of Islam. If Abdul Rauf really wanted to bridge cultures, he would not be trying to build his mosque in such a provocative place. For someone who preaches sensitivity about his culture, he certainly seems to have none for ours.

read more...

Ontario's tax dollar gold digging

A relative of mine got a letter from the Ontario Ministry of Revenue demanding payment for an error on a business tax form made four years ago. Something that was allegedly rectified at the time. They asked me why the government was going after them when there are certainly bigger fish to fry. The answer is simple, small businesses are an easy target, and so are individuals.

The Ontario government is now sitting with the largest deficit in history. It has already levied the largest income tax increase in history, has increased sales taxes, has put up hydro rates, among other things. Yet the government still finds itself in the red and spending keeps increasing. Most of it goes to the public service payroll, the rest seems to be going to pet projects of the Premier. Few Ontarians seem to actually be benefiting from it.

The problem is the government, in order to pay the bills, will be clamouring for every penny they can get their hands on. This means going after any unpaid back taxes or fines, legit or not, with a vengeance. They won't be going after the big boys with their legions of lawyers either.

Consider this a warning when you fill out your 2010 taxes next April. Make sure you go over it with a fine tooth comb. Any mistakes you make could end up costing you dearly.

read more...

Ontario's eco-fees may be unconstitutional

Did you watch the price of goods go up on July 1st? HST wasn't the only culprit. New "eco-fees" were slapped on a wide variety goods that the government thinks are environmentally harmful. This includes everything from potting soil to washing up liquid. Stewardship Ontario, an independent body set up by the Ontario Government, has levied these fees. The problem is, it can't.

Legal experts say the eco-fees are unconstitutional since they are legally considered to be a tax. The problem is only the legislature can levy taxes and only the ministry of revenue can collect them. It grows out of that whole "no taxation without representation" that got the Americans so hot and bothered 230 years ago.

Direct taxation is when the government passes a law in the legislature and announces it to the public. That's allowed by the constitution. Indirect taxation is when the government sets up an external body to levy and collect fees without informing or consulting citizens. That's what Stewardship Ontario has done. They are collecting fees for the government through businesses, who then pass the costs on to consumers. There was no vote on these fees. No hearings were ever held. No legislation was tabled. The body unilaterally decided to implement them.

The fees have been in place since 2007 when they were first levied on items such as paint. Nobody complained mainly because nobody knew they were there. At the time, only a handful of items were covered. The list has since ballooned.

Environment Minister John Gerretsen seems to think this is A-OK. After all, the McGuinty government thinks the lack of action by the public is a wholehearted endorsement of their policies. Dalton's dream team knows how to play the apathy of Ontarians like a well used Xbox.

Despite the lack of complaints, it still doesn't make the fees legal. Yet another sign that our governments have total contempt for the people they serve.

read more...

Did you get your HST bribe money yet?

Look what came in the mail today. A lovely brown envelope from the Ontario Government stuffed with cash. My HST bribe... er... relief cheque. The figure came to the princely sum of $100 big ones.

Then I thought to myself. I have to fill up my car about three times a month to carry me to my two jobs. One is located across town, the other in downtown Toronto. It costs me on average $40 to fill up my Civic. That's $120 a month in fuel expenses. Come July, that jumps to $130, assuming gas prices don't spike. It's not a lot really but I think it's the principle of the matter. That cheque won't even stretch a year, assuming gas was my only HST applicable expense. In the mean time, the job market is still in the tank and my wages have not increased.

Anyone who believes the HST will create jobs, or that companies will pass "savings" on to consumers is a fool. Each time the government creates a so called "revenue neutral" tax, it becomes anything but. Remember the GST was supposed to be revenue neutral?

Any savings to businesses will be eaten up by their increased tax burden. They too will now have to pay tax on items previously exempt from the PST. Fuel is the big one. So it does indeed work out to be revenue neutral for them, not for the Government.

I'm no economist but I'd sure like to know how this is going to create jobs and save me money. Maybe they'll use the "savings" to build more plazas and stuff them with minimum wage positions; because you know $10.25 an hour part time is more than enough to live on.

This is the second time Dalton McGuinty lied about not levying new taxes. Ontarians' tax burden has spiked but services have not improved. All it seems to be doing is funnelling more cash to pay for the onslaught of civil servants the government is hiring.

Under McGuinty's leadership, Ontario went from an economic powerhouse to a "have not" province. That was even before the recession of 2008. The hole we're in now was caused by years of government mismanagement. While the recession did hit us hard, the government wasn't financially prepared to deal with it. That's why they have the HST. They can't raise income taxes any higher so the government is forced to nickel and dime people to recoup the millions they wasted. When the NDP says you're taxing people too much, you might have a problem. It's making us all live on a little less, for nought.

Coming soon, I'm going to completely revamp Martin's Mill News with a new design. I'm going to clean up some of the old articles as well. Get rid of pointless rants, fix up the rest. Similar to what I did with MMN Tech. Stay tuned for the new and improved site in the next month or so.

read more...

A streetcar names annoyance

They're a relic of the past. Those bright red behemoths rolling noisily down Toronto's streets. Councillor Rob Ford says we shouldn't expand their service. A lot of Torontonians agree with him. It's time to end the reign of the TTC's streetcars.

They've been a land mark of Toronto since the beginnings of the city as a major metropolitan area. Today's Red Rockets exist for nostalgia more than anything else. They worked when they were first installed in the 1920s. Then again, downtown Toronto had a fraction of traffic it does today. Skip ahead 90 years and the trams are little more than a nuisance.

A debate came up in the office yesterday about just how noisy they are. A lot of residents complain about being woken up by them. They're also a menace to traffic. They're limited to moving along the centre lanes of roads, often blocking traffic if cars are parked along the street. Passengers have to step into a live traffic lane to get on and off. Sure, the cars are supposed to stop but we all know the don't. In response to the safety issues, the city has built dedicated streetcar only lanes on some streets such as Spadina and St. Clair. The latter caused an uproar by local businesses due to the reduced parking and traffic flow issues it caused.

The city is actually planning on expanding this already antiquated system. They want to install multi-car light rail trams like the ones used in many European Cities as part of the Transit City project. This includes expanding streetcar service to the airport. It makes little sense to do this. All it does is add more traffic to already congested roads.

Rob Ford says he would scrap Transit City all together. What the usually frugal councillor is proposing would cost a bundle. Get rid of the streetcars and replace them with subways. As much as the city badly needs some fiscal restraint right now, he's right. Subways are a more permanent solution to the transit problem. Since they run underground, they're not affected by traffic and weather. Therefore, they can run faster and carry more people. They also don't block car traffic or generate noise pollution. For all the time and money they spent digging up St. Clair Ave., they could have built another line connecting it with the existing Young line. There are plenty of areas that would benefit from additional north/south and east/west routes.

Toronto residents have been screaming for better subway service for years but nobody wants to pay for it. The two subway lines have four times the daily ridership than all the streetcar lines combined. If you want to improve Toronto's traffic, just spend the money instead of wasting it. The TTC doesn't need more relics of the past. With most of their vehicles dating from the 70s, it has enough of those already.

read more...

Making the Infalible, Falible

It is perhaps the greatest centre of power in the world. Amongst the golden temples sits the throne of Pope Benedict XVI. Arguably one of the most powerful men in the world, influencing the lives of over 1.1 billion people world wide. Now some are asking to do something unprecedented. Take this powerful man and lock him in irons for crimes against humanity. The crime? Supporting child sex slavery and harbouring individuals accused of raping those who trusted them the most.

A friend of my Dad's is an Irish Catholic who abandoned the Church. A tall, lanky, greying man in his early 60s, he occasionally mentions his disgust with what he saw. Everyone knew the local priest was molesting his young flock. He decided he couldn't support an institution that let people get away with that behaviour. Yet 40 years on, the allegations have just come to light. Some priests were arrested and jailed. People began screaming for justice. They wanted Benedict (also known as Joseph Ratzinger) to take responsibility for those under him. Instead, the Vatican sent a brief letter to the people of Ireland. A half-hearted apology for the abuses. At the same time, the Church said it would not take responsibility for these "isolated incidents". One high ranking church official at an Easter mass dismissed the allegations as "petty gossip."

The problem is, they were not isolated cases. Several countries and countless priests have been involved. The American cases were the most publicized. A report by John Jay found at least 10,667 accusations were made from 1950 to 2002. About 4% of Catholic priests were involved in accusations. The victims were overwhelmingly teenage males. Besides the US and Ireland, notable cases have popped up in the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, mainland Europe, and Canada. The Vatican itself admits anywhere from 1.5% to 5% of priests have abused a child.

According to an IPSOS Reid poll, approximately 2 million Canadians know someone abused by a Catholic priest. Father Thomas Rosica, CEO of the Salt & Light Catholic TV network, told Canada.com that the poll was "misleading and sensationalistic," and did not include the Church's efforts to curb abuse. To which people are asking "what efforts?"

This is the big problem with the issue. Around every corner, the Church has actively tried to hide and dismiss abuse claims. Either they outright deny them or make it seem as if it's not a big problem. Studies have even shown that abuse rates are no higher than the general population. What they fail to consider is that priests are supposed trusted authority figures, not perverts driving around in a grey cargo van. They are held to a higher standard than others, and rightfully so.

This is why it should fall on Ratzinger. He is the leader of the Church. He is responsible for those under him. It's similar to the Nixon case. Although Richard Nixon himself didn't plant the bugs at the Watergate, he was still criminally responsible. That's because people under him had done the job and he tried to cover it up. It's called aiding and abetting in law. By covering up these crimes, the Church has aided and abetted criminals, has prevented them from being caught and tried in court.

Atheist activists in Britain are mounting legal challenges against Ratzinger when he comes to Britain later this year. There are even calls that he get arrested for crimes against humanity. They plan to challenge the diplomatic immunity of the Pope on the grounds that Vatican City is not a legitimate sovereign state. If they win, Ratzinger could be arrested and tried in the International Criminal Court at The Hague. It would be a landmark case and a major blow to the Church's power. The Pope is not God's spokesperson on Earth. He's a man like any other man, and should be subject to man's laws. Here's hoping victims will get their justice through a real, legitimate trial.

read more...

A Republican Win's Teddy's Old Seat In Mass.

I think hell just froze over. I guess this is why the United States has been getting so much snow this winter. Republican Scott Brown has taken the Massachusetts Senate seat long held by recently deceased senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy. The state is considered to be a left-wing Democratic stronghold. Though this will be little more than a footnote in Canadian news, it represents a significant even in American politics. Kennedy, a life long and unabashed liberal, held that seat for 46 years. Teddy was a larger than life figure in American politics so if his supporters turncoat, things cannot be good. It's a major blow to the Obama administration. Many Americans are worried over the health reform bill and potential tax increases. Polls estimate that 54% of Americans are opposed to the health care plan. Obama has gone from an approval rating of 84% by the time he was entered office (according to a CNN poll), down to a low of 41% just last month.

It's notable that in such a short period, less than a year, things have shifted from one of the strongest Democratic showings in over a decade to at the election to a point where no seat is safe. It will be interesting to see how the Obama administration reacts to this.

read more...

Why I'm Hesitant to Donate to Haiti

This week, I've realized what a truly awful person I am. No matter how much tragedy I see about the Haiti quake that happened last Tuesday, I just cannot be convinced to donate. Is it because I'm greedy and lazy? Probably. However, I also feel that no matter how much I give, that money will not be put to good use, if it's put to use at all.

Haiti is the poorest nation in the Americas, in line with some of the poorest African states. It also rates the lowest in the UN's Human Development Index for the Americas. To put this in perspective, the next poorest country, Nicaragua, is 30% better off in terms of life expectancy, GDP, and literacy. The irony is that Haiti is sandwiched between two of the wealthier nations in the Americas: Cuba and the Dominican Republic. These nations both have access to the same resources Haiti does.

Much of Haiti's problems can be attributed to it's high level of corruption and political instability. After the quake, the UN is scrambling to re-establish the rule of law in Port-au-Prince. However, it can be argued that the rule of law has never existed in this country. It is estimated that a third of the population in the capital live under the boots of violent gangs who hold their iron grips on the poorest slums. Rape, theft, murder, and machete attacks are common place and the government does little to try and stop them. Approximately 30 armed factions rule over them like medieval feudal lords ruled over their serfs. They exist only to profit off the backs of the country's destitute. The gangs obviously have no respect for law but are the only real government in places like the notorious (and ironically named) Cité Soleil shantytown.

According to several news reports, these gangs seem to be the only ones benefiting from the disaster. Several hundred of them escaped from prison during the earthquake and have now re-established their stranglehold on the slums. Small turf wars have already broken out and violence is expected to escalate as people become more desperate. The sad truth behind so many of these aid operations is that the food, money, and supplies destined for the truly needy ends up, more often than not, in the hands of these soulless monsters. Even with the US and Canadian troops on the ground there, I just cannot feel guaranteed that aid will not end up in the hands of gang lords and raiders. Unfortunately, this is the case in so many similar situations. It happens in Africa all the time. Aid, particularly food, gets stolen and is sold back to the same destitute people it was meant for, on the black market, for several times its actual worth. This puts the wealthier nations between a rock and a hard place and discourages many who truly want to help.

This is the time where I usually suggest solutions but I just can't in this case. For the foreseeable future, all I can see is things getting worse before they get better. I think we need to start considering that Haiti may never recover. Even before the earthquake, the government had no economy whatsoever. 30-40% of the government's budget was already coming from foreign aid. Current exports, aside from a small coffee industry, are mainly low income agricultural goods. The country has almost no industrial capacity. It also lacks the tourism industry that so many Caribbean nations have built themselves on. The tourists stay away for obvious reasons. It is estimated that half of all Haitians were unemployed prior to the quake. Two thirds were thought to be without formal jobs. What economy it had is now all but gone, and has taken the lives of countless with it.

I cannot be optimistic. After studying the history and politics of the region all through university, I know a failed state when I see one. There have been so many. Haiti though is as textbook an example of one as you can get. As sad as it sounds and as awful as it sounds, perhaps it's time we abandon the Haitian people. We in the West and the world at large have done all we can to help these people but none of it seems to be working to build a stable country and improve the lives of its people. Many of the poorest areas resent our "interference". All I can say is may God have mercy on their souls.

read more...

Google vs China: A Battle of Two Evil Empires

Google did something rather unexpected this week. They told the People's Republic of China where to stick their censorship. Google's Gmail service had a major breech of security several months ago. It was discovered last week that the Chinese government had been behind it. Of the email accounts hacked, several belonged to Chinese democracy advocates. Google claims that no critical information was stolen.

In response to the hacking, Google launched back more than a warning shot. They shut down all censorship on Google.cn, the Chinese portal. Several years ago, the company had instituted censorship on the search engine to appease the PRC. People visiting Google.cn were barred from searching for terms such as democracy and the Tienanmen protests. That is until last week when Google refused to comply in retaliation. The company is now debating whether they should continue to operate in this country. Google's mission has always been to give people free and easy access to information. That's why they came under such heavy criticism from Western human rights and free speech activists when they volunteered to comply with Chinese censorship in the first place.

There is some debate as to why Google is pondering leaving the PRC. Some say that it's because rival Chinese search engine Baidu is taking over their market in that country. Regardless of the case, it's a major blow to a country who has often considered itself invincible to foreign criticism over its poor human rights track record. If Google pulls out, it leaves a huge gap in Chinese access to information. China has been aggressively attempting to muzzle anything online that sheds the Communist Party in a bad light, that the government finds immoral (such as pornography or Falun Gong), or inspires reformers and democracy advocates. However, much like in Western nations (such as wired neighbour's South Korea and Japan), the Chinese have come to rely on the convenience and economic benefits that the internet provides. Much of those benefits are provided through companies like Google. Stopping the information flow would be a major setback.

Of course Google leaving does benefit the PRC somewhat, in that they can gain tighter control content through domestic, or even state owned search providers. It's bad for people who were talking advantage of Google's supposed security to hide their pro-democracy and pro-human rights activities. In fact, the Communist Party may end up on top eventually should Google leave. In the mean time, they've exposed themselves wide to attacks from reformers and Western critics after this little international incident. Maybe more will be inspired to oppose the socialist oligarchy that has held an iron grip on the country for 60 years. Now if only other Western IT companies would show the same balls and refuse to bow to censorship, we'd be laughing. I'm looking at you Mr. Gates and Mr. Balmer.

read more...

Idiots Hall of Shame September to December 2009 Archives

That's a wrap for this bit


September Inductees
Cyclists -- For not abiding by the rules of the road and then wondering why they get hurt

Michael Ignatiff -- Federal Liberal Leader. For gambling with voters and making a mockery of Canadian Democracy

Jim Flaherty -- Federal finance minister. For endorsing controversial HST plans in Ontario & British Colombia

The UN and every other idiotic Climate activist-- For wasting our precious time and resources when they could be put to far better use. You know, actually helping their fellow human beings instead of polar bears. Stop distracting the rabble with your nonsensical rubbish.

October Inductees
Nobel Prize Committee -- For giving Obama the peace prize without him actually doing anything.

read more...

War on Terror Ends: Bin Laden Victorious

I'm declaring the War on Terror over today and it looks like underdog Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda are victorious. I'd send him a poisoned cake to congratulate him but it seems the US doesn't know where he is.

The Western world has finally reached the point where protection against terrorism has broken constitutional law for the average citizen. Airport security will now be allowed to break Section 8 of the constitution by conducting body scans and pat downs without probable cause to make sure you're not going to blow up a plane. This truly sickens me. It is placing a major limits on our rights to be secure from unreasonable search and freedom of movement. Perhaps what sickens me even more is how apathetic the Canadian and American public feel towards their constitutional rights being violated. If there's any questions about how dictators rise to power with wide public support, this answers it. People won't resist as long as the changes happen slowly enough.

I have decided that I will not fly period if I am to be subjected to this kind of treatment. I'd rather take a train or a ship. Sure it takes longer but consider the advantages of sailing to Europe on a luxury liner. It costs the same but you get world class food and entertainment, and the ability to stretch your legs. Plus, you're only subject to your bags being scanned by an x-ray when you board. The trip is a vacation in itself, compared to flying which is more often than not a nightmare. Believe me, I went through my own airport hell just days before this "attempted attack" happened, though it had nothing to do with security. Still, the way things are being dealt with bothers me a lot.

Airport security has been largely a joke in the years following 9/11. Statistics show that you are no more or less likely to be in a terror attack today than you were 20 years ago. The folks at technology site Gizmodo estimate the odds of being a victim in an airborne terror attack are 1 in 10.4 million. You are 20 times more likely to be struck and killed by lightning. Not including the people in the WTC, only 647 people have died worldwide in such incidents from 1999 to 2009. The airline industry averages 7 billion passengers a year. They colourfully state that the you could flytwo round trips from Earth to Neptune before being in an attack. Wikipedia (not a reliable source but good enough for quick info) states that there were 13 major hijackings in the 1990s compared to 12 in the 2000s.

So with these statistics, it would seem that terrorism is not a major issue at all. We have poured billions of dollars into security and we are now forfeiting basic human rights and dignity to secure our airliners. It has gotten increasingly difficult to support anti-terror measures when all the hard facts are considered.

It leads one to question whether the measures put in place since 9/11 are doing anything at all. We are no longer allowed to bring bottled water, we must walk through security barefoot, we used to joke about being susceptible to patdowns. Yet somehow, someone managed to elude dutch security and smuggle a firecracker onto an airplane. Yes, the "bomb" was probably no more than an M-80 or something similar. Unless he was lucky enough to get this thing near a fuel line, it probably wouldn't have brought down a plane, or killed anyone but himself. No one has ever heard of these measures stopping an attack. It would seem like that would be something the government would brag about.

One security expert cited in a recent news article noted that the only realistic improvements to security in the last eight years have been reinforced cockpit doors and passengers knowledge that they must resist attackers. Reading between the lines, this translates to the other stuff just being fluff. It's designed to make civil servants look like they're actually doing something when they're not doing anything. Indeed, the only reason this man, a known threat, got on the plane with the firecracker is because some Dutch civil servant failed to do their job. I could go further and say 9/11 was caused by the exact same thing. How on earth could a group of men get on a plane with box cutters? It's not like they didn't use metal detectors or x-ray bags at the time. It's not exactly an object anyone would conceivably need on a plane.

Obviously the problem doesn't lie in more stringent security measures but rather better training for security guards. There was nothing wrong with the measures in place before 9/11, just in how they were being executed. It is well known that Canada Customs uses students during the summer to man land border crossings. With such little training, how can these people be effective or trusted? I believe that to be an airport security guard, or any border agent, one should have the exact same training that a police officer does. They should be subjected to the same privileges and legal limitations that they are as well. Further intensive training should be given to teach guards how to spot suspicious behaviour. Beyond the baggage x-rays and metal detectors, they should have no right to search you without reasonable cause. You should also have the right to refuse if they don't give cause. If explosives are an issue, begin using trained dogs. Finally, get rid of those full body scanners. I don't want some stranger looking at my private areas. I don't care what the privacy commissioner says, these are illegal.

These changes I'm recommending would relax security to the point where it doesn't affect law abiding passengers, and only singles out those who may be up to something. Airports would be more efficient, we'd still be secure if not more so, and we wouldn't be subjected to the violation of our rights and dignity.

I don't blame the Harper government for enacting these ineffective and undignified measures. They were forced into it. I do blame them for folding so easily to pressure from Homeland Security and the Obama administration instead of resisting it. The US cannot be allowed to dictate to us like this. 9/11 was terrible but not terrible enough for us to abandon the principles that our two great nations were built on. For any doubts, I leave you with a quotation from one of America's own founding fathers. Written in 1775, Benjamin Franklin said this. "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".

read more...