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...

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...

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...

Something Rotten in the State of Denmark

It's that time again. We're getting bombarded with more climate change hysteria by "scientists" and activists as world leaders prepare to meet in Copenhagen. The goal of the meeting is to hash out a new deal to replace the largely failed Kyoto Protocol of 11 years ago. Arguably, there is a lot more debate now than there was, say five years ago. The problem is that the United Nations and powerful NGOs like GreenPeace have long entrenched themselves. Any argument that states that climate change may not be real, or a natural phenomenon, or that carbon reduction schemes would devastate the global economy usually falls on deaf ears. It doesn't matter how much evidence you have in favour of your argument, or how good it is. It's like trying to argue with a wall.

So far, the goal of Copenhagen seems to involve massive monetary transfers to developing countries in order to pay for them to limit emissions of carbon dioxide. This sounds an awful lot like a "social justice" wealth transfer scheme. It's not so much that I disagree with this idea, even though I do. Foreign aid has proven futile in solving poverty issues. What really bothers me is why not just call it what it is. It always amazes me that people are more moved by sad polar bears than AIDS riddled, starving African children. That is they're more willing to open their wallet if they think the "disaster" will affect them; as opposed to child poverty, which they can happily ignored without any direct influence on their own lives. I think it's a sad statement on ourselves as society, and a particularly large black mark on the "textbook" liberals.

So what should we do? Should we still push ahead with a climate agreement? Absolutely not. Rather, if you want to help developing countries, even in the name of stopping climate change, technology sharing and free trade are a far better solution for dealing with both. Money just ends up in the hands of corrupt officials. Give people something tangible.

read more...

Obama's Peace Prize After Some Thought

I've gotten over the initial shock of Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. To quote the prize committee themselves, he was given the award "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." When you look at Obama's foreign policy, there's really nothing spectacular there. Other than a watered down speech to the Muslim world back in June, he really has not accomplished anything in terms of foreign relations. There's a lot of rhetoric here, such as his stance on Cuba, but not much action. In reality, his contributions to world peace are few and rather inconsequential. Most of his work has focused on domestic issues. Contrast to the other US presidential laureate, Jimmy Carter. Agree with him or not, he has done a great deal of work in the field of foreign relations throughout the last three decades.

Obama's own shock at receiving the award speaks volumes. The real question now is why he got it in the first place. The prize committee's reasoning is purposefully vague. His efforts certainly weren't extraordinary. As I said, he hasn't focused on foreign policy a great deal. When he has, the world hasn't exactly expressed a great deal of confidence. Coalition nations lament the Oval Office's perceived apathy on the Afghan mission as one example.

Those in charge of the Nobels have admitted that the politics does in fact play a role in choosing the recipients. So who are these committee members? The five member panel is chosen by the Norwegian government. The panel chair is Thorbjørn Jagland, a leading member of the socialist Norwegian Labour Party. It is the country's the current ruling party. Two of the five members belong to the Labour Party, another belongs to the Socialist Left Party, though the remaining two are conservatives. Norway is one of the most left leaning countries in Europe. It's no surprise that they'd support one of the furthest left presidents America has seen. Despite that, there are plenty of other people further on the left that they could have awarded the prize to.

I don't think the prize was awarded to Obama just because he's Obama, Mr. Awesome himself. I cannot help but feel this is all a jab at George W. Bush. He is largely accredited by the left of turning America into an aggressive ultra-nationalist power hated the world over. Hell, whoever replaces him would automatically make the world more peaceful, right? As silly as that sounds, it's most likely the real reason why they chose Obama. Simply because he's not Bush. His goal is to make America into a soft power, which the socialist-left likes. It's just another case of the lefties doing what they do best: patting each other on the back.

Update: It seems the two Labour members forced the prize through. The two right wingers and the Socialist Left Party member objected to the decision made by Jagland.
Source: Reuters

read more...

Racism Still Exists in America, But Not Where You Think

"You lie!" Congressman Joe Wilson yelled that to Obama during his health care address last week. Jimmy Carter condemned the comment as having racist undertones. One New York Times reporter claimed to have 'heard' it as "you lie, boy!" Boy being a term once used by white southerners in the past to dehumanize blacks, as it was a title for slaves. Obama himself has shrugged off Carter et al's comments saying that he believed there was no racial intent in the comment. Some Democrats have taken things further by saying that all protests against Obama's heath reforms are also racially charged. Perhaps because the majority of those involved are white. Conveniently forgotten are the African Americans who do oppose Obama. I once had the pleasure to meet a black American trucker who hated his guts with a passion. Another scene on the news showed a black man protesting to save his Second Amendment rights.

All this highlights the childishness of American politics as of late. During the Bush Administration, liberals compared the president to Adolf Hitler and frequently and fiercely accused him of lying, hidden agendas, racism (Take Kanye West's infamous Bush Hates Blacks speech as an example, before we knew Kanye was just a "jackass") and cover-ups. Now the tables have turned. We have gone from the furthest right president in American history to the furthest left. Conservatives are just doing the same things to Obama that the liberals did to Bush. Suddenly we've switched from acceptable and encouraged protest to it being racist to criticize the president. That's particularly worrying. This is why I didn't think America was ready for a black leader, and I still don't.

Oddly, but unsurprisingly, the only people mentioning race and the president are Democrats. Of course I'm not claiming that racism doesn't exist in the US or that people aren't making racist insults about Obama. However, not a single sitting Republican or protester to my knowledge has uttered a single racial comment about him. If protesters were doing this, every media outlet in the country would certainly be all over it. The New York Times reporter could have blasted Wilson for violating House decorum, and labelled him as an out of control person with no respect for the rules. She didn't do that though, she took the racial line. In fact nobody had even suggested Wilson's comment was racist until Carter and the article brought it up. It's nothing more than a cheap attack against Republicans. However, I worry that people will become afraid to criticize Obama's policies or else also risk being labelled a racist and shunned. That's vary bad news for democracy and echoes of the McCarthy era. Is Obama himself supporting this tactic? I don't think so, but there are lot of people in his party who are willing to exploit his race for their agenda. After all, that was one of the main reasons why he was elected to be their presidential candidate. As for Wilson, he apologized to Obama, but I also believe that Carter should apologize for calling him a racist without evidence. That's slander. As for the race thing as a whole, I've said it before and I'll say it again. The day America gets a black president and nobody notices will be the only true victory for racial equality.

read more...

September 11th Retrospective

Excuse the lateness of this article. Every year on September 11th, I feel compelled to write something but I never seem to get around to it. It's a vary difficult topic to approach, even for the most seasoned journalists. That day back in 2001 was the defining moment of Generation Y. Unlike the strife our grandparents faced during the Second World War, we have yet to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Eight years have passed and not a lot has changed. I'd like to take a look back at that day and give a retrospective of all that has happened since then in hopes that you will walk away with some greater insight into the subject, or at least an interest to learn more.

September 11th is one of those events in history where most people can remember vividly exactly what they were doing when the news broke. I was only 15 at the time, yet the magnitude of it hit hard even for someone that young. It forced me to question a lot of my beliefs; namely it was what finally pushed me into atheism. After all, how could people proclaiming to be the religious pious commit such a satanic act? At the time, I didn't even know what Islam was. I can from a rather white bread school. We had a Muslim student come to our class in grade 8 but the kids saw him more as a curiosity rather than a threat or someone to be shunned. Now it has become something to be drilled into the children's heads, to beware of Islamophobia. Strangely, there was little anti-Islamism in the wake of the attacks. A stark contrast to the treatment of "Japs" following Pearl Harbour. On the other side of the coin, the attacks sparked greater anti-Americanism and antisemitism across the world, not only in Muslim countries.

One does not need to dive deep to explain why 9/11 happened. Those who perpetrated the attacks were soulless bigots. Bin Laden himself is a false revolutionary, like so many others who have followed him. Wealthy madmen who claim they're fighting for "the people" when all they want is to craft the world into their own image. They end up being more tyrannical than the tyrants they seek to destroy. Adolf Hitler may have been one of the most evil men in history but at least he was unabashed about his goals and did come from a common background. Bin Laden is the rich, spoilt brat version of Hitler. He hides behind phony claims of oppression and fighting for the common Muslim while he himself was one of the wealthiest men in Saudi Arabia. Like Hitler, he believes in the racial purity and moral superiority of his version of Islam. He is a fascist like any other fascist in history. The only difference is that he is not limited to geographical borders. To people who follow the Islamo-fascist doctrine, anyone who doesn't subscribe to it is ultimately the enemy and deserves death. I have always found terrorism in the name of religion to be especially ironic. If God, or Allah, is omnipotent, can't he do his own dirty work? The people who died in the World Trade Center, at the Pentagon, and on Flight 93 died simply because they weren't Muslim, despite the fact that some of them were. Do you still become one of their martyrs when said members of your own religion slaughter you in cold blood?

9/11 for the first time in over 60 years brought the world to a breaking point and made a lot of people question our civilization. Bin Laden's goal was to create fear on that day, divide America, and drive the world into a holy war. On the last two, Al Qeada utterly failed in that mission. On fear, it was a decisive victory. The West has become more willing to give up basic rights and liberties for security, something Benjamin Franklin warned against over 200 years earlier. At the border, I can be strip searched or have my laptop and all it's information detained indefinitely without cause. I can't take a drink on a plane. It has opened the door to more snooping on the Internet. My free speech is curtailed so that I don't provoke Muslims. I can't publish cartoons of Mohammad unless I want to be hauled in front of the human rights commission. Ironically, it's still ok to negatively satirize Jesus and the Holocaust. The War on Terrorism has fizzled. Bin Laden has not been seen in years. Some question whether he's even still alive. The people who planned the attacks are living quite well despite being in prison. They're not exactly hanging the Nazis in Gitmo. Some people even believe we should feel sorry for the attackers. Not the kind of treatment you'd expect from those guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The ultra-political correctness in response to 9/11 may seem like taking Ghandi's morally superior path but where has it brought us? We're just walking in the circles. We have gotten little out of Afghanistan. Our boys are dying over there. One day it looks like we're making serious progress in instituting the most basic human rights there, the next day Karzhai is saying it's ok for Afghan men to starve their wives if denied sex. Perhaps we would have been better off just nuking the country. We went there to destroy Al Qeada and Bin Laden, instead it has turned into a bizarre and perpetual nation building exercise. There are Afghans who want change and modernization but they're up against savages in great number like the Taliban, who seem to be like the proverbial annoying house guest that keeps coming back. I think it's fair to call them that. Afghanistan is the third lowest ranked country in the world in terms of human development as measured by the UN. Take that Sierra Leon. The Human Development Index takes into account literacy, life expectancy, average education, and GDP. Canada by contrast is the third highest ranked. On average, most Afghans won't live to see their 45th birthday, and only one in three can read. Schoolgirls are unlikely to make it past the fourth grade. This is actually an improvement over what it was. How long will it be though before we're back at square one?

In the time since, other Islamic powers have risen up and are threatening the west. Iran has already hinted it wishes to nuke Israel, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Sudan is slaughtering non-Muslim Africans en mass. Iraq has turned into a farce. Obama has since declared that the US will become a soft diplomatic power. However, diplomacy has proven ineffective against these enemies. Then again, so has war. It is difficult to reason with or fight a pan-national ideology, especially when there's no one person to represent it. If anything, 9/11 turned the whole field of international relations upside down. It's much harder to define the enemy. What worked well during World War II and the Cold War, 70 years history, suddenly no longer applied. The only way we can stop this second tide of fascism is to stop pussyfooting around the issue and stand together to denounce it. The Muslim world cannot be expected to do this. To this day, vary few moderate Muslims have spoken up in outrage over the attacks. Instead they'd rather lob accusations of persecution and Islamophobia against Westerners, or make up excuses for the bigots. Many Muslims cheered when the planes hit. The majority of them are not our enemies, but they are not exactly our allies either.

The last subject I want to tackle here are the so called 9/11 Truthers. I kind of let them slide until I say a truck plastered with Truther bumper stickers the other day, and Discovery's recent show about 9/11 conspiracies. They are the people who believe the US government perpetrated the attacks as an excuse to attack Muslims. From my years of dabbling in politics, I can say without a doubt that the US government is not competent enough to pull something like that off. They can't even keep the names of CIA spy agents top secret. You'd think somebody would notice the government putting dynamite in the WTC? Most of them are sad, ignorant fools just like the morons who think the moon landing was a hoax. There is simply no credible evidence to suggest a conspiracy. The Truthers are no better than holocaust deniers, and are terrorists in their own right by spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

read more...

Obama's Bushisms and His Politcal Stance

Just a slight observation about Obama's speeches lately. Particularly in the past week regarding education and health reform. On education, he claimed that Americans who do not graduate high school are basically betraying their country. In the health reforms, he blasted Republican fear mongering. Regardless of whether you're for him or against him, I've noticed that Obama has been taking a strong "you're either for us or against us" tone in his speeches. G.W. Bush used this style a lot and was blasted for it, yet nobody but me has seemed to have noticed Obama doing it. For someone billed as a great united, this is a vary polarizing tactic. It's certainly got the American right rilled. I can't help but wonder whether it's going to come back and bit him in the end.

I also sense that Obama is far more of a socialist than his policies would indicate, suggesting that he is being held back quite a bit. His appointment of Van Jones as "Green Jobs" czar was an odd choice. Jones is an admitted communist and is a 9/11 "Truther", someone who thinks the government perpetrated the attacks. He has since stepped down from the job due to these controversies. Obama is also good friends with 70s self-proclaimed revolutionary Weatherman Bill Ayers. Then there was the Reverend Wright scandal during the elections. He seems to surround himself with a lot of far-left radical thinkers. On the political spectrum, I would place Obama as a social democrat, not a liberal. You get the sense that he wants to take his policies further left into the realm of socialism, but is frustrated due to the political and procedural roadblocks preventing him from doing so. This is why I believe he has been more aggressive in his speeches in recent weeks. It's not just the Republicans that are causing problems either. He's further left than a lot of others in the Democratic party. (In Canada, he'd probably fit right in with the NDP.) Many Democrats do not feel comfortable with his policies. Unlike Canadian leaders, Obama doesn't have the luxury of strict party unity, so bills inevitably get watered down in congress in an effort to please everyone. He has certainly received a rude awakening now that the honeymoon is over. He's either going to have to accept the limitations on his power, or he should just resign now and save face before the BS hits the fan.

read more...

Britain: The Mighty Have Fallen

Britain came from humble beginnings as the home of Celtic and Norse tribes inhabiting the islands off the north west coast of Gaul. It was invaded by the Romans, then then Normans, then united under a single kingdom. It became the largest and most powerful empire the world has ever known controlling territories from Canada to India, to Hong Kong, and many points in between. It was the victor in the first world war against mighty central European powers. In the Second World War it fended off the mighty German Luftwaffe single-handedly and outnumbered three to one. The British revolutionized trade, ushered in the age of steam, changed the way ships navigate, built the most powerful navy in the world. They invented television, the type writer, the world wide web, the MRI, the hot blast furnace, cloning, and the jet engine, football (soccer) among other things. Alas how the mighty have fallen. One could argue that Britain ever did fully recover from the ravages of World War Two. That's what brought many Brits to the colonies during the 1950s; including my own family. While the nation recovered economically, it has suffered serious social and political decay during the recent decades.

London's Sunday Times reported this week that convicted Lockerbie bomber Megrahi was set free due to a secret oil deal made between the UK and Libyan governments as part of a prisoner transfer program. An exchange of letters between UK justice secretary Jack Straw and his Scottish counterpart Kenny MacAskill detailed the plan. The government had originally opposed including Megrahi as part of the prisoner transfer in 2007 but later that year turned their position to include any Libyans the government was currently holding. Allegedly, the decision was made after negotiations between the Libyan government and British Petroleum, for a multi-million pound oil exploration deal, stalled. This contradicts the governments claims that it had no involvement in Megrahi's release. It also contradicts Scottish claims that he was released purely on compassionate grounds.

This is just the latest in a string of scandals that have plagued Gordon Brown's embattled Labour government. The corruption allegations involving the UK Parliament makes Canadian Parliament look comatose, and turns Obama's health care debate into the cure for insomnia! MPs from all parties have been accused of stealing money from government coffers. Labour's environmental plans have arguable run Britain's economy into the ground. Social problems have also exploded. Banning handguns did nothing to solve the country's high rates of violent crime. It is said that any given night, young adults can be seen passed out in the street from binge drinking. Many feel that the country is now controlled entirely by Muslim-Arab interests. The government has further adopted an increasingly nanny-statist view on the public, and keeps watchful eye on them through thousands of CCTV cameras. Orwell must be turning in his grave. So far the reaction to this has been blasé. Brits have reacted angrily to the scandals and social problems but looking from the outside in, there seems to be a lack of political will for change. The difference with the Lockerbie scandal is that it attracted international scorn. However, even if the Conservatives or another party gets in, will they really go through the effort of making the drastic changes needed to get the nation back on it's feet? They face insurmountable odds and risk political suicide doing so. If there's one problem with democracy, it's finding someone who will throw caution to the wind and do what needs to be done. Churchills and Thatchers are a rare breed though.

The UK parliament is running a vary real risk of evoking a crisis of legitimacy. Far more serious than when Stephane Dion wanted to circumvent democracy here. No, rather due to the corruption across the political spectrum, people will simply believe that no party represents them. This of course breeds radicalism. Note the increasingly worrying militant nature of Britain's young, middle and upper class Muslim males. The Underground bombings of 2005 were a home grown attack. Perhaps if this were a one-off, we could dismiss it but many more such attacks have been foiled recently. Simply put, social problems and government corruption can merge together to create a ticking time bomb. This means more race riots as in Bradford in the late 90s, and a possible return of violence not seen since the end of The Troubles in Northern Ireland. That is if things aren't brought under control soon. Brown's government has to fall as even die hard social democrats will agree that the party, and by proxy the country, has taken a huge wrong turn since at least Tony Blair's resignation. Britain is falling. The question is whether the empire will choose to die with a whimper or come out fighting with that classic stiff upper lip.

read more...

Lockerbie Bomber's Release Pouring Salt in Old Wounds

I've been covering politics for what, four years now at least. I had long held onto the belief that nothing surprised me. This week's story of the Scottish government's decision to release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds I must admit had me a little taken back. For those who don't know, al-Megrahi, an ex-Libyan intelligence agent, was convicted in 1999 for being one of the conspirators in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 back in 1988. The plane exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie taking 270 lives including several on the ground. al-Megrahi was sentenced to life in prison but was released on the grounds of him having terminal prostate cancer. Upon his arrival in Libya, he was given a hero's welcome. US President Barack Obama and the UK government condemned, all be it mildly, the Scottish government for al-Megrahi's release. Most of the bombing victims were Americans. The release of the perpetrator of one of the most deadly terror attacks prior to 9/11 is to the victims' families like pouring salt into old woulds.

At first it puzzled me as to why the Scottish government would do such a thing. However, reading some of the comments posted on the BBC article provided some insight into the decision. One particular comment from a Marianne from Lichester UK caught my eye. She writes "All morons wanting this man to apologise..for what? He is innocent, the US knows it. They were afraid to go after Iran, knowing full well they did it, since they needed the oil, and remember Iraq was a friend at the time. The USA navy blew down an Iranian jetliiner [sic] with almost as many passengers by accident, and this was their payback, they basically had said so much, but no direct evidence was ever found even to this man!! Leave him be, he will be meeting his maker soon enough either way." This woman is obviously the typical "US committed 9/11 conspirator nutjob.

Scotty from Sydney, Australia provides some more "insight". "A tough, but ultimately right, decision.It takes a special type of character to rise above the political morass and cliche that is moral high ground. This shows Scottish character at its best - light where there is darkness, hope where there is none. A momentous act of national courage. Sure, this mass murder will never be forgotten or forgiven, but we did the right thing for humanity.
P.S. Nobody from the US even has the right to comment - your foreign policy is the cause of all of this."


I think I'm beginning to see a trend here. Before I make a final conclusion, I want to hear what a Mr. Dazzlingpuddock has to say. "I have never been prouder to be a Scot than I am today!! Vengeance has no place in a civilised society!! Well done Kenny for not bowing to pressure from the US!! The US will complain which means MacAskill has done the decent and just thing!! What good is keeping a dying man in prison going to do apart from cost taxpayers money!! The fact that Megrahi was probably innocent will now never be aired and the US and UK intelligence services are now breathing a huge sigh of relief!"

So I think I can draw some conclusions from these three comments. First of all, al-Megrahi's fans seem to have either atrocious spelling skills or a fetish for the exclamation point. While most people in the comments have expressed outrage at the decision to release this man, the ones who support him tell us why this decision to release him was made. Many people blame the United States for the bombing. American foreign policy is far from spotless and most certainly many deaths have resulted. What puzzles me is how can people express outrage at say the Mai Lai massacrer but not Lockerbie. Both involved the mass murder of innocent civilians. Yet because the bomber in this case is Muslim and the US has supposedly oppressed Muslims, that makes the latter ok in the eyes of many? This belief sets a bad precedent morally as any group can claim oppression to excuse itself from murdering civilians, something expressly condemned by the Geneva Conventions that outline the rules of war. The Americans were rightly blasted for Mai Lai during the Vietnam War. However, that same standard absolutely must be applied to other nations without exception. An attack such as Lockerbie does constitute an act of war and the Gadhafi was lucky his nation didn't become another Iraq in the process. One could argue that the US was indeed arming Libya's enemies but this still doesn't excuse the country of committing an unprovoked attack. The country had also been closely allied with the Soviet Union during the 1980s and had been assisting Palestinian terror groups. Libya is not exactly known for respecting the lives of civilians, even their own.

The second part of the story is whether Megrahi was guilty to begin with. Many, including former Israeli prime minister Sharon, have argued that it was actually a Palestinian terror group working for the Iranian government that committed the bombing and that Megrahi was wrongfully convicted. Without knowing the details of the trial, I cannot really comment on how sturdy the case was. It can be assumed he was convicted beyond reasonable doubt. If there was such doubt that did exist, international organizations such as the UN should have been advocating further investigation into the case. It is far easier to get someone off a serious crime than it is to convict them due to the higher burden of proof. The conspiracy theorists will of course argue that the trial was tampered with by the US. It is a distinct possibility but then again if the international community knew this, there should have been more scrutiny. However, there was little to none. This leaves us to conclude that Megrahi was involved in the bombing. Therefore, the Scottish government has released a convicted mass murder eight years into his sentence so he can go back to Libya and become a national hero before he dies. As the Toronto Sun put it, how would the victims families of Paul Bernardo feel is he were released on compassionate grounds? What about other notable mass murders such as Herman Goering or Rudolf Hess, tried at Nuremburg. Would people today come to their aid today? Some have even begun to theorize that Libya has brokered a deal with the Scottish parliament for Megrahi's release. I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories but it certainly seems that things do not add up in this case. No other criminal of that calibre would receive that sort of treatment. Either that or it is political correctness run amok. Regardless, the Scottish Parliament has made a colossal mistake releasing this man and rightly deserves to be internationally shamed.

Source: BBC News, BBC News Reader Comments

Edited Aug 23: Fixed some spelling issues and added sources.

read more...

The Disgrace that is Obama

Barack Obama put his foot in it, some are saying intentionally, after he commented on the Gates arrest during yesterday's press conference on health care. For those who don't know, here's a little background. Henry Louis Gates, a professor of African American Studies at Harvard in Cambridge Mass. locked himself out of his own house and and attempted to break in. A passerby who did not live in the neighbourhood and did not know the professor, phoned police to report suspicious activity. Gates' house had been broken into earlier this month. Two officers responded, a Sgt. James Crowley and his African American partner (who was not named in the news reports I read). They asked for Gates' ID, which he produced, which was confirmed by university police. Just as Crowley and the other officer were leaving, Gates went on a tirade, calling Crowley a racist and saying that the Cambridge police were racial profiling. Screaming and making a scene in front of the whole neighbourhood, the two officers arrested him for disturbing the peace. Yet he had been burgled before. I'd be happy knowing the police were protecting my property. Of course Mr. Gates just happens to be a friend of Obama's. During the conference, Obama admitted he did not know the details of the case, but when on to say that the Cambridge police force had acted "stupidly" and said that racial profiling was still a major issue in America.

The one of the most critical rules of politics is that you should never get involved in active cases when you're in such a position of power, especially if you just admitted you didn't know all the facts. Everyone in America is innocent until proven guilty. Obama's comments on TV Wednesday effectively reversed that; assuming that Crowley was guilty of racial profiling. Another ironic twist was that Crowley had taught a course in how to prevent racial profiling at the police academy. The Cambridge police force has so far stood by their Sargent and Crowley himself has refused to apologize to Gates despite calls from Boston area African American leaders to do so. Obama has now backtracked and has offered his own apology to Crowley after the media got wind of the gaffe. After listening to some talk shows on satellite radio, it seems that many Americans feel Obama made the comments intentionally to detract attention away from his controversial health care bill. Instead of the media picking that apart, they instead jumped on the racial profiling story. I wouldn't put it past him as this is a vary common political tactic that is studied in political science circles.

Barack Obama is shaping up to be a failure of a president. His current approval rating stands at 55%, much lower than the 70%+ he had just after he entered office. In fact, this is actually lower than George W. Bush's approval rating over the same first six months time period. If his health care plan is passed, from what I'm hearing it is estimated that Obama would be responsible for adding $1 trillion to America's national debt. It already stands at $11.6 trillion as of July 24th. To put this in perspective, Canada's annual gross domestic product, the total value of all goods and services produced per year in this country, is $1.5 trillion. It would take Canadians almost eight years worth of production to pay of America's debt assuming we didn't spend our money on anything else. The number is mind boggling. So far Obama has risked trade wars with his NAFTA neighbours over Buy America, has enacted a disastrous cap & trade system to combat climate change, and has generally done little to help alleviate the recession in that country, or address Iraq and Afghanistan. The costs of his two tier health system that he hopes to enact are already spiralling out of control even before the bill has been passed. It has Republicans and moderate Democrats worried. To cover the costs, Obama has suggested that America's top 1% earners may have to pay extra fees, read taxes, to pay for the program. Estimates peg that tax rate to rise to well over 50% of their incomes, higher than even Canada and France. Average Americans worry about this because many still hold onto the belief in the American Dream. More likely, they fear it will filter down as costs go even higher until middle Americans are paying tax rates equal to or higher than Canada and many European nations. Studies have shown that of the 15% of Americans who lack health care, only a small number of those are people who do not qualify for insurance. Many question the value of such a program, paying so much to take care of a few really needy and the rest who are lazy or have too much bravado to think that they don't need to be insured; while on top of that paying for their own private insurance. Interestingly, this is starting to sound like that whole "premium" thing we have to pay on top of regular income taxes to boost health funding. Obama is the black version of Dalton McGuinty after all. Many thought Obama would provide change to America but all he has proven to many is that he's just another silver tongued tax & spend liberal. Still, the media coddles him. In fact, the Gates affair has been one of the rare events where the media has actually come out critical of something Obama has done. Even notable liberal current affairs comedian John Stewart railed against the president on the Daily Show. Obama is still gambling on his race to prop him up but that is starting to erode away as people realize how disastrous his policies have been. Others still choose to blame Bush, who did create a lot of the problems. However, Obama has only aggravated them through his policies rather than bring the "change" he promised. I haven't even touched on the weakness of his near non-existent foreign policy. Will America's first half-black president be it's first one termer as well? Hopefully yes if Americans want to walk away with something left in their wallets.

read more...

Banning Bottled Water Not Only Dumb, Dangerous Too

I've guess you've probably heard by now that the Australian town of Bundanoon has banned the sale and consumption of bottled water entirely from the small rural community. The community's residents voted overwhelmingly to ban the product on environmental concerns, citing the amount of bottles that end up in the landfill. Other communities have adopted partial bans, notably London Ontario, which does not sell the product at city owned facilities. I chided that on the basis that other, far less healthy products which are sold in the same bottles continued to be sold. Steven Malloy in his book Green Hell however says that pretty much all containered soft drinks will be next. Cans as well I presume, though maybe glass can slide by. I bet the beverage industry will be thrilled to bits that the eco-warriors are trying to put them out of business.

Another thing struck my mind though when reading the article about the total ban in this Australian town. It's not to far away from happening in other jurisdictions. Not only is it dumb and highly reactionary to a non-existent problem, it's dangerous too. Ever been to Mexico? If you drink the tap water in some places, foreign locals, you can get violently ill from it. Moctezuma's Revenge anyone? Tourists are advised to always drink bottled water no matter where they are as different regions have different microbes and drinking water standards. Also, the Government of Canada recommends that factory sealed bottled water containers be kept in emergency preparedness kits, with enough to supply your family for three days. Factory sealed bottles keep better than ones you fill on your own. In the event of another Walkerton or Hurricane Katrina, bottled water is a vital life saver when tap water becomes unreliable or non-existent. Human lives are worth more than worrying over a few bottles in the landfill. I'm not bashing tap water. I rarely drink bottled water myself. However, outright banning it is simply foolishness.

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...

Dambisa Moyo's Dead Aid Interview

The National Post recently interviewed Dambisa Moyo, the author of the controversial book "Dead Aid". Moyo is advocating that Western governments slowly wean African governments off foreign aid, arguing that it has done nothing to help the lives of the African people. I spent four years in university studying Latin American politics and history, and while not as bad off, those countries suffer from a lot of the same issues. While trillions of dollars in aid have been spent on these countries, little progress has been made in improving the lives of their peoples. Africa in particular has actually seen quality of life regress. I agree with everything Moyo has said in the interview in that countries need to invest in economies and building a strong private sector based on small business, not in corrupt governments. In the interview, she also talks about her issues with NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and the celebrity-aid culture led by people such as Bono and Bob Geldof. It's an interesting read. Moyo herself was born in Zambia, was named one of the 100 most influential people last year, and her book is a TIME bestseller.

National Post: Why Aid to Africa Must Stop: Interview with Dambisa Moyo

read more...

Americans Have It Good

I've never understood the gripes of our neighbours to the south about their country and our government. They complain about their taxes, their social services, their government. American liberals look to Canada with envy for our broad social network and "free" healthcare. I argue that Americans actually have it far better than Canadians do and that Canada is actually moving backwards as the rest of the world moves forwards.

Taxes are one of the most common gripes I hear about on online messages boards. Americans think they're paying too much. Back in April, Tea Parties were held by American conservatives protesting high taxes. They fear Obama is going to raise taxes to an unprecedented level to offer "Canadian style" social services. Canadians pay a vary steep price for our social services and I'm not sure we're getting anywhere close to getting our money's worth. So, it's worth comparing the two countries in terms of what we receive versus what Americans receive for our dollars. In Canada, people spend half their year working for the government. According to Wikipedia, my bible, Tax Freedom Day in Canada, the abstract date in which we start working for ourselves and not for the tax man, will land on June 14th this year. The United States has already passed their Tax Freedom Day, which landed on April 13th. The average tax burden of Americans, that is the percentage of money going towards the government from all taxes, state and federal, is 28.2% and is actually decreasing. For Canadians, the tax burden is 44.8% and climbing. Canadian taxes are over a third higher than they are in the US. To add to this, Canadians also make less money than Americans do. According to the CBC, the median household income of Canadians in 2005 was approximately $41,404 CAD, a figure that has not changed since 1980 when adjusted for inflation. Using today's exchange rate, that works out to be $35,179 US. (the rate then was similar to what it is now so it's just easier to use today's rate) By contrast, American median household income was $43,389 during the same period. Americans get to keep about $31,153.30 after taxes while Canadians keep just $19,418. Americans make more and get to take more of it home than we do. Of course I'm using pre-recession figures but we can assume that the large gap still exists.

Of course, Canadians have to take home less because we're paying for health care, right? Americans have a choice of health insurance and what they want and don't want to be insured. Canadians do not have that choice. We can't shop around for the best deals. In Ontario, $600 to $900 annually is collected in tax per person as a "health premium" on top of what is already being paid into healthcare from other taxes. It's worth noting that the socialized medical insurance plans don't cover eye, dental, drugs, physio-therapy, and medical supplies. Everyone is guaranteed health treatment but this often doesn't mean Canadians are entitled to the best care available. While wait times have decreased, average ER wait times are still six to eight hours for minor ailments and up to 19 hours or more for more serious conditions. People are often left on stretchers in the hallways of many urban hospitals because there aren't enough beds. Rural hospitals are being closed down in many provinces to cut costs. Wait times for diagnostic examinations such as MRIs and ultrasounds must be booked months in advance. Many Canadians lack family doctors, particularly in more rural regions but the problem exists in major suburban areas as well. While health treatment in the US is not equal across the board, Americans will usually receive faster service and treatment than Canadians do. While I don't have the statistic in front of me, the US government supposedly spends more per capita on health care than Canadian governments do.

Another incident of Americans having it better than we do in Canada boils down to something much simpler that effects us all on a daily basis; municipal services. I have a friend that lives in Fairfax, Virginia. To give you some idea, Fairfax is a medium sized town that's a suburb of Washington DC. It's like Streetsville would be to Mississauga; a town within a city. I was floored when she told me they get their garbage picked up twice a week. That's everything including recycle. By comparison, in Halton region of Ontario, where I live, garbage is only picked up twice a month while recycling is picked up weekly. In Toronto, residents have to pay for their garbage collection on top of already steep property taxes. Halton uses two trucks to pick up garbage and recycle while most US cities use one truck that can store both. Aside from better garbage collection, Americans also get mail delivery on Saturday. In fact, there was some controversy when the USPS was considering dropping weekend delivery due to the recession and increasing costs. Canada by contrast has never had Saturday delivery. For transit, the DC area features a robust subway system that reaches right out into the suburbs and runs trains all day. In the Toronto area, the subway only operates in the city and commuter trains only run during rush hours. It costs nearly $7 ($5.95 US) to get from outlying areas of the GTA to Union Station, one way regardless of time. By comparison, it costs about $4.50 US to get from far flung Fairfax to central DC during the rush, and $2.35 at all other times. Want to go further? Hop on the Accela Express, a Canadian built electric train that runs between DC and New York City at speeds of 200km/h. You could travel from Toronto to Kingston in 1.5hr rather than the three hours it takes for VIA's aging diesel trains. For those who know the area, Washington DC is hardly a model city. However, it still manages to pull off better services for average citizens, and for less money than we do here.

Canadians are getting ripped off when it comes to the level of services versus what we pay out. The high taxes wouldn't be so bad if we actually got what we paid for. Each year we're asked to give more while governments claw back services or simply leave things to fall far behind the rest of the world. So where is all this money going? Corruption, pet projects, and bureaucratic red tape are the primary culprits. Simple projects, such as constructing a highway offramp or building a badly needed railway grade separation, get tangled up in years worth of environmental impact and cost feasibility studies. At minimum it takes a year for any infrastructure repair project to get approval. The civil service chews up money as it it were going out of style, most of it going to their ludicrous salaries and benefit programs. Politicians spend it on their little projects, such as Toronto mayor David Miller's green initiatives which have sunk the city far into the red. Granted, Americans don't always have things better. Canada's schools are probably better than theirs and we do pay less for electricity. However, if we continue to waste money at this rate, Canada risks slipping further and further behind the rest of the developed world. We're paying a small and increasing fortune annually to the government, who keeps infrastructure and basic services at the level of barely adequate at best. It's high time we Canadians started holding our own Tea Parties. The government needs to know that if they expect us to pay out so much, we at least want our services to reflect that. As for the Americans, you guys really don't have it all that bad, even with Obambi as your new president. Anybody know where I can get a green card?

read more...