Toronto's Trash Under Millerist Socialism

Toronto, a city in decay. Well, perhaps that's a little strong but there is no denying that the city seems to be on a decline. The roads are falling apart, historic buildings in the downtown look dilapidated and are now towered over by high rise condos, violent crime is on the rise across the city, the water front looks like a garbage dump, businesses and people are leaving, services are being cut, the city's finances are bleeding red ink, and taxes have increased dramatically. All this going on yet Toronto's mayor and his inner circle of NDP oligarchs seems to be totally unaware of it. When David Miller was elected mayor of the city in 2003, he promised, broom in hand, to clean up city hall. So far, this has not happened. In fact, things have gotten much worse at Nathan Phillips Square. It seems that each week, we hear of yet another corruption allegation or ludicrous program announced. Most recently, a memo regarding garbage collection problems was only set to councillors who were the Mayor's allies. This isn't the first time that the city has misled or deliberately withheld information. In fact, this sort of activity seems to be business as usual. That's how the city of Toronto operates under Millerist socialism.

I'd like to focus this discussion on Toronto's most recent boondoggle: its new garbage collection scheme. David Miller is another bandwagon environmentalist who wants to make Toronto the "greenest" city in North America. Miller has run into a great deal of "unforeseen" problems with this initiative, which he has been working on since day one. One of his first accomplishments after being elected mayor was getting the city sued for breech of contract after shutting down construction on a bridge to the Island Airport. Since then, we've seen a whole host of ludicrous green plans such as banning pesticides. Unfortunately, the pesticide bans are putting allergy sufferers through a living hell and have marked a resurgence in blood sucking bed bugs within the city. The chemical used to kill these dangerous insects is banned under the program. Since then, we've seen tree cutting on your own property banned, a proposal to introduce recycling police, another proposal to ban plastic grocery bags, and a failed attempt to force Tim Hortons to stop using paper cups and plastic lids.

The new garbage program has to be the icing on the cake though. The plan, which was forced through council, was developed to divert waste from landfills in order to fulfill Miller's green initiative. The idea was to turn Toronto into a city that recycles the most. Well, that's what Toronto residents were told. The real reason behind the plan involves money as usual. Currently, the City of Toronto has no local landfill to dump its garbage. It is working on opening a small facility in St Thomas ON in the near future. However, most of the garbage is currently trucked across border to Michigan. As one would expect, this costs a bundle. Trucking companies charge per ton so reducing garbage makes financial sense. The waste diversion initiative covers for the fact that the city was too lazy and incompetent to find any long term local solution to its garbage problem. Instead, Miller decided that it was simply easier to punish Toronto's citizens by finding a new revenue source for the cash strapped city, made that way principally due to mismanagement. The city now charges individual residences an annual fee for garbage collection on top of their property taxes. The fee depends on whether people want a small, medium, or large bin. (I don't have the exact cost figures in front of me, but I believe it is over $150 for the smallest bin. Please correct me if I'm wrong) If you want to put out garbage, you have to buy the bin. As if getting your property tax funded garbage collection service taken away was bad enough, the implementation of the new program has been less than smooth. 40,000 Toronto households are still without their bins. The city claims this is due to a backlog at the factory that makes them. Instead, the city has handed out pink tags for people without bins to put on their garbage bags to ensure collection. No pink tag, no collection. People have complained that the tagging system is confusing. Reportedly, Toronto marked bins have shown up in Florida. Additionally, there are reports of bins actually getting stolen. Illegal dumping is also on the rise. It's not as if these were unforeseen problems. At the vary least, there wouldn't have been had the city taken their time to plan it out properly. Instead, they made a knee jerk reaction to a problem that should have been dealt with years ago before it got this bad.

Then there was the now infamous email incident I mentioned above. When pressed on it, Miller lashed out at a Sun reporter and denied he knew anything about it. Others involved denied any knowledge of the email or why it was only sent to Miller's allies. So much for cleaning up city hall. More denial, more cover ups. Lastman had the MFP scandal, Miller has countless under his belt. Miller's scandals aren't as delightfully juicy though. In fact, they're downright scary at times. If Toronto isn't the most mismanaged city in Canada, I would certainly be frightened to see the one that is.

read more...

Violence in Schools Report Misses Boat

Ever try to find a cruise ship port in Saskatchewan? If your out there looking for one, you're either an idiot, or you're either former speaker of the legislature Dr. Alvin Curling or former attorney general Roy McMurtry. This week, the two men released a report regarding violence in Ontario schools. The report missed the boat by so much, they might as well have been trying to board a cruise ship in the prairies. What we were given is another $2 million boondoggle courtesy of the McGuinty government, complete with the typical Liberal pablum. According to the report, the reason young black men are killing each other on Toronto streets is due to racism and poverty. So basically, we've spent millions on something we've already heard before. The report also blames community design, education, lack of economic opportunity, and the justice system as factors for breeding violence. In response, the solution will be built around "four pillars": social opportunity and anti-racism; a youth policy framework; neighbourhood capacity and empowerment; and integrated governance. (Toronto Sun)

To hear people like Curling and McMurtry talk, you'd think Canada was the most racist country on Earth. They make it sound as if the white majority has nothing better to do than than stomp on the dreams of visible minorities. That is a completely ludicrous notion. As Jonathan Kay of the national post noted, Canada is probably the least racist country on Earth. One can walk into any public place and see people of all sorts of different backgrounds freely mingling. The report is obviously directed at only African Canadians and not other races, and seems to suggest that they, and only they, are subject to increasing persecution. They apparently need programs such as race-based education in order to find good role models. It has been argued that Canada's "whitewashed" history makes visible minorities feel like they have contributed nothing to this country, and that there is a lack of historical role models for young visible minorities. Canada boasts a diverse parliament, and our head of state is African Canadian. The United States just elected Barack Obama as their first president of African heritage. If black youths cannot find any historically significant role models, they certainly aren't looking hard enough. Race based education creates a watered down fantasy of Canadian history and does no service to those involved in such programs.

In regards to the anti-racism programs, this sounds like another excuse to impose the same tired politically correct rhetoric that became big in the 1980s. These programs are made with the best intentions. Unfortunately, that's what the road to hell is paved with. Such programs create perceived racism. In other words, people start seeing racism that is not there. Now, I'm not denying it doesn't exist, not by a long shot. However, I get suspicious whenever someone in this day and age tells me they cannot get ahead in life simply because of the colour of their skin. There seems to be plenty of non-white people working in prestigious jobs in industries where affirmative action programs are not used. A number which is increasing. We may be in an economic slowdown now but less that a year ago, businesses were clamouring for people, any people to hire. You cannot honestly say that there were no jobs available anywhere. If people living at Jane & Finch cannot find jobs in their community, perhaps they should be introduced to a wonderful, futuristic invention known as a bus. It can take you anywhere in the city, and even outside for just $2.75! Oh, but they say that poverty is what prevents people from doing that. I guess they can't afford the fare. As I have said time and time again, to say that poor people are inherently prone to violence is an insult to them. When my family first came to Canada, they were considered poor. My grandfather never picked up a gun and shot somebody because of that. He took a job at a steel mill, worked hard, and bettered himself. Most other people from all races, creeds, and backgrounds have done the same thing. Yes, this includes plenty, if not most of African Canadians too. I want to know why Curling and McMurtry feel that young black men living in Toronto are the exception, and why they should be subject to special treatment.

To me, this report is essentially a cop out. It tries to scapegoat others for the problems of a specific community. It seems to suggest that there is a massive conspiracy against inner city black youths. This line of thinking fans the flames of violence because people living in these communities start believing this trash. The culture of street violence is fostered in part by this distorted view and part by a society that increasingly sees other people as obstacles to destroy or tools to use, rather than as human beings. This is by far an attitude specific only to inner city communities by that is where it turns to violence. It is a global problem. We might as well be waging Thomas Hobbes dystopian war of all against all in the mean streets of North Americas inner cities. The lack or caring is an attitude that is introduced at home, at a young age. Tossing the blame on racism and poverty does not solve the problem. We've heard these same things said time and time again. The real solutions come in the form of community building within troubled neighbourhoods. This does not involve putting up basketball courts. Rather, its introducing higher education standards, more community involvement (through community service), and a no-nonsense crackdown on organized crime. Many have criticized former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani's "broken windows" approach. However, it did something that these Liberal programs did not, it worked. New York went from the most crime ridden big city in the US to one of the safest. The trick is teaching these youths that they can succeed and that there are no barriers against them. Push them hard, don't molly coddle them with "race-based" (segregated) schools. They will never learn to function in the real world under these "Afrocentric" programs. All these kids need is a kick up the rear and to be shown that the thug life is cowardly and undesirable. If anything, the Curling and McMurtry study will only continue to aggravate the problems. It's time we stopped taking the easy way out and started tackling the problem in a tough love manner. In the mean time, both Alvin Curling and Roy McMurtry should be writing a cheque to Ontario tax payers to pay back the money they wasted.

read more...

The Auto Industry: A Bad Investment

I talked about the failure of the auto industry in North America before. This odyssey just seems to keep dragging on so its worth another look at. Since I first wrote up about the issue back in June, things have only got worse for the so called "Big Three": General Motors, Ford, and Crystler. GM is now threatening another round of massive layoffs at the Oshawa plant. The big question today is whether the federal and provincial/state governments in both Canada and the United States should bail them out again. There's a lot of debate going on on both sides, but in my opinion, the answer is quite clear. Imagine you have a buddy who comes to you and says they need $100. He promises he has a sure fire plan that will reap good return on your rather small investment. He then goes to the casino, blows it all on the slots, and never pays you back. A couple months later, he asks you for $500 because he's down on his luck. You give him the benefit of the doubt and give him the money. He promises he'll give a good return on your investment, but he blows it on lottery tickets. Your buddy comes back in another couple of months and asks for $1000. He's screwed you twice already. Are you going to risk giving him the money? Of course not. It's a bad investment. This is pretty much how GM et al have been acting when they go to the various governments hat in hand. They ask for money promising we would reap big rewards in the future, we give it to them, and they do nothing with it.

Most of the Big Three's problems were caused by mismanagement. Ten years ago, analysts were predicting we'd see a huge spike in oil costs in the coming years. Honda, Hyundai, Toyota, and Volkswagen looked at their line up and began producing ultra-fuel efficient vehicles when everyone else was churning out SUVs and minivans by the train load. The Americans were betting heavily on $0.60 a litre gas would be here to stay. Then in 2005, it happened. Hurricane Katrina bumped oil prices up to an astounding $1.30 per litre. The American auto makers claimed that was just a spike. Then in 2006, gas prices broke the psychological $1.00 litre barrier and stayed there. Large, gas guzzling SUVs with 70 litre tanks were becoming prohibitively expensive to operate, yet the Big Three still kept churning them out at faster and faster paces. SUV sales started to decline. The Big Three responded with the crossover, which was essentially an SUV that wasn't as tall. Nobody bought them. 2008 marked the final nail in the coffin when gas prices rose over $1.30 in Canada and stayed there. Nobody could afford to fuel their large vehicles. Sales of fuel efficient small cars skyrocketed while SUV and minivan sales plummeted. American automakers barely scraped past the first fuel crisis in the 1970s after years of betting on cheap gas. However, that was an event that could not have been foreseen years ahead. Everybody saw the 2008 fuel crisis coming, everyone except the Big Three. Gas prices have dropped dramatically, as they usually do at this time of year. The long term trend however is sill going up. We will most likely see $1.30 prices return by next summer. What have US automakers done to address this? Absolutely nothing. GM and Crystler's big solutions to save Canadian auto jobs was to build the new Camero and Challenger in Oshawa and Brampton respectively. Both are gas guzzling muscle cars that only appeal to a niche market. Employees currently at the plants are overpaid and underworked, which has led to mass layoffs. They don't get off the blame entirely since the CAW has extorted these exorbitant pay rates and benefits from the company, but it still all boils down to mismanagement from the top.

This is precisely why we should not give the industry more money, despite the number of jobs that are at risk. The auto makers might as well be crown corporations at this point due to the amount of tax payer money that has gone into them. We keep handing over the dough but the industry does absolutely nothing with it other than maintain the status quo. The status quo does not work any more in today's world. Giving them more money is akin to trying to stop the Titanic from sinking by attempting to plug the hole with your finger. These companies are still bleeding red ink despite our best efforts. Bailouts are necessary in rough economic times as dictated by Keynesian economics. However, when you keep giving your buddy money to help him out, and he wastes it, there must come a point where you have to say "no more." Perhaps if faced with extinction, the American automakers might finally be forced to innovate, rather than churning out products nobody wants and spending other peoples' money like water.

read more...

Consensus of the Elite

Ah climate change. Each time I write about it here, I feel like I'm giving a dead horse a few more kicks. I suppose it's apt to keep bringing it up, especially when it's an issue that refuses to go away. For the first time in 86 years, it snowed in metropolitan London today. Such an October snowfall is rare in southern Canada and even rarer still in normally dreary London. It is a twist of irony as the UK Parliament discusses a major climate bill. The bill introduced and quickly forced through promised that the United Kingdom would cut its current carbon emissions by 80% by the year 2050. Britain's Labour government has already pushed through radical and aggressive anti-anthropogenic global warming reforms. The bill was passed into law with a vote of 653 to 5. That's rather unusual for a bill of this nature.

Part of the new law put strict carbon limits on aviation and ocean shipping. This has Northern Ireland worried. Belfast is of course one of the country's major shipping centres. Sammy Wilson of the Democratic Unionist Party said that it threatened to make Northern Ireland uncompetitive since the Republic of Ireland does not have such climate laws. As shipping costs increases in the UK, companies will turn to its western neighbour as the new shipping hub. With industry closing up within the UK, the country is having to rely more and more on imports. Increasing shipping costs would threaten to sharply rise the price of everything. This is what Britons have come to know as fuel poverty. These are households that are now having to spend more than 10% of their income on fuel. The vast majority of fuel poverty comes from rising global energy costs but increasingly aggressive anti-AGW programs in the UK have also contributed significantly to the the increased costs. Rising costs that can at least partially be attributed to aggressive climate action are threatening to lower the standard of living for many. While many North American left wing politicians point to Europe as a shining beacon of how to combat climate change, the UK example has shown how if unchecked, climate action can be disastrous to a state's economy. Some sceptics have described this as the "cooler but poorer" plan. It means that we must sacrifice our current standard of living for a lesser one in order to combat what is supposedly an immanent danger. Those who would be affected by this mantra disagree.

Consensus of the Elite

A recent survey showed that 60% of the British public now doubt that mankind is having an effect on climate change. Furthermore, most people think that global warming is not as bad as has been claimed. This is vary interesting since it shows that despite media carpet bombing and fear mongering on the subject, the sceptics are still in the vast majority. These numbers are also on the increase. This goes against what scientists in the IPCC have been saying that there is consensus in both the scientific community and the global community regarding the AGW crisis. The only consensus that exists in a consensus of the elite. Elitist politicians are those who wish to rule their subjects like a king with divine right. The survey shows to them that we are indeed ignorant fools who need to be told, and eventually forced to do what they think is right since only they know the right answer. This arrogant, conceited, holier than thou attitude is precisely why they have tried to stifle debate on the subject. Your typical climate elitist is someone like Al Gore or Stephane Dion. Gore would never get elected today due to this attitude, the same attitude that saw Dion loose the 2008 federal election. People do not like being told by politicians that they are wrong or ignorant. 60% of Britons don't support the climate theory yet 99% of the politicians do represents a huge disparity between parliament and public. It seems that British MPs are not responsibly representing their constituents' wishes.

Climate Colonialism

Foreign nations have also jumped on the bandwagon in a tactic I'm calling climate colonialism. The People's Republic of China has demanded that wealthy nations give the world's poor states money to combat climate change. I can't help but feel this is a bit tongue in cheek on their part. I have no love for the PRC's government. However, despite their atrocious human rights record, many developed nations just before the Olympics blasted them for environmental issues, notably Beijing's infamous smog. As nations struggle to develop, they are going to pollute more. The basic attitude is that if the West got to where they are by burning cheap fossil fuels, so will we and what are they to tell us otherwise. Therefore, if the West wants the developing world to "go green," they should pay for it. In a way, the treatment of developing nations in regards to global warming is a form of climate colonialism. Powerful nations trying to force their ideals on "less developed" ones in a paternal and hypocritical fashion. These are the same values they are trying to forcibly impose on their own citizens while at the same time living lavish, jet set lifestyles. Once again, Al Gores travel record (he flies in a private jet to all his conferences) clearly illustrates the hypocrisy that exists within the clique of climate elitists.

Is it responsible to even be discussing climate at a time like this. The global market is currently teetering on recession. At the same time, industries are being told they will be taxed more for carbon emissions, people are being told that energy is too cheap, jobs are being lost as factories go to more friendly locals. Right now, the government's priority should be on stabilizing the economy. Even thinking about climate change is highly irresponsible let alone wasting vast amounts of time in parliament on marathon debates that force legislation through without considering the economic consequences. The British law will probably not kill their economy but its not exactly helping it either.

Source: The Register , The Washington Post

read more...

Another Conservative Minority, Garth Gets the Boot

Once again, I'm on a roll predicting election results. The Conservatives managed to not only obtain another minority government but also strengthened their standing from the previous parliament. It's not the result that conservative supporters wanted but the election worked out extremely well in their favour. The Harper Conservatives gained 19 seats from the previous election, just missing a majority by 12 seats. They hold 143 seats in parliament. According to the popular vote, the Conservatives lead the Liberals by eleven points holding at 37%. NDP leader Jack Layton also has a lot to be happy about. The New Democrats increased their number of seats by eight and now hold 37. Despite this, their popularity in terms of the popular vote is only up slightly.

The Liberals, however, don't have much to celebrate. As predicted, Stephane Dion pulled a John Tory with his highly controversial Green Shift. As I had said before, people are totally willing to care about the environment until it starts to inconvenience them. This likely swayed a number of people away from the Liberal party. During tough economic times, people do not want to hear they'll be paying more for something that will give them little to no personal dividends. Liberal support has plummeted. The Liberals lost 27 seats. While the other parties have held steady popular support, the Liberals dropped an astounding 4% in the polls. This just proves that the pre-election polls are not reliable as they had indicated we would see a vary close race. In reality, it was far from it. My guess would be that the Greens had been stealing a lot of Liberal votes. It's not surprising since both party platforms were almost identical. Elizabeth May has nothing to be happy about either, loosing the one seat they had illegitimately held in Parliament before the election. Their popular vote is up a mildly impressive 2.47%. Even without a Liberal candidate running against her, May was still unable to gain her own seat.
Voter turnout for the election, according to Elections Canada, was quite low. Only 59.1% of Canadians voted. There are approximately 23 million registered to vote. The low turnout could also have contributed to the Liberals drop with people simply not voting, or spoiling their ballot.

Another thing worth noting is that the saga of Garth Turner finally has ended. The rouge MP who betrayed his voters by crossing the floor of Parliament after promising he would not is no more. Garth took a pounding in his home riding of Halton, loosing out to handpicked Conservative candidate Lias Raitt. Garth lost by over 7000 votes, trailing Raitt by 12%. Halton riding had a voter turnout of 60%. Turner had become extremely arrogant during his term in office and in my opinion had done little for Halton other than embarrass us. This represents a major defeat for him. Other recent turncoats such as Wajid Khan (Streetsville) and Blair Wilson (West Vancouver) were also handed defeats. Khan lost to Liberal candidate Bonnie Crombie by 10%, or 7000 votes. Voter turnout in Streetsville was well below the national average at 53%. Recent Green party hero Wilson, who gave the Greens their first seat in Parliament by crossing the floor from the Liberals, was also given the boot. I think it's fair to say Wilson had his butt handed to him. Wilson lost by an incredible 14,000 votes to Conservative candidate John Wetson. Wetson beat out Wilson by a whopping 30 percent. Wilson did manage to narrowly beat out NDP candidate Bill Forst by 0.1%. Turnout in Vancouver West was higher than the national average at 63%. Not one of the recent floor crossers managed to retain their seat. (Belinda Stronach did not run in this election) I think this shows that Canadians have become vary intolerant of this act and the election results prove it. I believe it to be an affront to democracy. This process should be banned.

The next big question after this election is what will happen to Dion. The Toronto Sun is raising this question. Tom Axworthy, former principal secretary to Pierre Trudeau and chair of the Centre for the Study of Democracy at Queen’s University, said: “The Liberal party has always given its leaders two chances. It never has not.” However, no Liberal predicted that they would loose so many seats, let alone suffer a huge drop in the popular vote. I am still predicting a leadership race within the Liberal Party in the near future, despite Axworthy's comments. Dion has proven himself not to be the right leader of the party. He hasn't exactly instilled a lot of confidence with Canadians. Dion is basically the Federal government's John Tory. He goofed with a hugely unpopular campaign promise combined with weak leadership and it dragged him down. The Liberals have far better candidates they could field as leader so it's a mystery why they choose Dion.

You can get the full official 2008 Election results on the Elections Canada website.

read more...

Judge Blames Woman for Ex-Boyfriend's Abuse

Yet another Ontario judge is in hot water over a highly questionable ruling. Gregory Pockele is in trouble for telling a domestic abuse victim that she should have "walked out" of that relationship. Melodie White of London ON said the relationship had been plagued with constant arguments but it was only towards the end where her ex got violent. White's ex assaulted her enough to leave bruises on her. The transcripts from the court seem to indicate that Judge Pockele believed that White's ex had beat her, yet he dismissed all charges anyway. The police had laid four charges against the boyfriend citing assualt, uttering death threats, threatening animal cruelty, and mischief. The judge dismissed the charges on the grounds that modern woment are "not weak and disadvantaged" and that White should have been "gone in a flash".

According to court transcripts, Pockele said the following. "Thirty years ago . . . there were all sorts of women in houses where men had beaten them, husbands had beaten them regularly, and they could not get out, They did not have jobs to go to and they had kids, and they were trapped. There was no way to stand up and get out, and we were trying to help the weak and the disadvantaged, but modern women are not weak and disadvantaged . . ."

Furthermore, Judge Pockele ordered White not to call police should she ever have an incident with this man again. White said she felt shocked and embarrassed by the ruling. "So what? I didn't get beaten enough?" White asked. "All he did was throw me to the ground that time? That's not enough?" White is taking her case to Ontario's judicial watchdog. The case has also outraged womens' advocacy groups. "Suddenly, he's saying women are able to walk out the doors into the sunset. He is closing his eyes to the number of women who have been killed trying to walk out the door," said Megan Walker, head of the London Abused Women's Centre.

This story is interesting since I think it really perfectly displays the current attitude of Canadian courts to marginalize victims of crime. So what, if I look at some guy the wrong way and he shoots me dead, this guy is going to get off because I shouldn't have even been in the same area as him? It's the same thing. Now as a man, I admit I find it odd as to why women would stay with abusive partners for so long and not seek help. I guess they honestly do fear they will be killed. Modern women may be more empowered than ever. However, there is one simple biological fact. Men in general are physically stronger than women. For the judge to deny this woman justice in light of the fact that he believes the man is guilty beyond reasonable doubt is a gross case of negligence. Judge Pockele deserves to be removed from the bench. I do agree with womens groups that our court system does not take cases of domestic abuse seriously enough. This is just another nail in the coffin for our disgraced justice system.

Source: CNEWS

read more...

Going to California

Yesterday, US congress committed its most irresponsible act to date. They voted down a $700 billion bailout package which was to be used to stabilize the floundering economy. To those who thought Iraq was a travesty of US government, this one is far worse since it directly effects you. One cannot study politics without some overlap with the field of economics. Politics is a form of economics in a way, even though it doesn't deal with hard numbers. The one who controls the purse is the one that holds all the power in any given organization from the great nation states to the small town social clubs. Right now, those who have been given that task in the United States are doing a pretty poor job of it. However, it seems like many Americans are actually siding with those members of congress who voted down the bailout. Why is this?

I think the first part of the answer is simple enough. People dislike the idea of spending $700 billion of tax payer dollars on anything. Arguably, the US has probably spent that much fighting in Iraq, though people tend to notice the price tag more if they're spending it all at once. That segues into the second part of the problem. People see the bailout as simply a handout to the rich bankers who have supported the Bush administration and they see it as an attack on the poor. In other words, stealing from the poor to give to the rich. It is obvious that banks have played a major role in the sub-prime credit crisis, but to blame them alone is a mistake. Everyone in the US, from consumers, the government, and banks shares the blame for this problem. According to reports, it dates back to as far as the Clinton administration. Back then, plans were set into place that would make it easier for America's lower class renting poor to own their own homes. A particular focus was given on minority groups. In 2002, Bush announced he was proud of the success of such programs under his administration since a record number of American minorities, notably African-Americans and Hispanics, now owned their own homes. The government was likely twisting the arms of banks to get them to give out these home loans. The problem is these new sub-prime mortgages were not going to minorities that could afford them, but to people of all stripes who had bad credit. The banks saw this as a possible money making opportunity, as banks are inclined to do, and started trading these mortgages like stocks. The problem here was that there were no liquid assets and not enough collateral to back up the value of these traded loans. Suddenly, the value of property dropped and people who had no business getting a mortgage started missing their payments. The next thing you know, the bank has foreclosed on the property, taken the house, and now these traded loans were now worthless. The economy did start to slow but the markets managed to stay aloft for the time being, boosted by high oil and energy prices. However, the slowing economy reduced demand for oil, and the price of that dropped. When that happened, the markets crashed. With so much bad debt, some of America's biggest banks; Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, AIG, Washington Mutual, they all began to entre receivership. This caused a panic in the market and stocks began to tank. Lastly, we as consumers are not completely out of the blame circle on this since so many of us have tried to live beyond out means. Many of us have racked up thousands in credit card debt and own homes with 40 year mortgages we can barely afford. Some have said that if you dangled the incentive of owning a home in front of the renting poor, of course they're going to take it, even if they can't afford it. In my opinion, they're foolish if they do and that's the result of our failed education system, but that's a debate for another time.

Economists have been saying that they've seen this coming for a while now. First of all, the markets aren't experiencing record drops since the amount of points lost as a percentage isn't even in the top ten compared to other crises of the past. Still, without some sort of bailout plan to stabilize the economy, the values will continue to slide. First to be affected will be those who hold the bad debts and those retirees or people near to retirement who have their retirement funds heavily invested in the stock market. Next will be the housing market, as banks will begin making it extremely difficult to obtain a mortgage. This signals the end of the sub-prime, 40 year mortgage that has become quite common in recent years. You'll see a move back to the 20 year mortgage at the highest interest rates banks can charge. Businesses will suffer next. Publically traded corporations will be unable to raise capital as people pull out of the stock market. Private companies will find it difficult to obtain business loans as banks tighten the purse strings. If the banks are allowed to go under, they will take most of the money they store with them. The deposit insurance plans only cover up to $100,000 I believe. Most private citizens don't need to be worried about loosing their savings since most people don't have that much money tied up in their bank account. Businesses on the other hand regularly keep much more than that in the bank. If the bank goes, that money is suddenly gone through no fault of the business that owns the money. With no money, businesses go under. When businesses go under, people get laid off. When people get laid off, unemployment skyrockets since there are no other jobs available. When that happens, we get another depression.

Now, I'm not saying it's going to go as far as the Great Depression of the 1930s, but it is indeed possible. Bailout plans were a staple part of the era's economic plans to recover when it was realized that at minimum, some government intervention is needed should there be serious economic threat. John Maynard Keynes said that governments should increase their spending to stabilize the economy during economic recession in order to prevent it from slipping into depression. Crowing examples of this in action stand before us today. Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge were depression era projects used to create jobs. Of course, we have a chance of preventing that from happening before things get too far out of control. This is how the bailout would work. It would inject just enough cash into banks to allow them to get their house back in order. Keynes said that governments must act quickly in the short term to ensure economic stability, then work on the root causes after that has been achieved. This has worked well for the last 60 years. Of course bailouts must come with some strings attached to make sure the money goes where it needs to go. These bailouts aren't about rewarding bad behaviour. Think of it this way, you could spend $700 billion now to stabilize the economy, or you could spend the next five years waiting in the bread line (or perhaps while you push your 1990 Ford Windstar to California) thinking it over. Neither solution is really desirable from a taxpayer perspective but you have to take the option that's going to do the least amount of damage. It is also worth noting that Bush is correct when he said it's unlikely the entire $700 billion would be spent. During the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s, a similar though smaller bailout plan was passed. Only half of the roughly $300 billion was spent and the government did end up getting most of it back. Those who are concerned about the bailout raising taxes or taking from the poor to give to the rich are making mountains out of mole hills. The $700 billion does create a buffer zone should more problems crop up. Spending maybe $400 billion tops now is not as bad as the trillions it would cost the government to jump start a depression economy. It took a world war to get America fully back on track the first time. Since the US is a major trading nation in a globalized world, inaction threatens to bring the economies of other nations into recession as well, including and especially Canada and the European Union. European banks are already in panic mode. They've frozen all loans until a bailout plan is reached. Canada has a strong economy now but who knows how long we can keep it that way, regardless of what party gets in come October 14th.

For Americans, it's fortunate that there is an election in November as there is no better time for a leadership change after the failing of the incompetent Bush administration. This should have been stopped years ago. Of course, we can address that when congress gets their act together and passes the bailout. Greed and fear rule the market and there is a lot of the latter right now. If you can't keep both in check, America will truly be screwed.

read more...

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...