Things that need to be legalized
1) marijuana,
2) prostitution
3) euthanasia.
Needed Federal Programs
1) Dental dental
2) National Child Care program
3) Natonal Drug plan
Upgrading of national standards
1) National minimum wage
2) Miniumum 4 weeks vacation a year. This is the European minimum.
3) Massive increase the number of ridings. The hinterlands have way too much electoral clout.
Things that need to be abolished
1) Native Rights If someone was to suggest that land should be reserved for, say, Chinese Canadians and that Chinese Canadians should have rights that other Canadians do not have, you would first ask them to lie down; you would then call 911 and tell the person at the other end of the line that you believe that the person before you had suffered a stroke and that paramedics should come quick. Whether it be billions lost to illegal cigarette sales, or setting up school food programs for kids who live on land that if divided equally would net them tens of millions on the open market, it hard to think of anything quite so daft.
2) The Senate.
3) Family Unification If the main point of a high rate of immigration is to lessen the effects of an aging population, what sense does it make to allow immigrants to sponsor their parents and grandparents? The average immigrant to Canada is only a bit younger than the average Canadian. Now do not get me wrong. Canada needs more immigrants -- alot more. Canada needs to at least triple the number of economic immigrants to Canada each year. However at the same time as it needs to do that, it needs to all but eliminate every other category of immigrant. Also, there needs to be a greater emphasis and youth, and language skills.
4) The ability of employers to bring in unskilled temporary workers. The Canadian tax payer should not be paying to have temporary unskilled workers brought in just so the Tim Horton's and company can undercut wages of Canadians. If they want workers, they can pay the piper.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Saturday, September 26, 2009
The Liberal Ads are Stupid
The Liberals think they can win by being dull, boring, middle of the road and above all nice. The Liberals strategists seem convinced that if only the Liberals successfully put the Canadian people asleep, when they wake they will vote Liberal in droves. This is the only way of making sense of those moronic Michael in the woods ads and party's complete unwillingness to release interesting policy.
Of course the ads are more than just a complete waste of money. It is hard to think of an ad campaign that could do more harm. Ignatieff has all the charisma of a funeral home director --- and rather than distract Canadians focus they draw attention to this very fact. To add insult to injury, the ads build on the campaign the Conservatives unleashed against Dion. The Conservatives successfully painted Dion as a wimp. Apparently, the Liberals decided that why stop with Dion? Why not portray the entire Liberal party as wimps? The Liberals can support any number of brain dead Conservative crime bills. It will not do a lick of good if the Liberals are spending millions having Igantieff say some motivational crap in the middle of a forest. He is sweater short of Mr Rogers. Nothing says soft on crime like a forest setting, cheesy music and promise that "we can do better".
If the Liberals truly wanted to counter the Conservative ad campaign, then they could first unveil some bold new policy. With no Liberal platform to speak of, the Conservatives are having a easy time portraying Ignatieff as in it only for himself. The Liberals can also start firing back. That would at least show that public that Ignatieff was not a wimp like Dion was. Be more like Trudeau. He literally told his political opponents to fuck off.
The Conservatives have made Ignatieff's past an issue. So make Stephen Harper's past an issue. Juxtapose Harper's serial Canadian bashing with Ignatieff's academic, and journalistic achievments. Yes I know that would mean bringing the cosmopotain Ignatieff out of the closest. However, the notion this was something to be downplayed and did play well in seats that the Liberals actually have a chance of winning is ridiculous. For the hundred time the Liberals need to regain what they lost in suburban Toronto, and Vancouver and hope for breakthrough in Quebec. The flip side of dragging the cosmopotain Ignatieff out of closet is that doing so might stop Ignatieff from turning every other speech into a talk about his long dead relatives.
Of course the ads are more than just a complete waste of money. It is hard to think of an ad campaign that could do more harm. Ignatieff has all the charisma of a funeral home director --- and rather than distract Canadians focus they draw attention to this very fact. To add insult to injury, the ads build on the campaign the Conservatives unleashed against Dion. The Conservatives successfully painted Dion as a wimp. Apparently, the Liberals decided that why stop with Dion? Why not portray the entire Liberal party as wimps? The Liberals can support any number of brain dead Conservative crime bills. It will not do a lick of good if the Liberals are spending millions having Igantieff say some motivational crap in the middle of a forest. He is sweater short of Mr Rogers. Nothing says soft on crime like a forest setting, cheesy music and promise that "we can do better".
If the Liberals truly wanted to counter the Conservative ad campaign, then they could first unveil some bold new policy. With no Liberal platform to speak of, the Conservatives are having a easy time portraying Ignatieff as in it only for himself. The Liberals can also start firing back. That would at least show that public that Ignatieff was not a wimp like Dion was. Be more like Trudeau. He literally told his political opponents to fuck off.
The Conservatives have made Ignatieff's past an issue. So make Stephen Harper's past an issue. Juxtapose Harper's serial Canadian bashing with Ignatieff's academic, and journalistic achievments. Yes I know that would mean bringing the cosmopotain Ignatieff out of the closest. However, the notion this was something to be downplayed and did play well in seats that the Liberals actually have a chance of winning is ridiculous. For the hundred time the Liberals need to regain what they lost in suburban Toronto, and Vancouver and hope for breakthrough in Quebec. The flip side of dragging the cosmopotain Ignatieff out of closet is that doing so might stop Ignatieff from turning every other speech into a talk about his long dead relatives.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Afghan Myths
1) They want us there. In the country as a whole this is true, but in 4 provinces where the fighting is concentrated it is not. Over 2 thirds of Afghans in Kandahar province want us gone.
2) The Afghan army is making progress. Indeed they are. However three things need to be pointed out. One, the army is made up of a dispropriate number of ethnic minorities, e.g., Harara in the Kandahar region. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/08/081208fa_fact_wood Far from being a source of stability this can be source of instability. Two, the capability of the Taliban is growing faster than the effectiveness of the Afghan army. As one US marine was recently commented, "they fight like marines now". And of course they do; every technique that the US passes on to the Afghan army is passed on to the Taliban. Three, the army might be doing better, but the Afghan police force is still an unmediated disaster.
3) If Canada leaves, then Afghanistan risks again becoming home to Al Qaeda training bases. This is just silly. For starters, if Canada leaves, the US will still be there. For another 911 gave the US carte blanche to take out any Al Qaeada base in Afghanistan until the end of time. For Christ sakes, the US has no qualms about targeting Al Qaeda figures in Pakistan.
4) Canada being there makes us less likely to be attacked. Thank god we have moved beyond this little ditty. This talking point has always been the height of intellectual dishonsty To wit: When the would be Ontario bombers were arrested Andrew Coyne noted on the National that Al Qaeda had long listed Canada as a potential target, that no Western country is immune from attack, and that the arrests were yet further reason for pursuing a more muscular approach in Afghanistan. What Coyne failed to note however was that the would be bombers did not have any connection to Al Qaeda, according to the Crown the accused were motivated by the Afghan mission and the reason Al Qaeda has targeted Canada is because of our presence in Afghanistan. This is the Al Qaeda threat Coyne was referring to.
“What do your governments want from their alliance with America in attacking usin Afghanistan? I mention in particular Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germanyand Australia.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/osamabinladen/tape.html
(Subsequently, Al Qaeda twice threatened Canada with terror acts because of Afghanistan. In one of those times, Al Qaeda’s second in command referred to Canada has “second rate crusaders”. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e9f20f44-ec19-470c-9ac3-6c79218d4d91 )
Only an ideologue would have the chutzpah to use Al Qaeda’s threat related to our presence in Afghanistan as proof that Al Qaeda will attack any western target, as if Switzerland and the US are equally likely targets, and that we should therefore step up operations in Afghanistan.
Of course, the threat the Afghan mission poises to Canada goes beyond the economics and loss of life. A terrorist attack, inspired by Canada 's presence in Afghanistan, might revitalize the Quebec’s separatist movement, especially if Quebec is the victim. Currently the Afghan mission is opposed by 70% of Quebecers. If Quebecers die as a result of us being there, the separatists will use it as a reason why Quebecers need their own country with its own foreign policy. Given what has transpired in Ontario, what happened in Spain and Britain, the chances of such an attack or not insignificant.
Finally, 20% of Canadians are born outside the country and Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world. A terrorist attack has the potential to badly maul Canada's social fabric.
2) The Afghan army is making progress. Indeed they are. However three things need to be pointed out. One, the army is made up of a dispropriate number of ethnic minorities, e.g., Harara in the Kandahar region. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/08/081208fa_fact_wood Far from being a source of stability this can be source of instability. Two, the capability of the Taliban is growing faster than the effectiveness of the Afghan army. As one US marine was recently commented, "they fight like marines now". And of course they do; every technique that the US passes on to the Afghan army is passed on to the Taliban. Three, the army might be doing better, but the Afghan police force is still an unmediated disaster.
3) If Canada leaves, then Afghanistan risks again becoming home to Al Qaeda training bases. This is just silly. For starters, if Canada leaves, the US will still be there. For another 911 gave the US carte blanche to take out any Al Qaeada base in Afghanistan until the end of time. For Christ sakes, the US has no qualms about targeting Al Qaeda figures in Pakistan.
4) Canada being there makes us less likely to be attacked. Thank god we have moved beyond this little ditty. This talking point has always been the height of intellectual dishonsty To wit: When the would be Ontario bombers were arrested Andrew Coyne noted on the National that Al Qaeda had long listed Canada as a potential target, that no Western country is immune from attack, and that the arrests were yet further reason for pursuing a more muscular approach in Afghanistan. What Coyne failed to note however was that the would be bombers did not have any connection to Al Qaeda, according to the Crown the accused were motivated by the Afghan mission and the reason Al Qaeda has targeted Canada is because of our presence in Afghanistan. This is the Al Qaeda threat Coyne was referring to.
“What do your governments want from their alliance with America in attacking usin Afghanistan? I mention in particular Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germanyand Australia.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/osamabinladen/tape.html
(Subsequently, Al Qaeda twice threatened Canada with terror acts because of Afghanistan. In one of those times, Al Qaeda’s second in command referred to Canada has “second rate crusaders”. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e9f20f44-ec19-470c-9ac3-6c79218d4d91 )
Only an ideologue would have the chutzpah to use Al Qaeda’s threat related to our presence in Afghanistan as proof that Al Qaeda will attack any western target, as if Switzerland and the US are equally likely targets, and that we should therefore step up operations in Afghanistan.
Of course, the threat the Afghan mission poises to Canada goes beyond the economics and loss of life. A terrorist attack, inspired by Canada 's presence in Afghanistan, might revitalize the Quebec’s separatist movement, especially if Quebec is the victim. Currently the Afghan mission is opposed by 70% of Quebecers. If Quebecers die as a result of us being there, the separatists will use it as a reason why Quebecers need their own country with its own foreign policy. Given what has transpired in Ontario, what happened in Spain and Britain, the chances of such an attack or not insignificant.
Finally, 20% of Canadians are born outside the country and Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world. A terrorist attack has the potential to badly maul Canada's social fabric.
Friday, September 11, 2009
"You aint seen nothing yet"
The Liberals do not have answer for the strongly hinted at immigration reforms, they do not have answer to the Conservatives idiotic crime push, they do have answer to equally stupid senate reform and they not have answer to those Conservative ads. The party is completely devoid of ideas and scared of its own shadow. The party does not set the agenda; they only respond to the Conservative one. All we have seen from the Liberals, at least in English Canada, is that horrible ad.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Hockey Camp invites
Let me get this straight. Dan Hamhuis, Dan Cleary, and Marc Staal are good enough to get an invite to camp, but Jason Spezza, Marc Savard, Brain Campbell are not. This looks like 2006 all over again. That year Crosby, Spezza, E. Staal did not make the team as starters but Kris Draper did! One person that should have been left off the list and thankfully was, was Chris Osgood. He had a 887 save % last year. That was the lowest total of any starting goalie in the league. His backup Ty Conklin had a 909 save %.
There is no way that all three Staal brothers should have been invited. One look at Marc Staal's numbers tells the whole story. 3 goals 12 helpers and minus 7 do not gold medals make. As for Jordan, he did not even top 50 points last year and he is no selke candidate. Indeed, he was given the task of checking Ovechkin in the playoffs. Ovechkin finished the series with 8 goals and 6 helpers in 7 games.
Here is rough break down of who I would have as the final 25.
G: Mason, Brodeur, Luongo
D: Burns, Weber, Pronger, Niedermayer, Keith, Bouwmeester, Phaneuff, Green
F: Getzlaf (C), E. Staal (W), Nash (W), Thorton (C), Heatley (W), Crosby (C), LeCaviler (C), St. Louis (W), Doan (W), Ignalia (W) Carter (C), Richards (C) Marleau (W) Toews (W)
Move Carter and E. Staal to the wings. Staal moved to the rightwing to play with Getzlaf and Nash in the world Championships.
There is no way that all three Staal brothers should have been invited. One look at Marc Staal's numbers tells the whole story. 3 goals 12 helpers and minus 7 do not gold medals make. As for Jordan, he did not even top 50 points last year and he is no selke candidate. Indeed, he was given the task of checking Ovechkin in the playoffs. Ovechkin finished the series with 8 goals and 6 helpers in 7 games.
Here is rough break down of who I would have as the final 25.
G: Mason, Brodeur, Luongo
D: Burns, Weber, Pronger, Niedermayer, Keith, Bouwmeester, Phaneuff, Green
F: Getzlaf (C), E. Staal (W), Nash (W), Thorton (C), Heatley (W), Crosby (C), LeCaviler (C), St. Louis (W), Doan (W), Ignalia (W) Carter (C), Richards (C) Marleau (W) Toews (W)
Move Carter and E. Staal to the wings. Staal moved to the rightwing to play with Getzlaf and Nash in the world Championships.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Did Ahmadinejad kill Michael Jackson?
To say the least, it is depressing that the Major Networks have left the Iran story so that they could cover the Michael Jackson Story.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
6 Reasons why Mandatory Minimums for Drug Crimes are bad Idea
1) Imprisoning someone is hugely expensive and in terms of bang for your buck, by far and away the worst form of crime prevention.
2) Longer sentences do not deter junkies in anyway. The research on this is clear. The same goes for gang bangers. With regard to gang bangers, it is the likelihood of arrest and not the severity of punishment that deters them.
3) Conservatives are using a dragnet approach and this causes more harm then good. Mandatory minimums, especially for drug crimes, radically curtail social mobility and encourages social dislocation. With all the emphasis conservatives place on "family values", you would think that conservatives would realize having a critical mass of young fathers in lower income neighborhoods in jail does not do wonders for "family values". Once you get a critical mass of ex cons in area, the prospect of taking back that neighborhood from the gangs is virtually nil.
4) With all the focus the Conservatives have given to crime issues you would think that it is of foremost concern. However, crime is not a problem in Canada. The Conservatives --- and Liberals -- are promising to build a bridge when there is no body of water. Crime is down and becoming more concentrated among those on the margins of society. If one is not involved in the drug trade or prostitution, the chances of one being a victim of a violent crime are very slight indeed.
5) Locking up more and more gang members is no way to weaken the reach of gangs. The individuals might suffer but the organizations thrive. Indeed, plenty of gangs started as prison gangs (e.g., the Red Command and the PCC is Brazil and the Aryan Brotherhood in the US) and other gangs spread as result (e.g., the Crips and Bloods).
6) Yes drug related crime is going through the roof. However, cracking down on drugs, ,especially now, does more harm than good. There is near universal agreement on experts that mandatory minimums for drug related offensives do not reduce crime. A better approach would be to decriminalize the possession of all drugs a la what Portugal did, adopt heroin maintenance programs a la what the Swiss did and above all legalize marijuana. Marijuana is the seed capital for whole host of criminal activities. We need to nip this is the bud.
2) Longer sentences do not deter junkies in anyway. The research on this is clear. The same goes for gang bangers. With regard to gang bangers, it is the likelihood of arrest and not the severity of punishment that deters them.
3) Conservatives are using a dragnet approach and this causes more harm then good. Mandatory minimums, especially for drug crimes, radically curtail social mobility and encourages social dislocation. With all the emphasis conservatives place on "family values", you would think that conservatives would realize having a critical mass of young fathers in lower income neighborhoods in jail does not do wonders for "family values". Once you get a critical mass of ex cons in area, the prospect of taking back that neighborhood from the gangs is virtually nil.
4) With all the focus the Conservatives have given to crime issues you would think that it is of foremost concern. However, crime is not a problem in Canada. The Conservatives --- and Liberals -- are promising to build a bridge when there is no body of water. Crime is down and becoming more concentrated among those on the margins of society. If one is not involved in the drug trade or prostitution, the chances of one being a victim of a violent crime are very slight indeed.
5) Locking up more and more gang members is no way to weaken the reach of gangs. The individuals might suffer but the organizations thrive. Indeed, plenty of gangs started as prison gangs (e.g., the Red Command and the PCC is Brazil and the Aryan Brotherhood in the US) and other gangs spread as result (e.g., the Crips and Bloods).
6) Yes drug related crime is going through the roof. However, cracking down on drugs, ,especially now, does more harm than good. There is near universal agreement on experts that mandatory minimums for drug related offensives do not reduce crime. A better approach would be to decriminalize the possession of all drugs a la what Portugal did, adopt heroin maintenance programs a la what the Swiss did and above all legalize marijuana. Marijuana is the seed capital for whole host of criminal activities. We need to nip this is the bud.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
If Phil Fontaine, Why not Bernard Landry et al too?
"Wooed by federal political parties and corporate Canada, Assembly of First Nations national Chief Phil Fontaine is contemplating leaving the native organization, forgoing a run for a fourth term, a close friend says.
The federal Liberal and NDP parties have both asked Fontaine to run in the next federal election,"
http://www.calgaryherald.com/First+Nations+chief+considers+offers+from+corporate+world/1638152/story.html
In related news Liberals are courting, Bernard Landry, Lucien Bouchard, and Jacques Parizeau and using Jean Lapierre as a go between.
The federal Liberal and NDP parties have both asked Fontaine to run in the next federal election,"
http://www.calgaryherald.com/First+Nations+chief+considers+offers+from+corporate+world/1638152/story.html
In related news Liberals are courting, Bernard Landry, Lucien Bouchard, and Jacques Parizeau and using Jean Lapierre as a go between.
Liberals: Canada's Seinfeld Party
First the Liberals held a Seinfeld convention. Now with the demand for universal EI standard off the table the transformation is complete. The Liberals stand for nothing. They are Canada's Seinfeld Party. Indeed, the Liberals idea of universality these days is to pander to all groups in equal measure. The following are but a few examples. Quebec wanted to be recognized as a nation; presto it was so. When it came to equalization, the Maritimes wanted their oil revenues not to be counted and presto the Atlantic Accord was passed. One can only imagine if Alberta asked for the same. Canada's native community wanted the farm and and presto the provinces championed an accord, the Kelowna Accord, that the Liberal said the feds would fit the bill for.
As for Ignatieff, he claims he is Pearson Liberal, but he has proved time and again that he is willing to dress up in Conservative drag in order to attract the Tim Horton's crowd.
As for Ignatieff, he claims he is Pearson Liberal, but he has proved time and again that he is willing to dress up in Conservative drag in order to attract the Tim Horton's crowd.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Are the Liberals worth supporting?
Lost in all the excitement about the Liberals moving up in the polls are questions about the Liberal party itself. Are the Liberals worth supporting? These days it seems to me that the only redeeming feature about the Liberals are that they are not Conservatives.
Liberals pandering to the Social Cons
http://www.nationalpost.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=1650066
Talk of the social gospel and Tommy Douglas is simply an attempt to put lipstick on a pig. The Liberals are pandering to social cons, plain and simple. If it was the social gospel crowd the Liberals were going for, they would made Rob Oliphant their point man instead of appointing some evangelical fruitcake.
Talk of the social gospel and Tommy Douglas is simply an attempt to put lipstick on a pig. The Liberals are pandering to social cons, plain and simple. If it was the social gospel crowd the Liberals were going for, they would made Rob Oliphant their point man instead of appointing some evangelical fruitcake.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Bill 15: Liberal position intellectually bankrupt and Politically Stupid
The last 5 polls that I have seen on the subject show that a majority of Canada’s support marijuana legalization and by a fairly large margin. More to the point it is something that is particularly popular with the Liberal base. According a 2007 poll, for which the complete breakdown is available, support is 55-41 nationally and is favoured by Liberal supporters 68-29 and by NDP supporters 71 -27.
http://angusreidstrategies.com/uploads/pages/pdfs/2007.06.27%20Drugs%20Press%20Release.pdf
The way to drum up grassroots support is not pass policies that they are firmly against and then ask them to donate money.
As to the political calculation involved here, it is not one that is going to work for the Liberals. The political advantage the Conservatives get from this is not from their being major differences between the major parties, but from the tone of debate generally. So long as the only option is get tough on crime or stay the course, the Conservatives are going to win the issue. They are the ones that started the discussion and they are always going to be the ones deemed toughest on crime. The only way the crime issue turns around for the Liberals is if they offer an alternative vision. Now I now that I have beaten this issue to death, but if the Liberals were to propose to legalize marijuana, they would catch the Conservatives flat footed.
The Liberals really need to take a stand. They can not continue to straddle both sides of political divide. When it comes to marijuana for example their position on possession has been pretty lax since Chretein quipped that he would have a joint in one hand and the money for his fine in other. At the same time, they have been ever more supportive of tougher penalties for drug trafficking . To say that such stances are mutually inconsistent would be an understatement. How can consuming a joint be no worse than speeding and something virtually every Liberal leader can laugh about but passing one worthy of a year in jail?
Early this week John Reynolds came out in support heroin maintance. On Sunday Ignatieff gives a talk in West Vancouver, Reynolds old riding. The fact even the provincie's most preeminent Conservative is light years ahead of where the Liberals just goes to show how out of touch Liberal position is with movers and shakers in Vancouver.
http://angusreidstrategies.com/uploads/pages/pdfs/2007.06.27%20Drugs%20Press%20Release.pdf
The way to drum up grassroots support is not pass policies that they are firmly against and then ask them to donate money.
As to the political calculation involved here, it is not one that is going to work for the Liberals. The political advantage the Conservatives get from this is not from their being major differences between the major parties, but from the tone of debate generally. So long as the only option is get tough on crime or stay the course, the Conservatives are going to win the issue. They are the ones that started the discussion and they are always going to be the ones deemed toughest on crime. The only way the crime issue turns around for the Liberals is if they offer an alternative vision. Now I now that I have beaten this issue to death, but if the Liberals were to propose to legalize marijuana, they would catch the Conservatives flat footed.
The Liberals really need to take a stand. They can not continue to straddle both sides of political divide. When it comes to marijuana for example their position on possession has been pretty lax since Chretein quipped that he would have a joint in one hand and the money for his fine in other. At the same time, they have been ever more supportive of tougher penalties for drug trafficking . To say that such stances are mutually inconsistent would be an understatement. How can consuming a joint be no worse than speeding and something virtually every Liberal leader can laugh about but passing one worthy of a year in jail?
Early this week John Reynolds came out in support heroin maintance. On Sunday Ignatieff gives a talk in West Vancouver, Reynolds old riding. The fact even the provincie's most preeminent Conservative is light years ahead of where the Liberals just goes to show how out of touch Liberal position is with movers and shakers in Vancouver.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Liberals lack all Credibility when it Comes to Crime
Even after expert witness after expert witness after witness blasted the Tory mandatory minimum for drug trafficking, the Liberals says are going to pass the bill. http://www.canada.com/Drug+sentence+bill+soon/1661761/story.html This proves once again when it comes to crime issues the Liberals lack all credibility. The Liberal Party is not a party that one can trust make competent decisions, to make decisions based on the best available evidence and not to pander to segments of the public. On a whole range of isssues the Liberals are no better than the Conservatives.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Time To Put a Stop to Unskilled Guest Workers in Canada
The number of guest workers allowed in has exploded since the Conservatives came to power and whereas the typical guest worker was once an American transferred to a branch office in Canada, the fastest growing category of guest worker is now the unskilled type with poor language skills. The Conservatives have not done this directly. They have turned over a greater percentage of the immigration file to the provinces and Western provinces in particular have used the program to undercut labour. The Canadian tax payer has paid through the noise to have cheap labour sent in from other countries for the sole purpose of cutting wages of the Canadian tax payer.
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/640224
Forget Conservative talk about such provincial programs bringing in much needed skilled workers, this was the kind of positions Alberta was hoping to fill through its guest worker programs this summer: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can still be functionally illiterate and still get it in.
It takes a great deal of chutzpah to Kenney to talk about wanting to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and then go about encouraging the very thing that led to the creation of these communities in Europe, viz., importing gobs of unskilled guest labour. Canada is lucky in so far as most Canadians see new immigrants as one of us. The Conservative policy will change this though. If the situation is allowed to continue, an increasing number of Canadians will see new immigrants, and most people are not going to make the distinction between guest worker and permanent resident, as someone brought in by employers to undercut wages.
The number of unskilled workers Canada lets in should be 0.
"According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, there were 57,843 temporary foreign workers in Alberta by the end of 2008, a 55 per cent jump from 2007 and more than four times the number residing here five years ago. By contrast, permanent immigration has been relatively stagnant, with fewer than 25,000 immigrants coming to Alberta last year from outside the country, only a few thousand people higher than in 2004.
Alberta is not the only the province to import workers. In raw numbers, Ontario has the highest number at 91,733. B.C. has about the same number as Alberta. Quebec has many fewer at only 26,085."
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/640224
Forget Conservative talk about such provincial programs bringing in much needed skilled workers, this was the kind of positions Alberta was hoping to fill through its guest worker programs this summer: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can still be functionally illiterate and still get it in.
It takes a great deal of chutzpah to Kenney to talk about wanting to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and then go about encouraging the very thing that led to the creation of these communities in Europe, viz., importing gobs of unskilled guest labour. Canada is lucky in so far as most Canadians see new immigrants as one of us. The Conservative policy will change this though. If the situation is allowed to continue, an increasing number of Canadians will see new immigrants, and most people are not going to make the distinction between guest worker and permanent resident, as someone brought in by employers to undercut wages.
The number of unskilled workers Canada lets in should be 0.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Conservative Ads: Some Thoughts
Yes the Conservatives were able to pass off Dion as a wimp, but given his slouch, his accent and at times his high pitched voice Dion was easy pickings.
The Conservative ads attacking Ignatieff are a conceptual mess. It is hard to nail down just what the Conservatives are after. Ads that leave people confused will not work.
Worse, the most damaging bit is Ignatieff referring to himself as American and the Conservatives can not run far in this direction without these quotes coming up.
1) Stephen Harper: “Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous.”
2) Stephen Harper "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"
3) Stephen Harper: “Canada is a Northern Welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it.”
4) Stephen Harper: “I delivered [speeches] everywhere I went … about the spirit of defeatism in the country”
5) Stephen Harper: “west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettos and who are not integrated into western Canadian society.”
At least the Conservatives had the good sense not to bring up Ignatieff's support for the Iraq war --- because the rejoiner to that is pretty obvious.
If the NDP had half a brain, they will run ads in the next election juxtaposing Ignatieff's pronoun problem with Harper's serial Canada bashing and pronounce themselves the alternative.
The Conservative ads attacking Ignatieff are a conceptual mess. It is hard to nail down just what the Conservatives are after. Ads that leave people confused will not work.
Worse, the most damaging bit is Ignatieff referring to himself as American and the Conservatives can not run far in this direction without these quotes coming up.
1) Stephen Harper: “Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous.”
2) Stephen Harper "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"
3) Stephen Harper: “Canada is a Northern Welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it.”
4) Stephen Harper: “I delivered [speeches] everywhere I went … about the spirit of defeatism in the country”
5) Stephen Harper: “west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettos and who are not integrated into western Canadian society.”
At least the Conservatives had the good sense not to bring up Ignatieff's support for the Iraq war --- because the rejoiner to that is pretty obvious.
If the NDP had half a brain, they will run ads in the next election juxtaposing Ignatieff's pronoun problem with Harper's serial Canada bashing and pronounce themselves the alternative.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Stephen Harper: Long Record of Standing up for Canada
1) Stephen Harper: “Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous.”
2) "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"
3) Stephen Harper: “Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion."
4) Stephen Harper: “Canada is a Northern Welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it.”
5) Stephen Harper: “I delivered [speeches] everywhere I went … about the spirit of defeatism in the country” National Post, May 31 2002
6) Stephen Harper: “west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society.”
2) "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"
3) Stephen Harper: “Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion."
4) Stephen Harper: “Canada is a Northern Welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it.”
5) Stephen Harper: “I delivered [speeches] everywhere I went … about the spirit of defeatism in the country” National Post, May 31 2002
6) Stephen Harper: “west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society.”
Thursday, May 07, 2009
My Strange Encouter was a Fashion Fascist
On Sunday I rented a tuxedo. I am going to wedding. A woman was doing the fitting for me. She first gave me a 48 jacket. It was snug in the shoulders and so she gave me a 50 to try on. This did fit in shoulders. However, the 48 was much too big in the waist and 50 was just ridiculous. The head cheese was watching all of this and I could tell he was not pleased. He said I really needed to try on a 46 or smaller. I told him the 48 was snug, but he was persistent. So I tried on a 46 to appease him. Remember I am the one renting the tuxedo. Anyway, the thing was as tight as wet suit. The woman that was helping me earlier was trying to see if there was any slake in the arms. There was not any. It fit like a muscle shirt. The guy said "this is better". I decided then that enough was enough. I said no it not better. I can not move. I did not want to be in the same position as the bride, viz, having to have someone assist me just so could get in and out of my jacket. So we compromised on the 48, but only after I acknowledged in, get this, writing that 48 was too big in the waist. He was similarly displeased with the shirt. It was roomy to say the least, but by this time his assistant was tried of being treated like she did not have a clue and said in response to his queries about a smaller size that "nothing else fit him in the neck. The top button would not do up." That shut him up.
All and all it was strangest retail experience I have ever had. Now, note to any Tuxedo makers who might be reading this. In defense of the fashion fascist, not every guy wearing a larger jacket size is big in the waist. Indeed, considering that majority of guys who rent these things are probably no older than their early 30s, I would say they might actually be in the majority. A moo moo is not a good look.
All and all it was strangest retail experience I have ever had. Now, note to any Tuxedo makers who might be reading this. In defense of the fashion fascist, not every guy wearing a larger jacket size is big in the waist. Indeed, considering that majority of guys who rent these things are probably no older than their early 30s, I would say they might actually be in the majority. A moo moo is not a good look.
Wayne Easter on the Gun Registry
Wayne Easter:
"a number of factors really. One of the big ones, which was a catalyst to us losing a lot of constituencies in rural Canda, was actually the gun control bill, the long-gun registry.
"It just seemed to be a catalyst that provoked a reaction that the Liberals didn't identify with rural Canadians."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/politicalbytes/2009/05/rethinking_the_gun_registry.html
I would like to now just what seats he is talking about and why he talking about a long-gun registry when there is but one gun registry.
The evidence that the gun registry hurt the Liberals is just not there. First of all West of Ontario there were no safe rural Liberal seats to loose.
The Liberals were shut out in Alberta in 1972, 1974, 1979, 1980, 1984, 1988. As for those seats that went Liberal in 1993, 1997, 2000 and 2004, they were not rural seats --- they were in Edmonton -- nor where they safe. “Landslide” Anne McLellan was good case in point.
The situation in Saskatchewan was similar. The Liberals were shut out there in 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1988. As for seats the Liberals won there in 1993, 1997, 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2008, there has proven to be but one safe seat and Ralph Goodale still holds it. Moreover, the Wascana is not a rural seat.
The situation is not nearly as bleak for the Liberals in Manitoba. However, the Liberals took only one rural seat in 1993, and 1997 and Provencher (MP Vic Toews) could never be described as a safe Liberal seat. It was not a Liberal stronghold prior to 1993 and the Liberals owed their success there more to a spilt in the conservative vote than anything else. Combined the PC and Reform was much greater than Liberals in both 1993 and 1997 elections.
The Liberal popular support in Manitoba is concentrated in Winnipeg. Going back all the way to world war two you can on one hand the number of seats the Liberals have won outside of Winnipeg Edmonton, and Ralph Goodale’s seat in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
The Liberals faired just as poorly in rural BC during this time, but again Liberal troubles in rural BC long predated the gun registry. The Liberals won but 1 seat in 1979, 1984 and 1988 and were shut out in 1980.
As for Ontario, the Liberals share of the popular vote and seats was stable between 1993 and 2000 and when the Liberal vote did drop significantly in 2004, it was not to the Conservatives’ benefit when it came to the popular vote. Indeed, the combined PC and Reform vote in each of the three subsequent elections was 37%. In 2004 the Conservatives took only 31% of popular vote. If I am not mistaken, this represents the lowest share of the popular vote by a united Conservative party ever. Even in 2006 the Conservative share of the province’s popular vote was below the combined right wing vote between 1993 and 2000. Moving from the Liberals to the NDP is a strange way to protest your displeasure with the gun registry and that is what happened in Ontario in 2004.
Only in the Martimes is the notion that the gun registry hurt the Liberals consistent with record. However, three things should be noted in this regard. 1) The Liberals have faired very well in Maritimes during this time. 2) The Conservatives have not gained that much. In 2004 the Conservative vote totals were below the combined vote totals for the two right parties in every election since Mulroney and that includes 1993. 3) The unpopularity of EI reforms hurt the Liberals in the 1997.
Results in seat rich Quebec are consistent with gun registry helping in Quebec.
Now, what is implicit in what Easter is saying is that somehow there is gains to be made in rural Canada and that somehow the Liberals have maxed out in major cities. This is simply not true. Looking strictly at the numbers, it is easy to see that all the low hanging fruit for the Liberals is suburban Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. The gun registry is winner in these seats.
"a number of factors really. One of the big ones, which was a catalyst to us losing a lot of constituencies in rural Canda, was actually the gun control bill, the long-gun registry.
"It just seemed to be a catalyst that provoked a reaction that the Liberals didn't identify with rural Canadians."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/politicalbytes/2009/05/rethinking_the_gun_registry.html
I would like to now just what seats he is talking about and why he talking about a long-gun registry when there is but one gun registry.
The evidence that the gun registry hurt the Liberals is just not there. First of all West of Ontario there were no safe rural Liberal seats to loose.
The Liberals were shut out in Alberta in 1972, 1974, 1979, 1980, 1984, 1988. As for those seats that went Liberal in 1993, 1997, 2000 and 2004, they were not rural seats --- they were in Edmonton -- nor where they safe. “Landslide” Anne McLellan was good case in point.
The situation in Saskatchewan was similar. The Liberals were shut out there in 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1988. As for seats the Liberals won there in 1993, 1997, 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2008, there has proven to be but one safe seat and Ralph Goodale still holds it. Moreover, the Wascana is not a rural seat.
The situation is not nearly as bleak for the Liberals in Manitoba. However, the Liberals took only one rural seat in 1993, and 1997 and Provencher (MP Vic Toews) could never be described as a safe Liberal seat. It was not a Liberal stronghold prior to 1993 and the Liberals owed their success there more to a spilt in the conservative vote than anything else. Combined the PC and Reform was much greater than Liberals in both 1993 and 1997 elections.
The Liberal popular support in Manitoba is concentrated in Winnipeg. Going back all the way to world war two you can on one hand the number of seats the Liberals have won outside of Winnipeg Edmonton, and Ralph Goodale’s seat in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
The Liberals faired just as poorly in rural BC during this time, but again Liberal troubles in rural BC long predated the gun registry. The Liberals won but 1 seat in 1979, 1984 and 1988 and were shut out in 1980.
As for Ontario, the Liberals share of the popular vote and seats was stable between 1993 and 2000 and when the Liberal vote did drop significantly in 2004, it was not to the Conservatives’ benefit when it came to the popular vote. Indeed, the combined PC and Reform vote in each of the three subsequent elections was 37%. In 2004 the Conservatives took only 31% of popular vote. If I am not mistaken, this represents the lowest share of the popular vote by a united Conservative party ever. Even in 2006 the Conservative share of the province’s popular vote was below the combined right wing vote between 1993 and 2000. Moving from the Liberals to the NDP is a strange way to protest your displeasure with the gun registry and that is what happened in Ontario in 2004.
Only in the Martimes is the notion that the gun registry hurt the Liberals consistent with record. However, three things should be noted in this regard. 1) The Liberals have faired very well in Maritimes during this time. 2) The Conservatives have not gained that much. In 2004 the Conservative vote totals were below the combined vote totals for the two right parties in every election since Mulroney and that includes 1993. 3) The unpopularity of EI reforms hurt the Liberals in the 1997.
Results in seat rich Quebec are consistent with gun registry helping in Quebec.
Now, what is implicit in what Easter is saying is that somehow there is gains to be made in rural Canada and that somehow the Liberals have maxed out in major cities. This is simply not true. Looking strictly at the numbers, it is easy to see that all the low hanging fruit for the Liberals is suburban Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. The gun registry is winner in these seats.
Monday, May 04, 2009
The Idiocy of weighting OMOV: Part 2
Giving 5 % of the Liberal party supporters the same if not more power than the other 95% is not going to make the Liberals popular in regions where they have never been popular. Saying that by having to appeal to the small group of Crowfoot Liberals, for example, the Liberals will become more acceptable to people of Crowfoot is strange reasoning indeed. I think it is safe to say that Crowfoot Liberals are not represenative. Furthermore, it is going to alienate its base of supporters and that is far bigger issue than branching out into Liberal no man's land. If the Liberals are ever going to match the Conservatives in terms of fund rising, telling, say, the legions of Liberals in Toronto proper ridings that they matter less in a leadership race than Liberals in a province, Alberta, that has never voted Liberal is not going to help. Weighting the vote will also lead to strange calcus when it comes to leadership campaigns. Indeed, why do all the leg work of signing up hundreds of new members in various Toronto ridings to help swing the vote their when signing up a few more members in Crowfoot will accomplish the same?
The Idiocy of weighting OMOV
Save for the passing of WOMOV, the Seinfeld convention lived up to its name. Not much of substance was said or accomplished. Still it was a lot of fun.
As for WOMOV, I am a strong backer of OMOV. However I hate the weighted portion. The hinterlands are already grossly over represented in the House of Commons and Canada's major cities in particular get screwed. The Liberals apparently decided that a mountain of salt needed to be poured on this wound. It is grossly undemocratic to give, for example, Crow Foot Liberals the same voting clout as Vaughn Liberals, but alas when it comes to the party base reward your detractors and punish your supporters is the Liberal way. In the upside down world of Liberal insider politics, Alberta Liberals have more clout than Liberals in Toronto proper. Ignatieff must be starting to believe his own rhetoric about rural Canada.
As for WOMOV, I am a strong backer of OMOV. However I hate the weighted portion. The hinterlands are already grossly over represented in the House of Commons and Canada's major cities in particular get screwed. The Liberals apparently decided that a mountain of salt needed to be poured on this wound. It is grossly undemocratic to give, for example, Crow Foot Liberals the same voting clout as Vaughn Liberals, but alas when it comes to the party base reward your detractors and punish your supporters is the Liberal way. In the upside down world of Liberal insider politics, Alberta Liberals have more clout than Liberals in Toronto proper. Ignatieff must be starting to believe his own rhetoric about rural Canada.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
