The Why Files: School Bans Oh Canada

Every so often, I come across news stories regarding strange rules or behaviour and I just have to ask myself "why?" In the first of what I hope will be a continuing series, lets head over to New Brunswick and to Belleisle Elementary School where the principal has scrapped the daily tradition of singing Oh Canada before classes.

A principal's decision to eliminate the morning tradition of singing O Canada at a tiny New Brunswick school has sparked outrage among parents across the country and renewed a heated debate about the encroachment of political correctness in the classroom.

Principal Erik Millett of Belleisle Elementary School in Springfield, N.B., a small community about 90 kilometres southeast of Fredericton, scrapped the morning ritual in the summer of 2007, citing concerns from several parents. But the issue failed to gain much notice until this week, after a mother complained about the policy to local media.

The debate has since traveled to the upper echelons of government, drawing a sharp rebuke from federal Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson, who said publicly he views Mr. Millett's decision as an assault on a proud tradition.

For his part, Mr. Millett has stood firm behind his decision, offering a myriad of reasons for nixing the morning anthem - most notably the effort to accommodate parents who did not want their children taking part. Citing privacy reasons, he has not explained the source of the parents' objections, whether religious or otherwise.

"Is it right or is it fair for children who are not allowed to sing the anthem to be forced to?" Mr. Millett asked in an interview with the Telegraph-Journal newspaper. "Different families have different beliefs.... It's not up to me as a school administrator to subject kids to something their parents don't want them exposed to. I have to protect the minority rights as well as the majority rights." --National Post Thursday January 29th, 2009

Well, this is certainly odd as I cannot find anything possibly offensive about singing our national anthem. I do know that New Brunswick does have a sizable francophone population but I was unaware of any strong separatist movement existing there, so that rules out that as reasoning. Maybe it has to do with immigrants being offended by it, to which I ask "why are you even in this country if you don't like what it stands for." Most likely, it's political correctness run amok and creating victims of "offensive" content where none exist. For making a fool of himself for the tireless practise of trying to hard to be inoffensive, Erik Millet, you're being inducted into the Idiots Hall of Shame.

I'm also adding Google to the Idiots Hall of Shame because of the way Blogger handles bold and italics. Why is it I can't turn off italics after I've written something using it. I hit the button to turn it off, it shows it is unselected, yet it continues to write in italics. Could somebody please fix this?! Blogger has been a bit squirrely lately, which is why some of the text layout in my recent posts looks off.

read more...

Ex-NASA Boss Is Now AGW Sceptic

It's been a while since I've talked about climate change, or at least at length about it. Despite the green movement continuing to push forward, more and more high profile scientists are coming out and announcing that they have converted to climate scepticism. Ex-NASA boss Dr John Theon is one of them. He ran the agency and was responsible for the works of James Hansen, who had argued to congress the increasingly apocalyptic vision of climate change. Hansen is one of the top pro-AGW theory advocates.

According to Theon, “my own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”

Hansen is in charge of GISS, which has been accused of fudging historic climate numbers to outright misrepresentation of data, such as the October Record High scandal that emerged late last year.

On Hansen's accusations of censorship by NASA, Theon noted “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress."

Like David Suzuki, Hansen had once claimed he wished to see energy executives jailed for denying climate change. A lot of information is now beginning to emerge that is strongly suggesting that the climate numbers being made to form public policy were deliberately altered to conform with the theory. For a long time, I've been saying that this goes against scientific method, and Theon agrees with me. It's all about money and/or fulfilling some greater hidden agenda the left wing has. I always find it funny how liberals mock Christians for believing the disproven theory of intelligent design, yet they continue to strongly push the disproven theory of anthropogenic global warming.

read more...

Remember, These People Are Professionals...

It's been two years since I wrote a piece mocking academics for being out of touch with modern society. I think the York University strike by teaching assistants and contract staff has only reinforced my negative view point of academia. The Canadian Union of Public Employees has become Canada's second most powerful union. It is perhaps only superseded by the wealthy Ontario Teachers Federation. At one time, people only entered the public service out of a sense of duty, or that was the only job one could get. People never joined the public service to make money. Now, it seems that notion has done a complete 180. Today, public employees are some of the best paid workers in the country, have iron clad job security, and benefits even most can only dream of. Still, that's not enough for these people. It seems like every time their contracts go up, they go to the bargaining table, turn down lucrative new contracts, fain outrage, and go on strike. In the end, they're forced back to work by the legislature and end up getting their exorbitant demands. This is exactly what has been going on at York U, where striking staff refused a 9% pay increase when most of us will be lucky to see a raise at all. Of course you get the same pithy slogans about the strike not being about money and that they're fighting for something bigger, like more funding for post secondary institutions. Please. Is that the best they can do? The strikers at York U have effectively held students hostage. They have become the real victims in a fight about pure greed. It's extortion. The legislature is now debating back to work legislation, which CUPE has determined to fight since it would effectively end their scheme. Of course, we get another pithy slogan about that fight will protect all unions since any big corporation will just be able to get parliament to force striking workers back on the job.

Of course, all these slogans and actions we've seen and heard a million times. Today, CUPE's job action reached a new low. Today, four CUPE members during a march to Queens Park to protest the back to work legislation allegedly assaulted Toronto Police officers. Eye witness reports noted that police were trying to keep a lane free for emergency vehicles, which is standard proceedure in these situations. The strikers kept repeatedly moving into the lane when police moved in to corral them. An altercation broke out where witnesses said the strikers attacked first. Of course, CUPE is claiming police brutality and that they had done nothing wrong. I believe the union did this deliberately to make a political statement. This is a typical protest tactic that you see at G8 summits. However, there's a big difference here. These people are supposed to be professional academics. Does refusing orders to keep a lane free for safety reasons and assaulting police sound professional to you? Remember that these are the same people who are educating the next generation. This move will most certainly backfire on the union. York's reputation has already been severely tarnished by the strike and this is just another black eye. The university has already seen enrollment drop by 25% for the 2009/2010 school year. If enrollment and revenue declines, the university will have no choice but to lay off staff. In doing this, CUPE has effectively cut off its nose to spite their face. Though the allegations have not been proven in court, the university would be wise to fire the employees who were involved in the altercation.

The altercation is not simply a black eye on York or even CUPE alone but one on academia as a whole. Academics have always been radicals, or at least for the last fourty years. Take Bill Ayres for example. However, it is generally expected that professional people do not act in a violent manner towards other human beings, no matter who they are. On one hand you've always had academics proclaiming to be passificts, then you have them attacking police. These actions drag down the public perception of their entire profession. This is why I believe the government has to take swift action against CUPE and make an example out of them. This behaviour is not appropriate.

read more...

Message to York U Students: Sue CUPE

For the years I spent in university, the students' union complained to no end about high tuition fees. Indeed, education today is a vary expensive prospect no matter where you go to school. Now imagine you fork out $5000 or more in tuition and are suddenly forced out of class by TAs on an unjust labour strike. That would leave your blood boiling. Well, that's exactly what's happening at York University, where apparently the working conditions (in a fully heated and air conditioned building with comfy offices) border on being Dickensian. The TAs are fighting for better benefits and the university has already tabled a vary generous 9%+ raise over three years. During this recession, most of the real world will be lucky to get a raise at all over that period, let alone 9%. Of course you get the usual BS that it's not just about money but we all know it is. It just proves how decadent the public services unions have become that they have the gall to strike over such petty things when people are loosing their jobs left right and centre, with thousands more unable to find work at all. It just shows that they live in a total fantasy world.

The Ontario government tabled legislation today to force the striking workers back on the job. However, Howard Hampton has chosen to filibuster the bill, which is highly irresponsible. Ironically, students are one of the NDP's biggest constituencies, which Hampton has effectively alienated. Many students struggle to pay for education and now that money they paid for a service they didn't receive is gone forever. It is a breech of contract in my opinion between students and the university & instructors. The province has promised to increase student loans to the affected students. However, saddling them with even more debt is not a solution. It does not look like McGuinty is going to provide any real aid. My advice to York students would be to launch a class action law suit against the Canadian Union of Public Employees. CUPE has to be punished for stealing the education and money from hard working students. The union should pay back every penny owned to students for holding them hostage. A successful suit would set a powerful precedent, making unions think twice about going on frivolous strikes, which this one is.

read more...

Racism on the Left Part 1: Interracial Relationships

The left wing and racism. The left has traditionally portrayed themselves as the one anti-racist force in the world that buffers the inherently bigoted right. Is this true? Are conservatives really the only ones who are racially discriminatory, or is the left guilty of it as well? I've been wanting to do a series like this for some time but have held myself back due to the fact that the left does tend to label people as racists or crackpots should they ever call them out on their own hypocrisies. However, there are many topics I want to discuss that I feel need to be discussed. I argue that the left does not have the clean hands it pretends to have when it comes to racism. They are neither anti-racist nor non-discriminatory. This series is intended to make you question the values liberals hold, particularly now as they in the United States are about to present their first minority president to the world.

The Mulatto: From Cosmic Race to Shamed Mutt
The first topic I'd like to cover does involve Barack Obama since he is the product of it; interracial relationships. Human beings are a bit like dog breeders; they tend to value purebreds higher than they do the mutts. Take Obama for example. He is a mulatto: a person who is half black and half white. However, he and his supporters only identify him as black. It's as if he wants to hide or is ashamed of his European heritage. Of course, there are many tactical political reasons for doing so. Similarly goes with Tiger Woods, who is half black, half Asian. He does identify himself as such, unlike Obama, however, the mainstream media does not. During the colonial period in Latin America, interracial relationships were vary common and people of mixed ancestry were highly regarded in society. One Latino writer even called them the "Cosmic Race", believing that they were inherently superior, since they were a mix of the best of all other races. However, this celebration of racial mixing has hit a bit of a brick wall in the last decade. In the 80s and 90s, it was trendy to be involved in an interracial relationship, if you were a white woman. So what changed? Well, nothing did. The environment of our society requires people to make clean, black & white definitions of themselves. Mixed race people can only be one or the other, yet not both at the same time. They're like a square peg in a round hole.

The left has forced this view more than any other organization through their race relations policies. They pretend that mixed race people simply do not exist. Such people usually pick their minority side to identify themselves for a variety of reasons. I believe because this can open more doors to them, but also due to negative stereotypes of whites in society as well as pressure from the minority community. For their parents, the road can be equally difficult. For the sake of argument, we'll look at how white men and their partners in Asian-White relationships have been treated in recent years. Particularly given how controversial this paring has become.

Yellow Fever's Bitter Pill:
There is a stereotype that white men like Asian women. However, it doesn't exactly put a positive spin on this. There are a lot of misconceptions floating around. First off all, it is not as prevalent as some people think it is. There are roughly 504,000 Asian-White marriages in the United States as of the most recent census in 2000. This includes both white male/Asian female and Asian male/white female pairs. This is less than there are homosexual couples, with roughly 660,000 pairs according to the same census. Homosexuals account for 1% of the US population. 3.6% of the 2000 population were Asian and 75% were Caucasian. So instances of WM/AF marriages are rarer than claimed by opponents to such relationships. Secondly, the stereotype's reasoning for entering such relationships is what has really raised my ire over the years.

While I was in university, I took a course on how Western cultures portrayed the history of "the other". The "other" being foreign cultures such as those in Asia, India, and Africa. One particular reading for the course described a 19th century man's first encounter with a Japanese woman while on a trip to the country. He described her as being more beautiful and elegant than the European women of the time. While discussing the article, the class was led to come to the following conclusion. A white obsession with the exotic, the desire to dominate other cultures, and the desire to impose European culture on the Japanese were the reasons he found her so attractive.

The left in academia has created this image of the 19th century white man, and according to them, this way of thinking has persisted right into the 21st century. This point of view is racially discriminatory against whites, since it has been used to demonize white males who enter into such relationships. Of course, this form of racism is a two way street because it has been used to attack Asian women as well, deeming them to be too submissive. This is supposedly why white men "take" them. I have yet to meet one of these so called "submissive" Asian women. The left has basically said that a white man cannot love a woman of another race or culture in the same way as he would a white woman. If he marries a white woman, it is about love. If he marries an Asian woman, it is about dominance and control.

Why the Academic Left Has Done This:
The problem with this liberal academic view is that it is based on numerous old and outdated concepts, and they know this. It assumes that men are dominant and the only ones who can actively seek out a mate; that women do not ask men out. This concept has been dead as long as Sadie Hawkins dances have been in existence. So why are supposedly progressive academics still using it? Secondly, it attempts to take the broad concept of 19th century colonialism and cram it into modern interpersonal relationships. Thirdly, it assumes that all whites are racist and the only reason they enter these relationships is out of racist thinking. Their goal is to assimilate "savage" women and give them "superior" European values.

In their own perverted egalitarian view of the world, liberals like to see all cultures as being inherently homogeneous and isolated. It's as if every society is an lone island in a vast sea. This belief asserts that everyone in a particular culture thinks the same, has the same tastes, and stays limited to within their own narrow, and unchanging cultural practises. Academics believe that notions of individualism and personal taste are a Western phenomenon and do not exist elsewhere. This is why so called "Western" culture has been demonized, despite it largely being a mishmash of different world views. They still see it from the 19th century view of western dominance and fetish for the exotic. To liberals, any sort of cultural mix is a no-no and threatens to pollute these "isolated" cultures of the other with decadent Westernism.

Anti-Interracial Backlash
The point of view projected by the Western left has become so persistent that there has been a great deal of backlash, especially among Asians, regarding these kinds of relationships. Asian men have accused whites of "stealing" their women and leaving no women left for them. Esther Ku on the 2008 season of Last Comic Standing pointed out in her act that Asian men were going to go extinct because of this. Her act was extremely controversial, though more because she joked about old Korean stereotypes.

Ku perpetrated numerous myths about interracial relationships in her act. However, no more fierce has this been said than in a controversial blog post by someone going by the screen name of "SomeKoreangirl", a post which reeked of anti-white racism that made the rounds on the Internet last year. She basically listed out why she would never date a white man, using the vary myths I've noted. That whites were out to control and dominate Asian women, and are taking them away from Asian men. If I had written something on here saying I wouldn't date black women because they're (to quote Don Imus) "nappy headed hoes", I'd have the Canadian Human Rights Commission breaking down my door. White men have also been accused of polluting the Asian race by having children with Asian women.

Once again, this assumes that men are dominant in seeking out mates, and that women do not have their own preferences. It goes against the ideals of women's liberation, a concept the left likes to claim as their own. There are Asian women who prefer and actively seek out white men, contrary to what the myth would have you believe.

It is ironic in a sense that I know more Asian man-White woman relationships that I do the other way around. This includes a close family friend of ours, who is originally from southern Europe. She has been married to a Japanese man for a number of years. Indeed, the stigma does not exist for these types of relationships, or at least is not as prevalent. An Asian man marrying a white woman is seen as empowering or at the vary least ignored, but a white man marrying an Asian woman is scandalized. This could also help partly explain why their children identify themselves as just Asian rather than mixed.

The notion of white men stealing Asian women is ludicrous. As noted earlier, there are less of these marriages than there are gay couples, despite Asians and whites making up a far higher proportion of the American population. It has been said that all stereotypes have some shred of truth but I was unable to find any statistics that back up these "stealing" claims. 1 million people in a nation of 300 million, or 0.33% of the population, is a rain drop in a deluge. The idea that a white man cannot love an Asian woman in the same way he would love a white woman is equally, if not more absurd. The Asian man has become what Ann Coulter has described as the liberals' false victim. They pretend like they're the ones under siege, which allows them to be openly racist against whites. The couple who are scandalized and their children who are forced to deny and be ashamed of their heritage are the real victims.

Conclusion
Liberals claim they are a progressive group despite frequently trying to adapt archaic ideas to modern society. No more has this been seen with interracial relationships. They have taken the broad concept of 19th century colonialism and have tried to apply it to a different time and society. Any competent historian will tell you that while cultures are not islands, history is. You cannot try to fit historical events in to events of a different time. History does not repeat itself. Yet the left still insists on claiming that it does.

The left has created a racially discriminatory atmosphere between white men and Asian women. The idea that white men are inherently controlling, obsessed with the exotic, and seek out submissive, naive "others" is just not true. He can love a woman of another race just as much as he can a woman of his own race. Those who try to claim otherwise are simply bigots. This belief hurts both partners who engage in such interracial relationships, as well as their children who are forced to be torn between two identities when they should celebrate both. In a society that supposedly proclaims racial blindness, no more has racial identity divided people. People should not be made to feel ashamed of their loved ones, or their heritage, simply because they do not match.

(Note: White some have tried to lump Indians, Bangladeshis, and Pakistanis into the mix, I define Asians as being from nations that border the Pacific or from the Indo-China subcontinent. ie Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, Filipino, etc.)

read more...

This Song Goes Out To Obama...

Being a fan of South Park, this song by Issac Hayes couldn't help but remind me of Obama and how the mainstream media treats him. Boom baby.

read more...

Garth Eating Some Humble Pie

The soapbox for the self-obsessed windbag Garth Turner has finally been put out in the recycling bin. Turner wrote the last entry in his blog, announcing that he was shutting it down. Good riddance is all I have to say. While Turner is perfectly entitled to his opinions as much as I am, his blog was basically a bull horn for his self love and crackpot conspiracy theories. As readers will know, Turner's blog got him into a lot of hot water while he was both a Conservative and a Fiberal. Most famous being his double whammy insult to Alberta and Quebec over the summer. After his landslide defeat to Conservative Lisa Raitt in October '08, I guess he's been forced to eat some humble pie over the last couple of months. No more will we have to hear Garth talk about how great Garth is. It's a shame really. It gives me one less thing to mock and ridicule.

Source: National Post

read more...

Jesus Lives! ... In Honolulu?

"Obama, he going to pay my mortgage!" The now famous words that were uttered by a woman during the US election campaign that might have well been uttered by Mammy in some racist 1930s movie. Yes, we are now one week away from when Barack Obama will be inaugurated President of the United States. It is historical, from a certain point of view, that Obama will be America's first white raised mulatto president. What he is really does not effect how he can preform in his job, which is all that should matter. However, the American media has carefully crafted him as being some sort of Jesus-like figure; a black messiah. It's obvious that this tactic has worked. The lady who said that Obama would pay her mortgage honestly believes he will, as do many other African Americans, but more importantly most white liberals. It has affected Canadians on this side of the border as well, with travel agencies arranging road trips to see his "historic" inauguration, as if they were going to see Moses giving the Sermon on the Mound. It is really hard to grip my feeble mind around the lunacy that is "Obamania". Here is a man who's whole campaign was constructed around lies, dodges, and passing the buck. Obama is the proverbial person who can jump into the manure pile and still end up smelling like roses. Whether it be the Reverend Wright incident, or Ayres, or the scandal over his vacant senate seat, or his total lack of executive experience. Let us not forget the fact that liberals have touted his African American victim heritage despite the fact that he is half white, half Kenyan, raised white, by a well off middle class family living in a tropical paradise. Obama is certainly no Eva Peron, as his backers try to make him out to be. As my mother used to say "bullshit baffles brains", and the liberals have been doing that exceptionally well during the whole process from the primaries up to inauguration. Of course, you can make the same accusations of any politician. However, that certainly doesn't excuse him from these issues. The fact that people believe he's going to radically change the world are pure loonies.

I can't help but wonder whether the if messiah status will ultimately hurt Obama, particularly if he chooses a second run at office. The liberal media build up has put an exceptionally high level of expectations on the man, both in the minds of Americans and the global community at large. The real question now is whether he's going to be another FDR, or another LBJ. Right now, America is facing tough economic times and there simply isn't the money or logistics to implement some of the programs he touted, such as socialized medicine. Given how many resources these programs consume here in Canada, it's just not practical. America already has an unprecedented level of debt, amounting to $10.6 trillion at the time of writing, and increasing by $3.4 billion per day. An immediate end to US foreign intervention and the Iraq war is also highly unlikely. The liberal media has already used the recession as a scapegoat to try and force more realistic expectations of Obama. However, Barack Hussain Obama as the messiah figure has been deeply ingrained into the psyche of the American left, and it will take an awful lot of media backpedaling to bring their heads out of the clouds. It's almost like a drug high. There's the euphoria, but then they're going to come down hard when they see Obama as just being another silver tounged populist who doesn't know jack about what he's doing. Especially that lady when she finds out she still has to pay her mortgage bill for the dilapidated house in Chicago that she bought knowing she couldn't afford it. The liberals of course will hang onto the myth, just as they have here over Pierre Trudeau. However, the real deal breaker is whether he can keep the likes of Joe the Plumber happy. With the amount of unrealistic promises he's made, I can confidently say Obama is going to be Americans first black one term president, provided of course the Republicans can push a viable candidate in 2012.

read more...

A Culture of Victimization

I was listening to Opie & Anthony yesterday and the shock jock duo had Ann Coulter on. (Those familiar with the show will know that they do discus serious topics on American politics and current events aside from the usual comedy.) Coulter was on discussing her latest book, titled "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America." Ann Coulter is a controversial figure in US politics. She has been labelled a brainless bimbo and a crackpot. She takes a hard right approach to politics and I do not agree with everything she says, given that I'm more centre right. Still, she is one of the few people in America who is not afraid to stand up and speak her mind, and she can more than hold her own in any debate. You have to respect her for her resolution, or else get chewed out in the process. Our society fears these people because they stir the proverbial pot. The left especially dislikes any sort of opposing views and will often refuse to debate or question their own. The left considers themselves to be enlightened. Their point of view is the only correct point of view and anyone who disagrees should be ignored and silenced. Are there people on the right who are like this? Of course, however, they don't fill the ranks of political power and are often labelled as "right wing nutjobs". The right also lacks the massive propaganda machine the left has amassed through the mainstream media. Canada has largely the same issues regarding lack of debate and elitism on the left, as noted especially with their contempt for the democratic process with the widely unpopular coalition.

Coulter's new book, which I have not read yet, looks at the culture of victimization within the United States. That is, how people make themselves look like a victim to gain power. People believe that if they are being wronged, or have been wronged in the past, that entitles them to special treatment. To automatically pass Go, collect $2 million. In the United States, the most frequent example of this that crops up is African Americans and slavery. Due to rampant racism against them, they should receive special treatment and should be free from criticism. Take a look at how the liberal media has handled Barack Obama. During his entire campaign, he received almost no criticism while McCain, Palin, and Clinton were hammered by the media. Obama on the other hand has been treated with kid gloves as was pointed out by Coulter. What she is essentially saying is because of his race, Obama has been made impervious to criticism. Despite him being mulatto (his mother is white) who's father was from Kenya, he is still identified with the slave ancestors of the majority of African Americans living in the US. Those familiar with history will know that slavery was primarily west African so a Kenyan ancestor will not have shared the same experiences. However, Obama is still portrayed as being a victim of racism in America.

The way liberals treat minorities is the same way one would treat a retarded child who you are playing a game with. You let them win because they are "suffering" and you feel sorry for them. White people are mostly guilty of this since they feel bad that their ancestors participated in slavery. It has been jokingly called "the white man's guilt", a play on the "white man's burden". White people feel guilty for what other white people did so they feel the need to give special treatment to minorities simply because of that. Of course, minority groups have learned how to exploit this, and you cannot really blame them for doing so. They portray themselves as victims some sort of crime that has befallen on their chosen identity group in order to extort power or money out of guilty liberals. In turn, those liberals feel good about themselves for helping the "disadvantaged". The left wingers may have good intentions but ultimately, this thought process is counter productive. Originally, we sought to build a society that was blind to sex, race, religion, etc. In the process of doing so, we've managed to create the exact opposite. Now anyone can claim themselves to be a victim of some past or present injustice, real or perceived, and they use it to get their way. This has worked to create a society that is becoming increasingly divisive, and the left wing is openly encouraging it. Those who wish to constructively criticize the methods of the so called "victims" are called racist, sexist, etc., which ultimately stiffles debate.
This is not to say that true victims of racism do not exist in the United States. However, there is no more of it there than any other given country. Those who try to tell you that America is the most racist country on Earth obviously didn't pay attention in their history classes. The liberals are fostering a society that believes this to be true. None of this rhetoric is of any benefit to our society. Obama and any other minority in power should be held to the same critical standards as their predecessors have been. Americans owe it to themselves to do so. If all men are created equally, they should all be held to the same standards regardless or race, colour, or creed. It is not racist to criticise the president elect, however, it is racist not to.

Ah, but what about Canada? The culture of victimization is probably stronger here than it is anywhere else in the world. Oddly enough, it is Steven Harper fueling it rather than the left wing, thanks mostly to his reparation payments and appologies to "victims" of head taxes, residential schools, etc. Perhaps the biggest exploiters of victimization are Canada's Aboriginal population. The way the government handles them as victims has allowed them to live in a time warp, separated from the rest of the world. Millions of dollars have been spent on native reparations, which has ultimately done nothing to improve their lot. Yet, they still weild a tremendous amount of influence over the government. The whole victimization notion protects them from criticism, even when "protestes" become violent when they don't get their way. Indeed, the American case study with Obama should force us to look at how we handle similar situations in our own country. Simply put, treating people as victims is wrong and does not empower people. It is holding our society back from acheiving the goal we had originally sought out.

read more...

A Lesson on Liberalism

I stole this from a web forum I frequent and changed things around to make it more Canadian. This obviously isn't a true story.

I was talking to a friend's little girl, and she said she wanted to be Prime Minister some day. Both of her parents, long time Liberals, were standing there, so I asked her, 'If you were to be the Prime Minister, what first thing you would do?'

She replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.'

'Wow - what a worthy goal.' I told her, 'You don't have to wait until you're Prime Minister to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and rake my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food or a new house.'

She thought that over for a few seconds, 'cause she's only 6.

And while her Mom glared at me, the little girl looked me straight in the eye and asked, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay HIM the $50?'

And I said, 'Welcome to the Conservative Party.'

Her folks still aren't talking to me. Even children understand.

read more...

Liberal Coalition Backfires According to Polls

I had warned the Liberals that their plan for forcing an unelected coalition would backfire on Canadians. I guess they underestimated the resolve of the Canadian public as well as the huge insult to their own supporters that allying with the separatists was.

From the Ottawa Citizen, Saturday December 12th, 2008.
"TORONTO -- Canada's ruling Conservatives would win a strong majority in Parliament if elections were held today, according to a poll showing the new leader of the opposition Liberals has done little to boost public support.

Canadians favor the Conservatives over the Liberals by 45 percent to 26 percent, an Ipsos Reid poll showed. The New Democrats (NDP) had the backing of 12 percent."

Ok, so these polls aren't exactly reliable but the news doesn't bode well for the coalition and its plans to govern. It shows that the Liberals popularity hasn't budged one bit despite Dion being kicked out. More interesting is the substantial loss the NDP has suffered, down from approximately 18% of the vote in the last election. When will the lefties learn that their unethical and elitist tactics for gaining power (more than what's normal for politicians anyway) don't win votes. It's nice to see them taken down a peg. Looks like Canada's left is going the way of the PC party in the 1990s.

Source: Ottawa Citizen

read more...

Liberal Holiday Blowout Sale: It's Rae Days Nation Wide!

Well, it's finally become apparent who is pushing the Liberal-NDP-Bloc Coalition. A man who knows a thing or two about weaselling his way into power through less than ethical channels. Yep, you guessed it: Bob Rae. Back in 1985, his NDP joined up with David Peterson of the Ontario Liberals to form the coalition that wasn't a coalition to oust the impotent Frank Miller Conservatives. It was notable for ending the "Big Blue Machine" that had ruled the Ontario Legislature since 1948. In 1985, neither the Conservatives or Liberals held a majority at the time, though the Conservatives had been the ones elected to office. The Accord Rae signed with Peterson, which he (Rae) stressed wasn't a coalition, gave the balance of power to the Liberals. Through NDP support, the Liberals gained power through a motion of non-confidence without being elected. This proved unpopular. Ontarians, fed up with the Liberals and the PC voted Rae in as premier under a majority government in 1990. Things wend down hill from there. The early 90s were a period of tough economic times for Ontario. Jobs were being lost left, right, and centre. In response, Rae took a tax and spend approach and quickly racked up a $10 billion deficit. Realizing the mistake he made, he tried frantically to cut back spending. He attempted to roll back civil servants' salaries and instituted the now infamous Rae Days, unpaid "holidays" for public employees. The public service unions, the biggest supporters of the NDP, lashed out at him. In response to the mess, the PCs were elected to power in 1995 under Mike Harris, who promised to clean up the huge amount of debt that the Rae NDP had left on Ontario citizens' door steps.

Skip forward 18 years after Rae was first elected premier. Now a Liberal, Rae is pushing for a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc to try and oust the "impotent" Conservatives under Steven Harper. Neither the Liberals or Conservatives hold a majority of seats in the House of Commons. The country is in a period of tough economic times. Jobs are being lost left, right, and centre. Wait a minute, this sounds familiar, doesn't it? It came out on Friday that the coalition seems to be the mastermind of Rae. After all, he seems to be the one pushing for it the most. He's also considered the most likely candidate to head the Liberal Party and would be Prime Minister if the coalition got its way. Ignatiff has already declared he is uneasy with it. Isn't it funny how history seems doomed to repeat itself. Once again, we have Bob Rae using unethical tactics to gain power, while in a period of economic crisis. Has he learned from the mistakes he made as Premier of Ontario? Obviously not. Mr Rae is nothing more than a prostitute. More shocking was yesterday's demonstrations with him parading about in Toronto in front of a crowd of tunnel visioned left wing idiots who are nuts for such a coalition. All they see is getting the Conservatives out while not looking at the big picture, including Rae's past history and the dangerous constitutional precedent such a coalition would set. To paraphrase Sideshow Bob, "your guilty conscience may force you to vote Conservative, but deep down inside you long for a corrupt Liberal to raise taxes, brutalize the electoral process, and rule you like a king." I'm sure this must be what's going through Bob Rae's mind right now. If the coalition gets in, I wonder how long it will be before we're $100 billion in deficit and have Rae Days nation wide. Maybe Mike Harris should run for the federal Conservative leadership. Help us Mikey baby, you're our only hope.

read more...

GG Suspends Parliament, What Should Come Next

This week, I find it vary difficult to be proud to be a Canadian. Our Parliament has threatened to tear the country apart over $28 million, which is peanuts in the grand scheme of things. It represents a historical low for responsible government in Canada, in which none of the three major parties has acted with dignity and decorum, more like childish shouting and personal vendettas. Today, Prime Minister Steven Harper visited Governor General Michaelle Jean and asked her to suspend Parliament until the new year. He was granted this wish. Right now, I believe this is the best thing for the country since it gives both Parliament and Canadians a much needed cooling off period. What is happening in Canada now is unprecedented and nobody really knows how to handle it. It was done in Ontario with a Rae/Perterson coalition in the late 80s but then, there were only three parties and the NDP and Liberals held the majority of the seats. It is not the same in the federal case, where a localized separatist party that the majority of Canadians cannot vote for now holds the balance of power. I've already discussed my feelings on that at length. The big question now is where to go next.

The right to form an opposition coalition if non confidence is declared in minority government is constitutionally legal in Canada and has been since 1867. The question we should ask as a people is whether this law still applies today. We inheritted out constitutional law from the UK, and like theirs, there are numerous unwritten traditions, norms, and conventions within the Canadian constitution. One such convention is that the governor general only acts on the will of the Prime Minister, despite her power to do otherwise. If this were broken, it would lead to a constititional crisis despite it being unwritten, as happened in the King-Byng Affair of the 1920s. A norm is how we elect our representatives. Canadians expect that in our first past the post parliamentary system that the party that has the most seats is the ruling party. They also know that there are three federalist parties. The Bloc is usually left out since they are only focused on Quebec interests and not Canada as a whole. Now that they hold that balance of power, it creates another crisis as interests that would undermine the entire country are now rolling the dice. This is why a substantial majority of Canadians oppose this coalition. I believe that since this is what Canadians expect, we should amend the constition to remove the right to form coalitions at the fedeal level. Canadians expect one party to form the government so our constitition should reflect that belief. This does not mean that opposition parties could not band together and declare non-confidence, it would simply mean that the final decision of the motion would automatically be transfered to the citizens of Canada via an election. Opposition rights to coalition opens up the doors to backroom deals without public consent and is far too paternalistic. If parties want to run in an election as a coalition, that is fine with me. However, the final word on who rules Canada should be up to the citizens, and only the citizens of this country. People may tire of the elections but it is far better than the alternative, which is authoritarian in nature, especially in this particular situation. The idea that voters are incapable of voting in ther best interests is an archaic one, born out of the imperialist 19th century, and should be put to rest for good.

read more...

Canadian Parliament Risks Crises of Legitimacy

I blasted the Liberals for their highly undemocratic actions in my previous articles. Indeed, their plans for a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition are a slap in the face to the Canadian electorate who just gave the Conservatives another mandate to govern. Coalitions are perfectly legal within Canada though that does not make them right, especially at a time of great economic turmoil. Aside from the potential catastrophic problems I mentioned about such a coalition, there is another issue at steak that could have far greater repercussions on Canada's political system. The October 2008 election saw the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history. Most politicians like to pat themselves on the back by saying that the public likes what they're doing so they see no need to vote. The voting public accuses non-voters of being lazy and apathetic. However, one reason is often overlooked. Many Canadians feel that none of the three major national parties support their needs and concerns. This opens the door up to a crisis of legitimacy.

What if a majority of Canadians suddenly felt that the Federal Parliament was no longer legitimate. A lot already do, which low voting numbers, radio and TV talk shows, and various opinion polls clearly show. The current song and dance being played in parliament has thoroughly disgusted many Canadians. We are in a time of economic crisis and Canadians are asking why politicians are wasting their time on this sort of politicking. Canadians view it as highly inappropriate and irresponsible, which it is. All four parties in the house are equally guilty of this action, though the three left wing parties have taken it to an extreme, and crossed the line over what Canadians will tolerate. The particular sticking point amoung Liberal supporters is the alliance with the Bloc Quebecois, since the Liberals and NDP do not have enough seats to form a coalition on their own. The Bloc, being a separatist party, obviously will not sit well with the federalist public in the rest of the country. The Liberals after all have always been a staunchly federalist party. One commentor in the National Post asked what Pierre Trudeau would think about his Liberals (indeed he molded the contemporary Liberal Party) joining with the separatists that he fought with tooth and nail. He would most likely condemn such action, even if it meant letting the Conservatives rule. Ironically, his son is now one of the party's rising stars, yet Justin has been quite mum on the subject. To Canadians, such a deal is a deal with the devil. The problem with the Canadian left is that they continue bury them further and further into the hole they've dug for themselves. Ironically, coalition talks will only serve to strengthen Harper's position with the Canadian public, since he was given the democratic mandate to rule. Canadians already see the coalition as illitigimate even before the deals have been finalized.

Canadians need to have faith in their government. In a time of crisis, all this political posturing needs to stop and they need to start working together to get things done. All the arguing and back room deals are not sitting well with Canadians. If this sort of bad behaviour continues, Canada will have a crisis of government legitimacy on its hands the likes of which we've never experienced.

read more...

The Liberals Under King John Dion

There's not a heck of a lot that shocks me about Canadian politics any more. However, this weeks announcement that the Liberals are considering a coalition government with the Bloc and NDP boils my blood. When the new parliament opened, we were promised more decorum. Boy, that disappeared much faster than usual this time. The story goes over Harper trying to cut the government budget by a risky gamble that would have see an end to parties getting government funding. The whole dollar amount of this funding works out to be about $28 million split between the major parties. Some have claimed this was a brilliant tactical move on his part though I believe it to be rather foolish at this time. The Liberals and other opposition parties have criticised the financial update that included this plan for not including any sort of economic stimulus package. Indeed they are correct, it should do more. However, Harper is in the same boat as their lover boy Barack Obama to the south, who has said vary little on what he intends to do.

Canadians just finished an election. We've had three of them since 2004, which is pretty much unprecedented in Canadian history. Canadians gave Harper another mandate for a minority government, strengthening the party's standing from the previous election. The Liberals by contrast saw huge losses. Well, it seems that Dion is not done and wants to go out in a blaze of sour grapes by installing a party in office that Canadians did not vote for. Most Canadians may not be aware of the notion of a coalition government because they are vary rare in this country. Basically, the Liberals plan to forward a motion of non-confidence. Gambling on the fact that Canadians are election weary, they will force the Governor General to install them as the governing party in coalition with the Bloc and NDP. With these two parties, they will have enough seats for a majority. This sort of action is highly undemocratic in my opinion since under our current system. If you thought floor crossing was bad, this is its equivalent on a grand scale. Canadians will now have someone ruling the country who they did not vote for. That of course would be Stephane Dion. Even though he's on his way out, he would sit as interim Prime Minister until the party's leadership convention next spring. This sort of underhanded tactic reeks of elitism. If Dion cannot become PM through democratic channels, he will do so against the will of the Canadian voters. Of course I'm sure the fact that his pay and pension will increase as well does not factor into this decision. (sarcasm alert)

At this point, the left wing parties have gone from the parties to vote for to irrelevant in the eyes of a majority of Canadians. A coalition that would come out of this plan would be a ticking time bomb. The Bloc and the Liberals are arch enemies in Quebec, a province where Liberal support has been declining sharply in recent years. Quebecers are not going to take an alliance with the devil sitting down. Before we even get a month into such a coalition, I would expect an all out war to break out within it as the three parties fight over who gets heard. Neither has enough seats to gain total control of such a coalition. The government would eventually collapse and we'd be in another election. Right now, Canada needs the four parties to work together more than ever. None of them are currently serving out needs but the Liberals for even mentioning this are the biggest disgrace. This is a party that has already gone through a major corruption channel and has shown its propensity for arrogance and elitism time and time again since Chretien was first elected. These sort of political shenanigans will only make things worse off for all Canadians. Even if you do support Liberal ideals, you have to admit that these sort of games are not right at a time like this. If the Liberals push this coalition, then they should be forcibly removed from office by the Canadian public.

read more...

The Broken CCRF

"Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;"

I thought I'd just confirm that with the Justice Department since I believe a lot of people are not wholly clear on this little tidbit. The line comes from Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a constitutional document that guarantees the rights of all Canadians. Your rights are enshrined here to protect you from abuse by the government. Despite this, there are certain people within the Canadian government who break the charter on a regular basis. These are the judges and tribunal commissioners who misuse the bench as their own personal soap box. This week, the Moon report was released. It painted a critical picture of the way human rights trubunals are held in Canada. It was drafted partly in response to the Styne/Macleans fiasco that happened over the summer of 2008. The problem arose from section 13(1) of the human rights code that deals with how human rights abuses are to be handled. It found that people were abusing the tribunals to silence any criticism of their particular group. The Moon report called it blantant government censorship. It stopped short of closing the door completely on censorship by noting that documents that deliberately incite violence against minorities should still be prosecuted.

The problem though is not simply with the human rights tribunals but the way the vary legal core of the country has evolved since Trudeau "brought home" the constitution in 1983. Are Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is chock full of vague language and legal loopholes. In fact, the first section of the Charter opens the door wide open for its abuse.
"1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
The reasonable limits clause is defined by Supreme Court Justices and lower courts but that wording in itself is fairly meaningless since who gets to determine what a reasonable limit is? This was how the tribunals came to be misused. Censoring any language that could possible be deemed to incite hatred or is bigoted in any way is considered a reasonable limit to your Section 2(b) rights. This segues into my previous article back in June that dealt with Macleans and Styne. Who exactly gets to determine what is unacceptable language? The tribunals certainly aren't made up of legal experts. Is it them determining what should be censored? These tribunals often poke their noses into issues, looking for problems that are not actually there. Now, I'm not defending people who are genuinely trying to incite hatred. That's a common misconception of what free speech crusaders are trying to do. We believe you should be able to say whatever you want, no matter how stupid or wrong. Someone with an opposing view should have the right to openly disagree with such statements as well. This is how democracy works. If we cannot say things that may offend, then we are not a democratic country at all, not even close.

Currently, you as a Canadian citizen have been given a list of supposed rights. However, the government has no obligation to maintain them. That's clearly listed right in the document. In fact, it's one of the only things that is clear. They can have some rights trump others, or choose to omit entire sections if they so choose. Often, it's non-democratically elected judges making these decisions with an impotent Parliament just keeping mum on the subject. There is nowhere in the constitution that says you have a right not to be offended. In my opinion, the Charter itself needs a serious overhaul to prevent these abuses from ever happening again. First of all, Section 1 and Section 33 need to be removed entirely. Section 33 being the infamous Notwithstanding Clause that allows Parliament to take a whole host of basic legal rights and fundamental freedoms away. There are other parts of the CCRF that I object to but these two sections are indeed the most troubling. If Canada wants to call itself a proper democracy, its constitution needs to reflect that by providing no path for a government to abuse our free speech rights.

read more...

Is Recycling Really as Green As We Think?

Here in Milton, the new green bin has been subject to a lot of controversy. For those who don't know, Green Bins are for wet garbage. Basically food scraps, soiled paper, etc. Before the program was introduced this year, Halton had garbage picked up every week and recycling picked up every other week. We had all wanted recycling to be picked up each week too, and we got it. However, there's a catch. Halton now picks up the green bin and recycling each week, but garbage every other week. So, what's the problem with this. Well, in other jurisdictions, diapers can be put in the green bin. Toronto and Peel Region allow it. Halton does not. Soiled styrofoam meat packages also can't go in the bin. When the blood in these packages festers for two weeks, it creates quite a smell. A woman wrote into the local paper complaining about the lack of garbage service, especially concerning the baby diaper issue. She received a lot of flack from local greenies and the region itself. They basically told here, not in those exact words, that she was being an idiot.

I'd like to direct my readers to a letter by Milton resident Joe Gesualdi, published in November 19th's Milton Canadian Champion. Joe muses that the new recycling program might actually create more waste and environmental damage than just sending it all to landfills. Joe cites that there are now three trucks picking up garbage instead of just the one. Each truck burning gallons of diesel fuel. He also mentions that recycling programs do not divert as much waste as people think they do, which is a known fact that a quick Google search will prove. Essentially, we are paying more for what amounts to less service. I think this letter is especially relevant considering the fiasco over garbage collection currently ocurring in the City of Toronto. I say it's time we fought to get our services back. Ban the Green Bin.

read more...

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...