Green Was the Flavour of the Month

For about the last thirty years, the environment has shifted into and out of the public sphere of concern. The 2008 Canadian federal election has brought it to the forefront in a big way for the first time in Canadian history. The Liberals and Greens are pushing harsh environmental reforms to stop "global warming". With all the fear mongering, guess who's leading the polls? Neither. In fact, the environment is what's sounding the death of the Liberal Party of Canada. At this point, they are at serious risk of collapsing into an insignificant fringe, just as Joe Clark's Tories did in the 1990s. For years we've been told to go green or else risk destroying the planet, and people believed it, so we thought. At first, 2008 seemed like it would be a banner year for the environmental movement, that is until a sting of unfortunate events happened.

First we saw an unusually cold and snowy winter, which brought record snowfalls to the Ontario, Quebec, and the US North-East. That was followed by a wettest summer in years with average temperatures after pro-global warming people predicted it would be the hottest and driest on record. In fact, this is the third year in a row where IPCC estimates where way off base. You can't just call that a casual, short term trend following their own logic. It proves definitively that the current models are wrong. Scientists who would try to dismiss that have their heads in the sand. These being the vary same people that call a typical week long summer heat wave definitive proof of anthropogenic global warming. However, to argue whether global warming exists or not is irrelevant at this point.

People like to join bandwagon causes, that is until something bigger comes along. Canadians and Americans are an easy enough people to read. They will join an cause only provided that they are not somehow inconvenienced by it. Until recently, the global warming movement sat just fine with people since they could feel good about themselves buying a Prius, organic local foods, and using "green" cleaners. This really didn't cost them anything or inconvenience them in anyway. Then things changed. In the United States, the sub-prime lending crisis reached critical mass as Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac went into receivership. They were followed by Washington Mutual and AIG. People are rather easy to frighten and the speech by George W Bush didn't help things much. People soon began imagining the return of bread lines and tent cities akin to the Great Depression of the 1930s. For years, we've been told that green policies will not hurt the economy. That may be true, if times are good. If times are bad, green is the economy's worst enemy. We already have Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May proposing carbon taxes that will hurt industry. We all know that when industry has to pay more tax, it does one of two things to cover it: it gets passed onto consumers, or employees get laid off. As costs rise, the standard of living drops. The carbon tax will have a negative effect on the economy. How much so is a moot point. The thing is that now people feel it to be a threat. They are now inconvenienced by the green movement to the point of having their jobs threatened. People don't give a rat's behind about helping the planet if they are poor and don't have a job. The threat of that has been enough to derail Dion's Green Shift. Human beings are naturally more interested in preserving themselves, to hell with everything else. The green movement is as I predicted, the flavour of the month. That month is now over as we entre a bitter economic winter. Green is dead and it's taking the Liberals down with it.

read more...

Election 2008 Gaffe & Idiocy Tracker

People seem to like it when politicians make mistakes and embarrass their party. So lets track the gaffes just for fun. All parties welcome. If you find any, please post links to articles in the comments section.

First off, we have Lesley Hughes, a Liberal candidate for the riding of Kildonan-St Paul in Manitoba. A mother and writer, Lesley thinks September 11th was a joint conspiracy by the CIA and the Jews. So much for Liberal multiculturalism and political correctness.

Of course, what would the Gaffe Tracker be without something from good ol' Garth Turner. The much despised Liberal MP for the riding of Halton in Ontario. Whether he's faking going door-to-door campaigning, this rotund fifty something enjoys dinner by candlelight, long walks on the beach, and putting his opponents on "death watch".

Next we have Andrew McKeever, the NDP candidate in the riding of Durham Ontario calling US war deserters "crybabies". An irony for a party that wants to pull out all troops from Afghanistan immediately.

Lee Richardson, the Conservative candidate for Calgary Centre blames crime on immigrants.

Stephane Dion thinks his own party members should be ignored.

While Steven Harper is being blasted for saying Canadians can't relate to artists who attend "rich galas".

NDP candidate Julian West from BC has been removed by the party for exposing the naked truth.

More to come!

read more...

Liberal Promises Tip the Scale at $80 billion

According to the National Post, Liberal campaign promises have topped the $80 billion mark. That's $80 billion in additional spending on top of what the government currently sends out. Comparatively, the Conservatives have promised $2 billion and the NDP $16 billion. Liberal spending promises work out to be roughly an additional $2484 per Canadian. The big question is where the Liberals are going to get that money. The carbon tax is starting to make more sense now. While Keynesian economics states its a good idea to spend during hard economic times, you can't spend money you don't have and you can't take more money from people who don't have it. Of course that's assuming the Liberals would follow through on their promises, which I seriously doubt they would. Canadians couldn't afford the tax hike to pay for it, meaning that the country would likely be put further into debt and deficit by these plans. Who says the environment wouldn't put heavy costs on our economy.

The desparity between the other two parties and the Liberals is also worth noting. The Liberals are promising 5 times the spending than the their next closest rival. Do the NDP and the Conservatives know something they don't? Yep, it's that the government can't afford it. I wonder how long it will be before Dion uses the McGuinty defence when he has to break promises and raise income and corporate taxes.

Source: National Post

read more...

Penn & Teller on Environmental Bandwagoning

This clip is probably pretty old but it's still relevant given our current federal election with Stephane Dion focusing so heavily on his Green shift. Penn Gillette in a clip from his HBO/TMN series Bullshit explains how easy it is to use the environment to get people to join a cause without really understanding what they're doing or what the consequences are.

read more...

Coming in 2009: Liberal Leadership Convention

Well here we are, in the midst of an election nobody wants. I've accurately called the last few elections but I cannot call this one. Just too many variables to sift through. My best guess would be another Harper minority. The Liberals have an uphill battle ahead of them, and they're their own worst enemy. That enemy comes in the form of Stephane Dion. When the Liberals selected Dion as their new leader in 2006, they probably could not have picked a worse candidate. Well, maybe they could have considering what makes up the bulk of that party but Dion is hardly leadership material. Back in an era before he played with his (golf) balls before the courts, Chretien had Dion as part of his cabinet. Dion was his environment minister, which would explain his distressing passion for the planet. He even named his dog Kyoto. The problem, Dion was never elected to parliament. For starters, after the Sponsorship debacle, you'd think the Liberals would want to get as far away as possible from the Chretien years. However, the party was still (and largely still is) split between Chretien and Martin supporters. The fact that he was part of the Chretien cabinet by virtue of patronage is only the first strike against the man. Dion has shown recently that he is simply not ready to lead the country. Polls asking "who would make the best PM regardless of party" have placed him in a distant third behind Harper and Layton. Dion's approval rating sits at 20%. The latest Angus Reed Poll (September 9th, 2008) is putting the Liberals not neck and neck with the Conservatives, but rather in NDP country, with only 24% popularity. This does not exactly bode will for the Liberals, who often see themselves as having divine right to rule Canada.

Much of this I would attribute to their leader's bumbling over the issues. First off, we have Dion's Green Shift. A plan that was proposed during an economic downturn which would see increased financial burden on Canadians. Yes, lets take a product that everybody needs, that's already doubled in price in the last three years, and tax it even more. The plan was supposedly a tax shift rather than a tax increase, as the Liberals described it. A tax shift supposedly means that tax increases in one area are offset by decreases in another. Of course, any Canadian with a brain between their ears knows that such a thing does not exist. The same plan was promised by Mulroney in response to the GST. No smart politician would ever run a campaign based on raising taxes. That's lunacy and political suicide. Now Dion is talking about increasing the excise tax on diesel fuels, which would increase shipping and transit costs even further. During an economic downturn, Canadians are more interested in keeping their jobs, not helping polar bears. Dion's campaign has become focused on a single, insignificant issue. Polls have shown that the environment ranks a distant third behind the economy and Afghanistan. Dion could be taking the time to rail Harper for job losses or Canadian deaths in Kandahar, but instead he is focusing on what is essentially a non-issue. Canadians are perfectly willing to help the environment, as long as it doesn't cost them any money or inconvenience them. Apparently the anthropogenic global warming fear mongering juggernaut isn't as powerful as originally thought. Dion is doing to the Federal Liberals what John Tory did to the Ontario PC. He's focused his campaign on something that's highly unpopular. Like Tory, Dion will lose the election based on that. Aside from that, most Canadians see Dion as simply too whiny and wimpy to lead the entire country. He does not have the charismatic image that Layton or Harper have tried to develop. Dion simply does not know how to play the political game.

I predict that after this election, the next big political news story will be the Liberals 2009 leadership convention. I'm going to make a bold statement and say that Dion will be forced out as party leader after this election, especially if the Liberals loose more seats, which is looking vary likely. He is a bad political strategist and a poor politician at best. If the Liberals want to regain their former glory, they're going to have to hope that Harper and Layton mess up big time, or they'll have to find a new leader.

read more...

Message to Greens: You Didn't Get Elected

This past week marked a historical moment in Canada. Well, actually it wasn't that historical. For the first time, in five years, five parties have held seats in in the House of Commons. Its being marked as historical since the Green Party now holds its first seat. Is this a sign that things may be looking up for oft ignored the Greens, who have been pushing hard for representation in public debates and a seat in parliament for the last couple of elections? I say no. There is good reason why this is not a historic event in Canadian politics. Former Liberal MP Blair Willson from BC crossed the floor to join the Green Party. Therefore, the Greens may have a seat but they were not elected to it. The segues into an issue I have with MPs being able to change their party affiliation while parliament is still in session.

I've spoken at length about this before when Halton MP Garth Turner betrayed his voters and crossed over to the Liberals after being booted out of the Conservatives for mouthing off too much. He came close to being booted out of the Liberal caucus for doing pretty much the same thing, showing that he is opinionated but very stupid and arrogant. Studies and polls have shown that the vast majority of Canadians vote for the party and not their MP as an individual. That is fundamentally how Canadian politics works. It's a party-centric system with strictly enforced unity. All MPs are just another faceless vote to counter opposition, unless of course they're part of cabinet. So if people are voting for a party, and their MP changes parties, their representative in parliament now no longer represents the popular choice. Crossing the floor seems to be happening a lot lately. First Stronach, then Turner, then Khan, now Willson. Under our current system, doing so is highly undemocratic since the MP now belongs to a party that is not backed by their constituents. Therefore, I believe this process must be banned from happening while parliament is in session. At the very least, if an MP crosses the floor, it should automatically trigger a by-election in that riding to allow voters to confirm the move or choose another representative. In essence, the Greens have nothing to celebrate from this "victory." They may have their first MP, but his constituents still voted Liberal. Call me back when they actually get someone elected democratically rather than through abuse of the system.

read more...

Naked Culture: On Canada's First Homegrown Porn Channel

The media has been mulling over a recent CRTC decision made early this week over Canada's first homegrown pornography channel. The channel will be known as Northern Peaks, and is based out of Edmonton. The CRTC was originally created by the Trudeau government as a federal tool for maintaining Canadian culture. For the most part, this has involved and endless string of tired CBC shows about Muslims living in Saskatchewan, comedy shows that air well past their prime, and bizarre movies that nobody will see. Why the CRTC feels that Canada now needs its own porn channel is a bit of a mystery to me. Do we really need a homegrown alternative to Playboy? The debate recently has got me thinking about the nature of our naked culture that we have in North America today.

I feel that we in the west are drowning in our own sexuality. Today, sex is easier to get than ever, and its not just the "world's oldest profession" that's flourishing. Since the mid 1990s, anyone with an internet connection can now log on and see as many men and women as they like doing acts that are said to border on art to stuff that's downright vomit inducing. The problem is that the proliferation of pornography has desensitized our society to sex. When Playboy first hit news stands in the 1950s, it was considered to be scandalous but its now pretty tame compared to what else is being offered. Pornography no longer needs to be purchased and hidden notwithstanding a quick clear of your browser cache.
Religious groups and radical feminists have long been declaring that pornography is evil and should be banned. (For the record, this is about adults over 18, not child pornography) Their reasons for doing so vary though I believe they are largely correct, though it's the solution that I have a problem with. You can argue all sorts of moral and ethical reasons to ban porn. Others have plenty of reasons not to ban it. One of the most common reasons against banning it is that it features consenting adults and in a sexually liberated world, they should be able to do and make money however they choose. The problem I have is with the term "consenting". One of the sad realities is that many of these so called consenting adults are college students desperate for money, or those who are victims of human trafficking. In the case of the former, many girls who need money for school or other habits will often turn to selling their bodies for hardcore sex filmed on camera. Its a quick and easy way to make a lot of money. The latter opens the window to a much darker world. Impoverished and naive girls, from South-East Asia (Thailand and the Philippines being particularly infamous for this, but it is more widespread) and Eastern Europe (former Soviet Bloc) get roped in to sex slavery. Some are sold by their own parents, those who are too uneducated and poor to know what they're getting their daughters into. In this case, they may be adults over the age of consent, but they certainly are not willing participants. We cannot confuse these young men and women with the likes of Ron Jeremy and Jenna Jamason who have made livings and enjoy doing it. Unfortunately, the desensitized public doesn't want that anymore as they seek more and more to fill in their high. For those who consume pornography, it becomes all to easy to forget that there is a thinking, feeling human being on the other end of the camera. I think we all to often focus on those consuming porn rather than those being used in pornography's production. Consumers though are victims in a way. Many men and women have become addicted to chasing the high pornography gives, thus further spreading the misery it fuels. Pornography is a cold, heartless, and mechanical mode of entertainment. Consumers are ultimately the reason for it to exist in the first place.

Clearly pornography is morally and ethically wrong on many levels. However, should it be banned? I have been staunchly anti-censorship for many other cases but this is one of those issues that leaves me conflicted. Banning adult pornography is not going to get rid of it. A ban in this case is simply not realistic. If you ban something like that, you run the risk of pushing it underground. In that case, it can open the door for all sorts of horrific abuses and further increase human trafficking. The demand will still be there, and as long as there is demand somebody will always be there to fill the market. It is currently a legal product and at current, we can exercise some control over it. We can require domestic producers by law to protect their employees from STDs, pay them fairly, and treat them well. The problem is the stuff we can't control; that is porn produced in foreign countries using human slavery and other less-than-willing subjects. In that case, it should be treated in the same way in which we have demonized other negative social habits such as drunk driving and cigarette smoking. Unfortunately, you cannot realistically criminalize it since it's not as black and white as child pornography is. It would be impossible to prove whether the person knew or not that the subject was a sex slave who was being abused. The public should be made blatantly aware of the mistreatment that goes on in an attempt to discourage people from consuming it. More government control should be exerted over domestic pornography produces, not to censor what they are doing, but to make sure employees are not being abused.

So what about Northern Peaks? I can't say I approve of this channel but for the reasons I mentioned, it allows some government control over what the producers are doing in order to keep employees safe. I don't think they should stop them since its their freedom of expression to air that content. By the same token, they should not be openly encouraged to do so by the government. They should also not receive any federal funding to produce "Canadian content" on the station. As Trudeau famously said, the government does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation. However, it should also not be providing fuel for the home fires either.

read more...

Liquid Smokes: Bottled Water the new Cigarettes?

Back in the 1990s, someone got the idea to take a product we get for almost free out of our taps and then packaged it for sale on grocery shelves. The water was significantly more expensive than tap water but it was great in a pinch when you were on the go and needed a swish of the elixir of life. We bought into it, big time. I've been drinking it for years. This is mostly due to the poor quality of Milton tap water, which has developed a swimming pool flavour due to the overuse of chlorine at the town's groundwater reservoirs. We actually had ours tested by the Region to prove it. Since then, bottled water has become public enemy number one for environmentalists. Many conservative news outlets have referred to it as being the new cigarettes. Does bottled water cause cancer? Well, it depends on who you ask. Does it bother other people? Same answer. A lot of the eco-nutters have viewed the drinking of bottled water in North America as a decadent activity. More recently, however, its not the water itself that has come under attack but rather what contains it. Namely those plastic PETE bottles.

Plastic was once considered a miracle product. Its stronger than glass, cheaper than metal, and can be moulded into any shape you want. The problem with plastic is that its not biodegradable and that its produced from oil. As such, it has recently been labelled a major danger to the environment. Other reports have come out recently that the plastics used in some water bottles may leach carcinogenic chemicals into your drink. Thus it's not surprising that they have become equated with cigarettes. Some environmentalists have suggested demonizing people who drink bottled water in the same way as we demonized smokers. Others want bottled water banned outright. In London Ontario, the city has decided to ban bottled water from vending machines and concession stands at all city owned properties. Toronto is currently mulling over the idea and premier Dalton McGuinty has suggested following London's lead by taking the ban province wide. McGuinty and Miller are no strangers to the ban. Perfectly safe pesticides have been banned in Toronto for a couple of years now and a province wide ban of the same chemicals will go into effect next year. These bans get put into place for a couple of reasons. First off, its politicians bending to the will of whatever happens to be politically correct at the time. Secondly, politicians like to abuse their banning powers to get rid of things they personally don't like.

Of course, there as an a major case of irony with the proposed bottled water bans. Plastic is a fully recyclable product. In fact, Canadians are known for recycling more used water bottles than our European counterparts by a significant amount. I believe it's around 75% for us and less than 66% for Europe. This goes against the banners' reasoning that Canadians are sending tons of used water bottles to the dump. Canadians are recycling. Another question to ask is why are environmentalists only going after bottled water when other beverages such as soft drinks come in the same kind of plastic bottle? The bans are taking away a healthy drink like water yet they are leaving unhealthy, sugary pops in the vending machines untouched. Wasn't our society nuts about the obesity crisis just last month? When you actually start to pick apart these bans, you quickly realize how ludicrous they are. Rather than banning water, they should be encouraging people to recycle their used bottles. How many times have you seen a recycling bin at a municipal park or building?

read more...

Tales of a Missing Mayor & Musings on Sunrise

On August 10th, Toronto suffered its worst disaster since the SARS outbreak back in 2003. The Sunrise Propane facility located on Murray road just south of CFB Downsview exploded, killing two people and forcing thousands out of their homes. Nearly two weeks later and some people still are not allowed back. Toronto fire and police did an admirable job in controlling the blaze but questions still linger as to whether the bureaucrats handled the disaster properly and if it could have been prevented in the first place. First of all, I agree that the location of the Sunrise facility was a highly inappropriate place. As you can see from the map (the propane facility is centred), a large residential area was right across the street from Sunrise. It's also not far from an active runway, since I presume that Bombardier still uses it for moving their planes. Furthermore, the satellite image, according to Toronto media outlets, shows Sunrise storing more propane on site than they should have. It is worth noting that Google's satellite information for the GTA is a couple of years old so we don't know how much was being stored at the facility at the time of the blast. Reports have also come out that the company was engaging in illegal and dangerous truck to truck transfers of propane and had be warned by the TSSA in 2006 to cease and desist that action. However, there is substantial evidence that points to the practice being continued. Though the cause of the blast has not been identified yet, there are strong rumors that seem to suggest that a truck-to-truck transfer was going on at the time of the explosion. Despite this though, there was a plan on the table that would have seen the facility be allowed to further expand (significantly) the amount of propane that was being stored on Murray Rd. An additional problem, which the media hasn't brought up, is asbestos. As you probably know, asbestos is a mineral fiber that is used as a fire retardant. The problem is that it's highly carcinogenic if it gets into the lungs. When the facility exploded, it sent asbestos into the air, littering the nearby neighbourhood. This is one of the main reasons why some people are still not being allowed back home. In the United States, asbestos has been banned so it begs the question, why was it being used at the Sunrise facility?

In my opinion, the Sunrise incident represents an all too common problem with municipal zoning laws that allow certain things to move into inappropriate areas. A propane tank at a gas station is one thing but a propane facility as large as the one on Murray Rd should never have been allowed in a residential area. However, I can think of several other cases like this. For example, I know of a large natural gas depot in Mississauga that is right next door to not one, but two schools. I won't mention the name and location for legal reasons but they know who they are. The facility is at least as large as the Sunrise one and is located in a densely populated residential area. I'm not saying that this one is prone to blow too but it makes you think. It's always a possibility. The question is why the TSSA was not conducting more inspections of these facilities when they found that Sunrise had been conducting illegal operations. Don't start doing these inspections now after the fact. They should have been doing them all along. Your're dealing with a highly explosive fuel here, and a lot of it to boot. When the TSSA caught Sunrise preforming an illegal activity in 2006, all they did was send them a sternly worded letter. Their excuse for not doing anything further? Well, some people just won't obey the laws no matter what you do. Really? So if a guy keeps robbing banks, we should stop arresting him because he doesn't want to obey the law? I've heard some doozies over the years but this takes the cake as the stupidest excuse I've heard. Since our family construction business deals with the provincial bureaucracy on an almost daily basis, I can attest that this attitude is very typical. Obviously the TSSA needs some reforms to make it more potent in dealing with infractions. Illegal transfers should have resulted in an automatic shutdown of the plant back in 2006 until they could prove they cleaned up their act. That did not happen. If the TSSA did have the power to do that, then it's a failure of bureaucracy and heads need to roll to prevent this from happening again.


The second part of this story has to deal with how the City of Toronto dealt with the disaster. The local media has been praising Deputy Mayor Shelly Caroll for her actions during the blast, which is hardly deserved. Caroll had told Downsview residents that they could return to their homes without first consulting police. This points to a major communications issue between the city and emergency services. Then we had the city councilor tell a constituent to "shut up" during a press rally. That is the height of unprofessional behaviour. I don't care if you're under stress. Someone in that position should be able to maintain composure and if they can't, then they are in the wrong line of work. The grievances of the constituents were legitimate. She decided to hold her own public meeting just because she didn't like the guy holding the other one. How old are is she? Five?

Then there was the tale of the missing mayor. For over a week following the blast, Toronto Mayor David Miller was nowhere to be seen. Where was he? Miller was in BC enjoying a little Miller time with his family. It was his daughter's 13th birthday so he says. In all fairness, the mayor briefly interrupted his vacation to check things out back here but returned to BC very soon after. However, Miller was not there for the clean up, or the investigation, or to attend the funeral of a firefighter, or even to rally the public. When it comes to mayoral legacies, Miller is certainly not going to be remembered as a Hazel or Giuliani. While being mayor has numerous official duties, the job also entails acting as a rallying figure in good times and bad. Family is very important but Miller still has obligations back in Toronto that simply cannot be shaken off. I'm sure his daughter, at 13, would be old enough to understand that her dad has an important job. I'm sure his family would be understanding and the time could have been made up later. However, Miller chose to go AWOL and left Caroll and his other cronies holding the bag. It shows weak leadership, which is hypocritical coming from a man who promised to clean up city hall, broom in hand. Of course, Miller did find time to end his vacation for a photo op celebrating the opening of a new film studio in the city. This is terribly poor leadership on Millers part. If he cannot be there to support the city in its worst disaster in five years, he should not be mayor.

read more...

China: It's Ok to Hold Olympic Protests, As Long as It's in the Gulag

This story both angers and delights me at the same time. It angers me because of how disgraceful it is that the Chinese government is abusing its people despite promises not to. It delights me because it has definitively proved the people who opposed an Olympic boycott wrong. During the Olympics, the Chinese government set up special "protest areas" and required those wanting to hold a protest during the games to register. Of course, any person with half a brain would know that this was just a dragnet to capture political dissidents. However, us fools in the West bought it hook, line, and sinker as a sign that the Chinese government was finally opening up and granting its people more basic human rights.

So here's the story, two women in their 70s have been arrested and sentenced to force labour and "re-education" after registering for a protest. Wu Dianyuan, 79, and her neighbour Wang Xiuying, 77 were arrested after registering to hold a protest during the Olympics. The protest would have been over the two women being forced out of their homes, which are to be demolished for redevelopment. They have not been sent to prison yet according to the story but are currently under watch. Given their age, it is unlikely they would be made to do forced labour. One of the women was said to be blind and almost disabled.

Of the 77 applicants who applied to hold protests, none were accepted and so far, no protests have been held in the designated areas. As I said, China has utterly failed to hide their true intentions from the world, yet there are still plenty of people who think that we, as the West, can put pressure on them with simple words. This Olympics should have been boycotted. Now, this is a terrible story and some would like to chop up to a one off, but it's the stuff we don't know about that's more disturbing. I believe it is time to take a much harsher approach with the Chinese government by slapping them with economic sanctions until they can get their act together and start practising what they preach. Taiwan also needs to be made a full UN member and recognized as the independent nation that it is. The coddling of this savage government by the West needs to stop. China has little to offer us and the sooner they realize that, the better. If they want to keep doing business with us, they will need to get their house in order. If we truly are superpowers, we need to start acting like it. We need some world leader get the courage to finally tell the People's Republic that what they're doing is wrong, and then follow through on threats.

Source: CNEWS

read more...

There is an Advisory Board for Judges?!

About a year ago, I wrote an article about the how judges were granting bail inappropriately. That is, letting dangerous repeat offenders out on bail. One of my suggestions was to create an independent judicial advisory board run by civilians to handle cases in which a judge made an inappropriate ruling. I feel a little embarrassed now because apparently this already exists. In fact, NDP MPP Peter Kormos wants one judge hauled in front of this panel. One of the biggest stories to break recently was the murder of Katelynn Sampson in Toronto. It has been called one of the most extreme cases of child abuse in the city's history. You can't help be feel sad for this poor child. Her mother is a drug addict, the father is nowhere to be seen, and her foster parents who are charged with the murder are well known violent criminals. The latter is what has one particular judge in hot water. Justice Debra Paulseth was the sitting judge in the custody case who handed Katelynn over to Donna Irving, the alleged killer. Despite a lengthly criminal record, the justice did not preform a background check or any sort of check to make sure the foster parents were suitable. The mother had been the one who suggested Irving, so she is not entirely off the hook. However, the judge confirming it without doing her job is the final nail in the coffin to our disgraced justice system.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. More often than not it takes a death for people to wake up to long festering problems like these. In the National Post a couple months ago was an article that noted how Native children were being put with unsiutable Native families in order to protect their culture. They were often repeatedly put into homes with known alcoholics who abused the children. Meanwhile, loving non-natives were clamoring to adopt these children but were not allowed to since its somehow considered a form of "cultural-genocide" by the courts. Of course, there are heaps more examples of similar issues.

If we actually have an institution that examines the rulings of judges, I think we need to start using it. The examples of justices abusing and neglecting their powers are staggaring. In my opinion, Justice Debra Paulseth should be made an example of. Of course, nothing has been proven in court yet but it is clear that a message needs to be sent. It should not take the death of a child before we start taking these issues seriously.

read more...

China: Where Every Day is 1936

It was several months ago now when many people, including myself, wanted the West to boycott the Olympics in Beijing similar to what was done with Moscow in 1980. The critics called us selfish for even insisting that "hard working" athletes be denied from going to the games. They felt that maybe opening China to the world would bring about some real change. It is not surprising that in 1936, many people felt the same way about the Olympics in Berlin, hosted by Hitler and the Nazis. During the games, all hate media disappeared from Nazi Germany only to return shortly there after. The Olympic stadium even became a staging ground for party rallies. If one and only one positive thing can be said about the Nazis, they were competent. They managed to fool the world by sweeping their mess under the rug. The savages that make up the Chinese Communist Party can't hold the same claim. The real question is what's worse: an incompetent and brutal dictatorship or the West that naively believed them when they said they'd make the country more open.

China has made major strides in liberalizing itself since the death of its insane communist leader Mao Zedong in the 1970s. Ironically, just as Russia still does with Lenin (despite the collapse of the Soviet Union), they keep his mouldy carcase on display for his loyal followers to view. This is the same country that gets upset at Japan for still having shrines to it's WW2 dead. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. How many died during the Cultural Revolution? (a recent report suggests between 750,000 to 1.5 million. Imagine all of Toronto being wiped out) Attempts to liberalize the country have so far been cosmetic and mostly economic. They still imprison people for merely speaking their minds. Delusional left wingers here in the West usually counter criticism of the PRC as being the results of cultural differences between us and them. If they want democracy, it's the west that has pushed them towards it, so they say. I guess Tienanmen really didn't happen using their logic. Unfortunately, the real issue is how impotent the West really is when it comes to influencing dictatorships like this one. There is a fear of rattling the tiger's cage. Is it that we're afraid they'll put economic sanctions on us? What, no more lead based toys and poisoned dog food? A real shame. As I noted before, despite Steven Harper repeatedly pressing China on human rights, nobody in either the Conservative, NDP, or the Liberal parties seriously brought up the idea of boycotting the Olympics. So here we are in August, the games are only days away, and already China is starting to reconsider some of the special allowances it was going to give even foreign visitors. There are mixed reports as to whether Internet censorship and the Great Firewall of China would be brought down. In all likelyhood, the Internet will remain locked down. Some are saying China is now going to limit what foreign visitors can post and view. There are also strict limitations on where foreigners can go. Even the types of cameras being allowed into the games are being tightly regulated. Spectators are forbidden from using SLR type cameras. Are we to be surprised by this? The way the Western media is putting it, apparently so. All this shows to me is that the Chinese government never had any intention to open up and allow new freedoms, either to its guests or its own citizens. China will continue as it always has to unjustly occupy Tibet and imprison & murder it's own citizens for speaking their minds or believing in something the government doesn't approve of. Unlike with the Soviet Union, the PRC has plenty of foreign dollars to feed the beast and keep its rulers afloat. We are, though indirectly, to blame for what goes on in that country. Democracy is not a Western construct only for Western peoples but it is something that is and must be universal. No country's regime can call itself legitimate if it doesn't allow its citizens to speaks their minds. China's people have demonstrated on numerous occasions that they want freedom, yet we just ignore it. It becomes the CNN headline of the hour and fades off into the blackness of our collective psyche by the next. If the West had some balls, we could have embarrassed communist China for its crimes. In the end though, 2008 is no different from 1936.

You can still act. Here's a list of some things you can do to boycott the Beijing Olympics on your own. Be thankful that you can choose whether you want to do these things or not without government interference. If I can even influence one person to join in on this, I've done my job.
1. Refuse to watch the Olympics on TV. You could also write the CBC and tell them why you won't be watching the games.
2. Hold a peaceful public protest against the Olympics
3. If you know an athlete or spectator going to the Beijing Olympics, politely voice your disapproval. Inform them of the consequences of their actions.
4. Do not congratulate medal winners. Once again, be polite about it. If you know them personally, let them know you are disappointed in them.
5. Write your MP and tell them how you disapprove of Canada not boycotting the games.
6. Refuse to shop at places or use services that sponsor the Olympics. Don't buy or accept any Olympic merchandise. The IOC gets royalties for the use of its logo. Doing this will hurt them financially.

read more...

Obnoxious Buzz Words

Over the years, you're bound to hear a lot of stupid stuff. Lord knows some of that stuff has probably come out of your mouth more frequently than you'd like to admit. I know it has from mine. The English language is a curious one. It's probably one of the least complex European languages to speak and write but it has all sorts of odd words and phrases that get mixed in. Middle-management types like to make up words. Some of them are annoying or downright obnoxious. They're called buzz words. Words that make stupid people sound smarter than they really are. So therefore, I've compiled a list of these buzz words and phrases that I'm really sick of hearing.

1. Carbon Footprint
This is a fairly recent invention. I first started hearing it in early 2007. Each summer I jokingly resolve to increase it given my interest in RC motor sports. The phrase is designed to give the image of a huge boot print but what it really means is how much carbon dioxide that you, as an individual produce each year. It's combined with imagery, such as one with a giant shoe print superimposed on a picture of the Earth. The image is designed to demonize people by making them think they're literally stomping on the environment each time they get in their non-hybrid car.

2. Green
Environmental buzzwords are popular these days. This one is an oldie though. I personally first started hearing this in the early 90s though it's probably much older than that. People associate the colour green with plants, which they associate with nature. Green has become an obnoxious buzzword by its sheer overuse in today's language. Green cleaners, green car, green energy, Green Shift, green vomit.

3. Islamophobia
This term developed after 9/11. It comes from the Greek root word phobia, which according to Wikipedia (which is my bible) is an irrational persistent fear of situations, activities, things, or persons. The term phobia is a clinical one which stems from anxiety disorders but it has been corrupted for non-clinical uses. As the word suggests, Islamophobia is an (claimed) irrational fear of Muslims or Muslim culture. Muslims usually use it as a force field to shield their religion from any sort of criticism. It frequently popped up in the Mark Styne fiasco. University students' unions love this word. I wonder if World War 2 had occurred today, would Winston Churchill be considered Deutschophobic?

4. Israeli Apartheid
Another term popular with students' unions, it tries to link the current Israel's treatment of Palestinians with South Africa's treatment of blacks during the Apartheid era. I don't ever recall Nelson Mandela shooting up schools or mowing down civilians with a bulldozer though. It's designed to bring up very negative, genocide-esque images of what's going on with Palestine but it corrupts the reality of the situation, which is a civil war. Apartheid and civil war are not the same thing. South Africans should be offended at the use (or rather abuse) of this phrase.

5. Colonialism
Some would like to suggest that all the world's problems from 1492 up to present were the sole cause of white, European men raping and pillaging. This is another term that frequently pops up in universities, especially in history or political science courses. The notion that all white people are is racist and all they do is go out and attack foreign lands and enslave their citizens is in itself racist. It's conveniently forgotten that China, Japan, and the Muslim world had colonies of their own at one point. Spain was once a Muslim colony up until shortly before the age of Columbus. Generally, this term is more frequently used with globalization to denote how the US is supposedly taking over the world as a neo-colonial power. It's another tired hack phrase used by non-democratic countries and people who can't get their own houses in shape and need an easy scapegoat.

6. Obamania
Barak Obama is this generation's John F Kennedy. He's huge in the US. Not only may he be the first black president, but people love him. In his recent trip to Europe, he received a rock stars reception. It's a little odd that a politician would be making foreign visits during an election rather than campaigning in his own country. The media has dubbed his popularity as Obamania, a combination of Obama and Mania, suggesting that people are crazy about him. Obviously the media has stolen this from Trudeaumania of the 1970s. Trudeau was a popular and charismatic individual like Obama, he also turned Canada into a laughing stock during his years as PM. We're still trying to fix the mess. Makes you think twice about Barak.

7. FUD
This appears often on tech forums, and is usually misused. It's an acronym for spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Pointing out flaws of a product, person, or idea is frequently labelled as FUD by people who want to quickly dismiss debate. Sometimes appears in politics. I prefer my own FUD acronym for people who use this annoying term: F-ed Upped Dummies

8. Queer
Sometimes words can take on two meanings. Queer is a now archaic word in English meaning something is odd or strange. It's now used to describe anything and everything that has to do with homosexuals. Ironically, the word was once used as a putdown for gays but they've since "made it their own." Queer TV, queer bar, queer person, queer rights. This word alone is more irritating than anything else. Makes me glad I'm strait and therefore I don't have to use it to describe myself. This word, along with gay, needs to be taken back from homosexuals and restored to its original, non-corrupted meaning. Also, can we please get rid of that tasteless parade, or at least get some better looking lesbians in it. You're here, you're queer, we are used to it. Now put your pants back on.

9. Human Resources
Nothing really political about this term but it's still a buzzword that bothers me. It replaced personnel in the office world. The Human Resources department is of course in charge of hiring and firing. The thing I don't like about this term is how highly impersonal it is. It makes you seem as though you're no different from the plastic or steel being put into the product your making. Personnel on the other hand gives the image of dealing with people, not objects. Human resources is not exactly a PC term so it's a mystery as to how it became popular.

10: Awareness
I'm not entirely sure when people first started using this term but it seems it's getting thrown around a lot lately. It's used mostly by the left wing, they being the kings of buzzwords. It's particularly popular with left leaning NGOs like WWF and and Greenpeace. It basically means to make people "aware" of particular global issues. Of course making people aware usually means telling people only your distorted view of the issue. Awareness tends to be just another propaganda method than anything else.

11: Solidarity
An old term, popular with unions and independence groups. It means uniting to fight a specific force. Polish Solidarity is a classic historical example. However, lazy left wingers and general "do gooders" like to use their term to feel good about themselves. "I'm in solidarity with (insert oppressed minority group)!" No you're not you moron. Most of the people who make these claims are urban hipsters who have never even left downtown Toronto once in their lives. They love to use their term to make themselves feel connected with groups they feel are being oppressed, but what it really means is "I feel for you, but Arrested Development is on so you're on your own".

12. Fair Trade
At first, you first started seeing this phrase as upscale chain coffee houses like Starbucks. What it supposedly means is that the coffee buyer (the chain) paid a third world farmer a fair market rate for their product. The whole idea is to uplift the poor farming class out of poverty. This is yet another concept to make white, urban hipsters feel good about themselves each time they decadently pay $5 for a small (excuse me, tall) double mocha latte. The exact meaning of fair trade is a bit of a mystery since nobody outside these big companies knows what a fair value for coffee is. The whole irony is that fair trade really doesn't do much. Juan Valdez can make several times the money growing coca than growing coffee. Coca, or more specifically it's refined form cocaine, is of course another favourite product of urban hipsters. Buying the drugs keeps them under the thumb of the drug lords and no amount of "fair trade" coffee is going to change that. I've started seeing this term being used on other products.

13. Elitist
We supposedly live in an elitist society. Those who run our country, rich white men, are the elites. This term gets kicked around a lot, and like Islamophobia, it's used to shield the negative activities of certain groups from criticism. Elitists don't necessarily have to be white men. For example, when Bill Cosby spoke out against family issues plaguing African American society, he was labelled an elitist by black leaders. It's designed to make more successful people in our society appear out of touch with the lower classes, despite many of them coming from humble beginnings. Those who succeed often take the role of iconoclasts, especially if that person comes from a minority group who has convinced themselves they are being kept down by "the man". White socialists also like this term for the same reasons.

14. Nazi
Oh, boy. This has to be the grand poohba of left wing buzz words. It is the most commonly misused political word I can personally think of. George W Bush has frequently been called a Nazi over his past 8 year term. Of course, who could forget when university professor Ward Churchill called the 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns". The flagrant use of the term Nazi truly diminishes the reality of what the NSDAP did during it's reign over Germany from 1933 to 1945. The people who conquered lands, devastated Europe, and systematically murdered 6 million Jews and other minorities. Whether you agree or disagree with Bush's policies, I think any sane person who knows their history can say he's certainly not a Nazi. The term is generally misused to refer to any authority figure one does not like.

15. Initiative
I hear this a lot when discussing anything related with the city of Toronto. "We're developing a new transit initiative" or "We're working on the waterfront initiative". The Oxford American Dictionary has two definitions that fit the use of this buzzword. The first being "the power or opportunity to act or take charge before others do." The second is "an act or strategy intended to resolve a difficulty or improve a situation, a fresh approach to something." In the city's eyes, what this means is going to the province and the feds, hat in hand, looking for money from grandiose projects. It's not really taking initiative at all since they want someone else to do it for them. The word works though because it makes stupid people think someone is doing something for them when they really aren't.


So there you have it. 15 annoying and obnoxious terms that get all too frequently kicked around. You might be asking why most are left wing terms. The right does like to use buzzwords too but I find not as frequently. Most of these terms are ones that pop up most often in the media. Of course, I'll add more as I come across them in later postings.

Updated Aug 16/08

16. Sustainable:
The environmental movement has tons of great obnoxious buzzwords to choose from. Sustainable is a popular one that's popped up in the last couple of years. It basically means that you are using pollution free energy (wind & solar) which can be sustained without limit, or that you are using environmentally friendly products to sustain the environment. Truth be known, it's mostly an expensive marketing ploy for "eco-friendly" products and to sell overpriced solar panels for yuppies to mount on their roof.

17. Poverty:
Poverty is a very serious issue in the developing world. That I don't dispute. What really grinds my gears, as Peter Griffin would say, is its use in developed nations. The problem with the word poverty is that there is no set global definition for the term. It's kind of offensive to equate someone living in public housing Jane & Finch though with someone in South America living in a cardboard shack. Apparently anyone who makes under $20,000 is impoverished in Canada. Ironically, it's quite possible for someone living under the poverty line to live quite comfortable. Take my Grandma for example, who earns a pension less than that. Also don't forget that Canadians are entitled to "free" health care and social services that truly impoverished people are not. The word poverty suggests extreme poorness. Therefore I peg it at less than $2 per day with little hope for improvement. In Canada, almost nobody falls under that category. We wiped out poverty in our country decades ago so please stop using this term.

read more...

Heart of Garthness

The core of a good politician is someone who can freely speak their mind and voice the concerns of their constituents in the process. Garth Turner certainly is the first one. He likes to speak his mind. More often than not though, it's total garbage that comes out of his mouth, or appears on his blog. He recently referred to people in Quebec as "separatist losers" on his blog. The exact quote according the Canadian Press refers to Turner defending Stephane Dion's environment policy against the Conservatives' attacks. "You might not agree with everything the man says, but you have to admire this about him," Turner wrote. "He stood up once to the self-aggrandizing, hostile, me-first, greedy, macho, selfish and balkanizing separatist losers in Quebec. I guess he can do it again in Alberta."

All this would be more shocking if Turner hadn't done this before, but he has, many times. He claims he has a "sad history of doing that". In fact, Turner was ejected from the Conservative caucus after undermining the authority of the cabinet and the Prime Minister. He briefly sat as an independent and assured his constituents in his Halton riding that he would remain. This would be in compliance with their wishes expressed at various "town hall" meetings he held. Shortly there after, he joined the Liberals. Were the Liberals foolish enough to think they could keep him on a short leash when the Conservatives couldn't. After all, Harper has a lot more control over his caucus than Dion does. Consider that the Liberals already have problems in Quebec. As Jack Layton correctly pointed out, they don't need people like Turner making comments like that after the Sponsorship Scandal and the collapse of faith in the party in that province. While I do enjoy any hits the Liberals take, I think Turner is turning into more of an embarrassment for Canada as a whole and not just the party he belongs to. While he is free to speak his mind, his comments were highly unprofessional and as I said, it's not the first time he has done this. How did this man go from a once respected journalist to laughing stock? He may have apologized but you cannot keep repeatedly kicking people in the nuts and still think "I'm sorry" is going to cut it. When asked what he'd do, Dion noted Turner needed to explain himself and he did that. However, I feel that stronger action needs to be taken against him.

Garth Turner, to me, seems like a bitter man who wants to go out in a blaze of sour grapes. He has ignored his constituents and ignored the parties that he represents. So what's left for him? He only remains for himself. I think the Liberals would be wise to make an example out of him. He is the classic example of the selfish politician. He should either be expelled from the Liberal caucus or pushed into resigning as a MP. The Liberals don't need that garbage right now and neither do his constituents.

read more...

"Green Shift" Shows Liberals Still Ontario-Quebec Centric

I'm going to call Stephane Dion's green plan what we're all thinking; the green shaft. I'm sure that four letter word has crossed all our minds as the Liberal leader prepares to push his carbon tax agenda on a groaning Canada. One need not look to Kennedy or Roswell to find conspiracies since I would argue the green movement and politicians are both working together to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt in order to fuel their own agenda. For the Liberals, taxation seems to be the solution to everything. People smoke too much, tax it. People use health care too much, tax it more. People drive too much, tax them too. So now we're moving onto the dreaded carbon tax. The greenies have argued that the release of carbon in the atmosphere has gone on for too long and now it's time to pay the real cost of it. Academics love the idea, while sitting in their ivory towers watching the world go by through green coloured glasses. Such ideas, like the proposed carbon tax, are often created through knee jerk reactions to problems, or perceived problems, by politicians who have no idea what they're talking about.

This weekend, the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut joined Alberta and Saskatchewan in denouncing the Liberal leader's plan. According to the three territorial premiers, the plan would do great harm to northern communities since they rely on diesel fuel for heat and electricity. They argue that a carbon tax would futher add to already prohibative fuel costs and would do great harm to the territorial citizens. They noted that it was impractical to put in place alternative energy sources in the region. The cold tundra is hardly an ideal spot for wind or solar power. Alberta and Saskatchewan worry about economic collapse since the tax would put a heavy burden on the two provinces' oil industries. Oil provides a living for many living in the area. In BC, the first province to enact a carbon tax, truckers and remote communities are fuming since they can no longer afford fuel. Truckers are demanding to be exempt from the tax, something the government is unlikely to do. According to polls though, over half of Canadians have warmed up to the carbon tax. Unfrotunately, these polls tend to be "small-n" studies that interview perhaps 1000 people, willing to answer the phone to telemarketrs, in central Canada with no reguard to the rest of the country. Central Canada holds about half of the country's population. The problem is that most of Canada's resource rich regions, which our national economy depends upon, aren't located in central Canada but rather in the west. So far, I'm seeing more and more provinces and people lashing out against the idea of a carbon tax. Even we here in Ontario need to worry, as I indicated in a previous article. Prime Minister Stephen Harper rightly indicated that such a tax would "screw" Canadians. Even the NDP has dumped the idea since they know it will alienate their labour-centric voting base, many of whom work in the oil industry out west.

So why does Dion think this is a good idea when the costs of it are so high. First of all, we've all been lied to that the Earth will be destroyed by anthropogenic global warming, which is a dubious theory at best. Perhaps Dion genuinely thinks he will do some good all be it he is naive in thinking so. More accurately, it's simply another cash grab. Dion claims that the carbon tax will be revenue neutral, meaning that it will be offset by massive tax cuts in income taxes. Brian Mulroney tried the same thing when he instituted the controversial Goods and Services Tax back in the 1980s. The revenue neutral nature of the GST never saw the light of day and was largely responsible for the Progressive Conservatives not being reelected in 1993. (Scrapping the GST was a major part of Cretien's campaign, which also never say the light of day) Dion himself was environment minister under the Cretien government. He was appointed to the position rather than being an elected MP. He is where he is due to a healthy dose of patronage by his former boss, who himself was a cronie of Trudeau.

Dion has most recently been looking to the Australian model for his carbon tax. Their tax was instituted by new left wing government after former conservative PM Gordon Brown failed to win reelection. Australia may be a vast country but it is a warmer climate that doesn't rely on fossil fuels for heating. It also lacks the energy industry that Canada has. Trying to fit the Australian model to Canada is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. If he wants to compare it to another country, perhaps he should look to Europe, more specifically to our motherland, the UK. The United Kingdom has some of the highest taxes on carbon in the developed world. So far, it has gotten to the point where people cannot afford fuel and truck drivers are launching massive protests against high fuel prices. Many Britains are now living in fuel poverty. The UK like us has a colder climate and has a major oil and gas industry. I'd hardly think that Labour's carbon tax has worked there. Protests in the UK have been echoed by similar protests in other EU countries, and for what? Is there any proof that putting a tax on carbon emissions will reduce greenhouse gases and cancel global warming? I will give $1000 to the first person that can give me a mountain of proof from certified academic, peer-reviewed sources that it does. There in lies the rub. If you cannot prove that such a tax will have ANY effect on it's intended purpose, then it should not be implemented. Besides, you cannot discourage carbon use without having some sort of alternative being implemented. Without these alternatives, the carbon tax just screams cash grab.

What it amounts to is an abuse of power so that Dion can simply get rid of things he doesn't personally like. This all indicates to me that the Liberals simply want to plug their ears, close their eyes, and pretend there's nothing west of Sudbury and nothing east of Quebec City. This is exactly why the party is faltering. What you see in the polls are the die hard liberals who wouldn't change their vote no matter what. The party is at serious risk of becoming irrelevant and out of touch with Canadians, and stunts like the "Green Shift" don't help much. Right now, they're hoping to capitalize on the green hysteria. If it will work, I really can't say. The one thing I can say for sure is that Harper is right, it will screw Canadians.

read more...

Musings On Macleans, York U, and Islam's War on Words

Islam was thrust into the spotlight in 2001 when several religious zealots hijacked American planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It's one of those events where you can remember exactly where you were and what you were doing at the time. In the nearly seven years since then, I've had a lot of time to muse on the nature of terrorism and Islam. While not all Muslims are terrorists, all the terrorists involved in 9/11 and similar atrocities were Muslim. I ultimately believe that the West did not push the Middle-East towards this and the events were orchestrated by a mad man. However, the wars in Iraq and strained relations with Iran have done little to help the situation in recent years.

On the home front, Islam has been fighting a war of words against the West, or rather a war on words. The religion has found it very difficult to deal with Western styles and multiculturalism. Islam has taken an lesson from Scientology and is now using the legal system as a method to attack and ruin their critics. Currently, journalist Mark Steyn and Macleans magazine are being hauled in front of the BC Human Rights Tribunal for "smearing Islam." The Canadian Islamic Congress called the Steyn article hate speech. The article in question was called The Future Belongs to Islam. The article basically brings up the issue of a weakening Global North. Islamic youth, who are one of the fastest growing segments of the global population, are further becoming radicallized and will change the shape of the world. You can read it for yourself and make your own judgements. Islam certainly isn't the first religion to use the legal system to attempt to silence critics. I already mentioned Scientology, who is currently fighting with Wikileaks and internet group Anonymous. Christianity as well has a very long history of doing this. What makes Islam any different? The answer is nothing, but that still doesn't make it right.

Hate speech tends to be a very subjective thing. Who determines what is offensive? An individual, a group, or a government? Who determines how severe the offensive remark or piece is? That's the ultimate problem with this kind of censorship, it's a slippery slope. There is no set formula for determining hate speech, nor can there ever be. The government simply defines it as something that incites hatred, which is a very vague statement in itself. People need to realize that words are words, not weapons. In an open and civilized society, if someone makes a remark you disagree with, you are entirely free to counter that position. The issue at stake here is that interest groups can now use your own words as a weapon against you. The problem with human rights tribunals is they're nothing more than kangaroo courts. They are not proper courts of law but rather civilian bodies stocked with civil servants. They are considered the lowest rung of the legal ladder and they do answer to the higher courts. The fact that you are being put on trial by people who may or may not be trained and qualified justices is something disturbing. The tribunals can't really do much other than to smear your good name. There's no guarantee you're going to get a fair trial. They are not required to follow precedent. Much of what goes on gets twisted in legal babble and psychological warfare. If hate is against the law, why aren't the courts dealing with it? I suppose people would be up in arms if that happened. Canadians as a whole are less tolerant of censorship than Americans are, at least concerning the explicit variety. The tribunals present a more implicit form of censorship since they tend to fly under the radar of the media. Many Canadian news outlets have failed to even discuss these issues.

A double standard does exist when it comes to hate speech and how Canadians deal with human rights. Such cases of this can be seen at Canadian universities. I picked York University, located in northern Toronto as one case study since it happens to be one of the most pronounced local cases of this happening. It's student's union has made pushes to censor and dispel any debate on campus. Their basic argument is that you can have debates on issues, such as abortion, as long as you tow our line. The abortion debate was one of the more recent cases when the student's union met for an emergency meeting a couple weeks ago and decreed that pro-life groups on campus would no longer receive funding in an effort to silence them. I consider myself pro-choice but I find this to be an appalling case of deliberate censorship at an institution that is supposed to openly encourage unencumbered debate. Islam falls into this due to similar issues over the debate of Israel. To me, the whole Israel-Palestine conflict has seemed childish. The whole conflict has been over a small strip of land out in the dessert that people on both sides are willing to slaughter children for. To me the optimal solution would simply be to unite the two sides into a federal republic with two semi-autonomous provinces. This would certainly be the civilized way of doing things. While religion does play a role in the Israel issue, it is really over who controls what land. However, other Muslims have chosen to highlight religious tensions to distort what is really going on. Many universities have begun to hold "Israeli Apartheid" weeks in which Islamic students and their socialist comrades protest all things Jewish. These frequently turn into mini-riots with Jewish students being harassed. If these events involved white men adorned with Nazi tattoos and sheets over their heads, we would call this racism. If the students perpetrating these acts are Muslim, suddenly it becomes an expression of their beliefs. Sorry, but I'm going to have to call this out on what it is. Muslim students that participate in these events and the students unions that allow this to go on are racist and anti-Semitic. I suppose it's interesting to note though that Karl Marx, who students unions love, was an anti-Semite himself despite having Jewish ancestry. I'm hardly an appolegist for the Jews. I'm rather indifferent towards Israel. However, I do feel that these campus unions are so deeply hypocritical when campus hallways are adorned with posters that tell you to denounce racism and create a positive learning space. The problem is that most students do not vote in student council elections. I admit that I never did. The reason was because they all ran on nearly identical socialist platforms. I could vote for either Team Yellow or Team Orange but either way, I'm going to get the same thing. If I do not support that, I have nobody to vote for. It seems that everything on campus now is religion or ethnicity based. Things like the chess club of old have been replaced by the Chinese Students Club, or the Christian Club, or the Muslim Club. It seems to me that universities are becoming more exclusive rather than inclusive. The social engineers always proudly refer to Canadian multiculturalism as being the tossed salad compared to the United States' melting pot. However, I'm not sure this is really working to anybody's benefit. The universities are a shining example to the failure of this thinking.

The face of our country is changing, that's a given. Whether this has been a positive thing or a negative one is up to an individuals own interpretation. The issue is different groups essentially abusing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the legal system to launch attacks at one another. This I think we can all agree is a very negative thing. The goal of the Charter was to encourage unity, not divisiveness. Canadians cannot let go of the values we've spent 130 years building simply because some group finds them offensive or incompatible with how they lived back in their old country. There should be a sign at every immigration line at the airport saying "Welcome to Canada, you're Canadian now, leave your past and current conflicts at the door". We badly need to adopt the US melting pot if we're going to survive in a multicultural society. Our current salad bowl policy is going to lead to disaster.

read more...

Who's to Blame for GM Fiasco

GM has announced that it cease production at four North American truck plants, laying off 1000 workers at the Oshawa plant. Workers are obviously very upset since they just signed a contract guaranteeing job security until at least 2011. As the dust settles today, talk radio will likely be bristling over who's to blame for this. I'm hardly a union supporter but I do feel this was an act in bad faith. It also shows some weaknesses in GM's management and the business itself. The questions to ask now are what caused this and what can we do about it.

I've personally never owned an American car and I never would. Some may think me to be in the wrong to not buy locally. However, I feel that there are no American cars currently on the market that are both reliable and fuel efficient, or meet my needs. The American car has become what the Japanese cars once were, garbage. I've known a few people who own or deal with GM products and they've all said they need major repairs only after a couple years of ownership. The likes of Honda and Toyota are built solid and they take pride in that notion. Quality issues are across the board when it comes to American manufacturers but GM tends to have the worst record of the bunch due to cost cutting measures and part substitutions. It's one of the reasons the cars tend to be so cheap.

Another problem for the American manufacturers has come from the price of gas which has led to the crash of the big vehicle market. Back in the 1990s, you could but a litre of gas for a scant (by today's standards) 50 cents. The monster 30 gallon tanks in SUVs, pickups, and minivans could be filled for $50. 2007 is when I would pin the shift since it's the year when prices stabilized at at or over $1 per litre in Canada. Today at a $1.30, that massive tank now costs over $130 to fill. Assuming you fill that thing up once a week, every week, it would cost $6760 per year for fuel alone. This compares to about $2600 eighteen years ago, which is about $3800 in today's money. It's interesting to note we're paying 177% more for fuel than we should be. I digress. Obviously six grand is a lot of money when the average income is only about $30,000. In the 1990s, SUVs and vans were seen as practical due to the perception of them being safer and also because of their greater flexibility. Today as a commuter vehicle, the price of gas has made them prohibitive for the average consumer to operate. This second problem is the one GM has chosen to blame for the job losses at its four truck plants, including the one in Oshawa.

The question people have been asking is who is to blame for this. I place the blame squarely on GM and the Canadian Auto worker's Union. Over the past few years, General Motors has made a series of bad business decisions. The writing has been on the wall for some time but the company's management was either too blind or too stupid to read it. From about 2002 to 2008, the price of gas has jumped from around 60 cents to $1.30 in Canada. Analysts in both Canada and the US had been warning automakers for some time that the market for small and medium trucks would burst soon. 2005 was a benchmark year since it was the first time gas prices touched record highs. It was also the first year where gas rose over the psychological barrier of $1 per litre. 2008 has seen a sharp drop in demand in SUVs and vans and a sharp rise in the demand for cars and crossovers. You didn't need to be an economist or auto market expert to have seen this coming three years ago. However, the folks at GM continued churning out these large vehicles. They overproduced a product and now nobody wants it, the price of them has dropped dramatically and people who already own trucks find they cant' sell them. It's simply supply and demand. Nobody wants the sub 20mpg SUV anymore. Honda and Toyota et al out in Japan jumped in on the small car market years ago. People laughed at the concept of compact cars being in high demand, but now they are. It's now Toyota and Honda laughing their way to the bank. Other American automakers were late to the starting gate. Both Ford and Chrysler have now released their own widely successful lines of crossovers and small cars. When opportunity called, GM execs must of been in the washroom. Under basic consumerism, if you can't give the people what they want, they'll go someplace else, and you loose business. To add to the matter, GM signed a contract with it's workers just two weeks ago guaranteeing job security until at least 2011. To come back fourteen days later and say "we were kidding, 1000 of you are going to loose your jobs" is highly unprofessional and in very bad faith. For a company that badly needs some good PR, they certainly aren't doing much to help themselves. I expect the shareholders are going to eat them alive on this since it seems to me the company needs a change in management.

The union too is part to blame, mainly for making North American labour uncompetitive. Out of any job, autoworkers have some of the sweetest of perks, on par or even beyond those of school teachers in this province. They have full medical, dental, and vision care. They get very generous pensions. The company basically looks after your family from cradle to grave under these contracts. On top of that, they get higher cost of living increases than anyone else. I remember hearing from someone that assembly line workers make $70 per hour, which is double what most other unskilled labourers get. These perks of course come at a price. Companies go to countries like Mexico, where you can pay the workers under half of what you have to pay North American workers. However, Mexican workers are still getting double what they would make doing another job so they're quite content with the pay and perks they get. Since they don't need skilled labourers to put cars together, automakers are going to naturally seek out the cheaper rate. This is not necessarily a bad thing, since as I said, the Mexican worker is going to be making more than what they would have, thus increasing their standard of living. The problem is that the CAW and the UAW have painted themselves into a corner. They treat these perks as a god given right but in the process, they're pricing themselves right out of the labour market.
For years, we've known that manufacturing is not the way of the future. The second industrial revolution in the 1960s was a sign of this when people began moving out of factories and into to services. Right now, this is currently transitioning to focus on more personal based services as companies outsource their work to other countries. This means a transition to a more educated workforce. Analysts are predicting a huge boon for skilled trades and professions such as doctors. Unskilled, assembly line labourers are becoming obsolete. The notion of job security in this day and age too is foolish. They tell kids these days that you will most likely have several jobs over your lifetime. Nobody works for the same company for 40 years anymore. However, unions are choosing to fight what they call the scourge of globalization. At this point though, stopping globalization is like trying to stop a tornado. CAW boss Buzz Hargrove has called for the federal government to levy teriffs on import cars, but this is impossible to do. The whole irony about this is that both Honda and Toyota have several plants in Canada and the US. They may not be part of the CAW though, which could be Buzzy boy's problem. Besides that, putting tariffs on foreign made goods is an ass backwards approach. This form of thinking is no different from the Luddites back during the first Industrial Revolution. They too were tilting at windmills. This is not capitalism's fault either since globalization has shown to care little of what economic system you are running under. Take China for example.

The final share of blame goes to the provincial government. Like the unions, they too have failed to see the path of globalization ahead of them. They've convinced themselves that Ontario always has been and always will be a manufacturing heartland. As I said though, the current trends are showing otherwise. Obviously it is in the government's best interest to keep workers employed, however they are choosing to ignore the changing realities. One of the biggest problems is the handing out of multi-million dollar aid packages to the automakers such as GM. I believe that these handouts only reinforce bad business decisions. Essentially, the province has forked out tax payer dollars to keep people manufacturing a product that nobody wants. While this is not the sole reason why GM has been making poor decisions, it certainly is a contributing factor. Of course the argument can be made that without those handouts, Oshawa workers would have found themselves without jobs long before now. True, but they're still ultimately going to loos their jobs. All these handouts did was delay the inevitable for a couple of years. However, doing nothing doesn't win votes and I really don't see any practical/feasible alternative either the province or the federal government could have taken.

The auto industry is failing in Ontario. Ultimately this round has been the fault of General Motors and they should shoulder most of the blame. The union too has made mistakes by pricing themselves out of the market at a time when manufacturing is becoming obsolete. There will likely be a lot of questions asked over the coming weeks, including a possible wildcat strike by GM employees. However, one cannot delay the inevitable. The province and the feds need to brace for more of this to happen in the future and contingency plans need to be made as soon as possible. Ontario has already made the moves to retrial manufacturing workers who have lost their jobs but this may not be enough. Unfortunately, there is not much that can be done to alleviate this, or at least nothing that couldn't have been done years ago.

read more...

ACTA Grossly Unconstitutional

Should your constitutional rights be violated in order to protect a statute right of another individual or corporation? By statute rights, I mean a law that is not part of the constitution. Of course you're going to say no. However, there is an increasing movement to do so under a new trade agreement known as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). This new agreement deals with international copyright. Over the past 10 or so years, the amount of abuse copyright law has taken has been steadily increasing as content providers try to put the "internet genie back in the bottle", as one writer put it. The ACTA however brings this to a new low and in my opinion is grossly unconstitutional.

This new agreement was first leaked on freedom of information champion Wikileaks the other day. It will be tabled as an international agreement at the G8 meeting in Japan in a few weeks time. The agreement would turn border guards and public security personnel into copyright police. All laptops, iPods, and other media devices being brought across borders would be checked to make sure they do not contain pirated media. Under the agreement, this would include rips of CDs and DVDs that the user has legally purchased. Anyone found with pirated content would have their device confiscated or destroyed. In an interview with the Victoria Times Colonist, David Fewer from the University of Ottawa Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic noted that "the process on ACTA so far has been cloak and dagger. This certainly raises concerns." The agreement also gives authorities the ability to act agaisnt copyright infringers without complaint from the rights holder. Michael Geist, also from UofO and copyright law expert told the National Post that "The lack of consultation, the secrecy behind it and the speculation that this will be concluded within a matter of months without any real public input is deeply troubling." Both men noted that the agreement would be almost impossible to back out of once in place. The deal would also impose strict restrictions on internet service providers, forcing them to hand over information without a warrant.

Right from the get go, the ACTA violated both the Canadian and US constitutions. We've all heard of police stopping black men just because they are driving a nice car. This is no different. The way the law is set up, just because you own an iPod, you're a pirate. The part where internet providers would have to hand over information without warrant is also worrying. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that all Canadians have the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. What separates this from inspecting bags for weapons or drugs at the airport is that there is no possibility of endangering the person's self or others with your iPod. The agreement also violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States for the same reasons. Of further concern is the fact that this agreement has been kept under wraps from both parliament and the public. That tells me that the respective governments of the countries involved did not want the public to be aware of this. Such an agreement has wide raging implications and should be discussed before parliament. The problem is that trade agreements are not laws and thus do not have to be.

The last issue of concern is the fact that this agreement seems poised to eliminate the provision of "fair use" under copyright law. Under the ACTA, every single person who owns a computer or MP3 player is a pirate. Everyone who has ripped a CD for their personal music collection is a pirate and should have their property taken. Originally, Digital Rights Management software was used to limit what you could do. As this has proven unpopular, media distributors have turned to the toughening the laws. This is the bottom of the barrel for a long range of steps by content providers such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to attempt to remove every single right you own for legal products you legally purchased. When it comes to purchasing media, we are on a long walk of a short pier when it comes to removing consumer rights. The government should not be in the business of handing content providers with these outlandish laws and trade agreements. The government's only role should be in protecting consumers and let the market handle manufacturers. Governments recently in the western world have been taking disturbing authoritarian turns for these special interest groups. At one time, we used to refer to this as corruption but now it's just business as usual. This needs to stop.

What needs to be done is a complete revision of copyright law ensuring consumers some reasonable protection and freedom of use for media they have legally purchased. This would involve the outlawing of Digital Rights Management. Also needed are iron clad fair use laws that allow people to use media in any way for personal uses provided they are not distributing it for financial incentive. As the digital media age progresses, we have slowly lost the rights we once had back in the age of analogue. It's time we take them back. To borrow a line from the skaters, listening to my iPod is not a crime.

read more...

Mostly Hot Air

A write up on Pajamas Media by blogger Mike McNally perfectly illustrates how a lot of skeptics feel about global warming alarmism and how its starting to enter decline. While 2007 was a golden year for global warming, huge cracks have begun to appear in the alarmist debate, which is reaching critical mass. He talks about the vested interest in the system, how skeptics are trying and increasingly succeeding to break out, and how we're wasting our time on AGW issues when the money could be better spent elsewhere.

Global Warming: Mostly Hot Air

read more...

Go Blind but Have Great Breasts

I'm a bit slow off the mark with this story since the news has been unusually quiet about it. I had caught the tail end of this on the TV news but I had no idea what they were talking about. The Ontario Liberals have announced that OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) will now cover sex change opperations. I did a double take reading this in the Sun this morning. This is yet another in a string of nonsense plans McGuinty has announced this month. The other two being the cigarette wall coverup and the pesticide ban.

The whole concpet of changing one's sex has always puzzled me. I fail to see why anyone in a right mental state, gay or strait, would want to do this. Even so, though you can make a man look like a woman, he will still be a man so in essence it's just putting lipstick on a pig. I can dress up like Superman for Halloween but that doesn't mean I can leap over tall buildings. To me, this sort of gender confusion comprises a mental illness, not a sexual orientation, and it should be treated as such. The Liberals' choice to cover this is outrageous since it is a gross misuse of medical resources and public money just because some nutter guy wants breasts. Perhaps what makes me particularly mad is the fact that this sort of thing is being put before priority medical treatments. For example, in 2004, the Liberals announced that OHIP would no longer cover the cost of eye exams, which cost the system the princely sum of $80 a visit. I would say that good eye health is critical given that so much of our society and human evolution revolves around us having good sight. Dentistry is another one. It has never been covered by OHIP. Doctors have been saying for years that oral health can have drastic effects on the rest of the body. So essentially, what the Liberals are saying is that it's ok to be blind and have rotten teeth but putting breast implants in a guy and cutting his nuts of is priority.

Once again, I think the Liberals have become vastly out of touch with the society they claim to represent. This is a classic case of putting the issues of a very small minoirty of people before the greater good of society as a whole. Our medical system in this country is in decline and always strapped for cash yet we always seem to find money for this stuff but nothing else. People should be outraged by this and the fact that their not is a sad statement of our society.

read more...

Pot Hypocrisy- Why Medicinal Marijuana Should Go

The marijuana issue has always puzzled me, especially concerning the so called medicinal use of the drug. There are a couple of news stories about it this week. The first concerns an auditor general's report that found Health Canada has been undercharging people for the drug. Another story involves an Oakville bar owner who has so far spent over $20,000 fighting in court because he would not allow a medicinal marijuana user smoke on his property. He said it was bothering other customers. It's illegal to serve intoxicated customers. It is also illegal to allow people to smoke pot in or near bars under the Ontario Alcohol and Gaming Commission's rules but the Human Rights Tribunal says this guy must allow it. Since the human rights people are federal, their ruling trumps the OAGC. 

For many people, marijuana is the drug of choice given that its relatively safe and non-addictive compared to other narcotics. Still, numerous reputable studies have come out showing that smoking pot is as carcinogenic as smoking several cigarettes at once, that it lowers brain power, and lowers sperm counts. It's also an intoxicating substance. The whole irony over the pot debate is how we treat people who smoke tobacco in our society. We rail against cigarette smokers for being dirty. Cigarettes cause cancer and therefore lead to an unjust burden on our health care system. Numerous bans have been put in place to the point where people won't be able to smoke tobacco in their own homes. However, when it comes to marijuana, party down man and let the high times roll. Does pot cause cancer? That's a big check. Does second hand pot smoke bother other people? Definitely. So why does out society treat it differently than cigarettes when it is just as bad as smoking tobacco? I suppose the primary difference if that marijuana is not physically addictive. It's certainly mentally addictive though. I knew people in high school who smoked several joints on a daily basis and "needed" their pot fix to relax. 

One of the big issues though in favour of legalizing pot it the huge amount of money we spend (and some argue waste) on fighting the war on drugs. If it is sold through the government legally, they argue, we won't have the problems we do now with crime associated with drug use. I don't really buy that since all it does is become another huge money maker, and we know that the government regulating tobacco certainly hasn't stopped illegal cigarettes from being sold. 

Now to the topic at hand I originally intended to discuss. Should medicinal marijuana be legal? I don't think it should be. The medicinal benefits of pot are dubious at best. The idea behind it is to give a natural alternative to people in pain who can't take harsher pain killers. We already know it can cause cancer. If someone like Pfizer made a drug that was carcinogenic, which the government knowingly sold, there'd be huge uproar in society. It has happened. You'd have every ambulance chaser from late night TV commercials on them like white on rice. Secondly, I have to question what pain killing properties pot has that a bottle of scotch doesn't. Surely modern medicine could develop a pain killer for people who can't take harder drugs without exposing them and others to the carcinogenic and intoxicating nature of marijuana. We're at the point where even the Netherlands, arguably the pot capital of the world, is beginning to scale back on the drug. Keeping it legal is just a prescription to play Chech and Chong. There is no need for marijuana to be legal, whether it is medicinal or not.

The second issue at hand is whether this is really a human right, as the Human Rights Tribunal is claiming? As far as I know, there is nowhere in the constitution that says people have a right to health care. There is also nowhere that says people have the right to take drugs, legal or otherwise, wherever they want. That's what makes the mentioned bar owner's case particularly obscene. If no right exists, then I have no obligation to allow you to do something on my property which I and my customers don't agree with. If what the lawyers for the marijuana smoker are arguing is true, then all laws preventing people from smoking in buildings would be trumped. I can't honestly see the tribunal making the same ruling if this man arguing against the bar owner were a cigarette smoker instead. There is definitely a double standard between cigarettes and pot in our government, despite them being essentially the same thing. 

read more...