It's stories like this that make me want to hurl. What possible justification could there be for anyone to rape an eleven year old girl who's going out for a leisurely stroll in the park?
The scary part is, because she was under the ridiculously low age of consent of fourteen, the motherfucker who did this will get off with a misdemeanor sentence -- less than two years. I wrote about the age of consent last August -- and my opinions on it haven't changed. It's not enough to make the age of consent at least sixteen (with an exemption for consenting teenagers). Sexual assault should draw a life sentence, whether it causes bodily harm or not, and whether the victim is of the age of consent or not.
The "closer age" exception needs to be worked on -- but this is one Harper initiative I support in principle. It's time for the nonsense to end. Kids needs to be protected.
UPDATE #1 (3:58 PM EDT, 1958 GMT: The revelant sections are in Part V of the Criminal Code, found here. True, the maximum sentence specified is 10 years, but the minimum is just a measly 45 days, and judges tend to go towards the low end -- the typical sentence is two years less one day which means time in a provincial institution; since two years or higher means federal time in usually tougher circumstances. The most I've heard of anyone getting for statutory rape, at least from what I've heard in various media sources, is eighteen months -- whether there was consent or not. This can be a sticky issue, I must admit, but it just struck a nerve in me when I read it this morning.
UPDATE #2: (5:43 PM EDT, 2143 GMT): To be clear, I think there is a line between what is considered aggravated assault or assault with a weapon; and sexual harrassment (like a buttock pinch). No, I don't think the latter should be punished the same as murderers; but it should still result in a rap sheet. My point was simply the sentences aren't tough enough as they currently stand.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Sunday, July 9, 2006
Why I rejoined the Liberal Party
If Canada had proportional representation, there would be no question about my being able to vote for one party's candidate for Prime Minister and another party's slate for local candidates. But we're stuck with the archaic and stupid first past the post -- and that has resulted in our system of "brokerage" parties; alliances of people with broad agreement on key points but lack of it on specifics.
That's why I've been traditionally reluctant to be a member of a party. However, what I've seen in the last few months has alarmed me. Stephen Harper is getting a free ride in a minority Parliament, and the press is letting him get away with it; in fact the Exempt Media has lied to the people about certain policy issues:
That's why I've been traditionally reluctant to be a member of a party. However, what I've seen in the last few months has alarmed me. Stephen Harper is getting a free ride in a minority Parliament, and the press is letting him get away with it; in fact the Exempt Media has lied to the people about certain policy issues:
- That the "Universal" Child Care Benefit gives more money to parents (it doesn't).
- That Canadians are going to save money with the myriad of tax credits dumped on us (wrong again).
- That the the softwood lumber agreement is good for one of our mainstay exports (that's true only as long as the price of lumber stays high; it's going to collapse sooner or later).
- That closer relations with the US are a good thing (that would be true if only Harper was tougher with the States on their human rights abuses on some sectors).
- That natives are probably going to get a better deal than they did with the Kelowna Accord (yeah, right).
The Conservatives therefore are not my party. Among the fringe parties -- well, I did vote Green last time but out of protest at the alternatives; but there's going be a lot more at stake next time. The NDP and Liberals are the remainders. The NDP, as admirable as they may be, are going to be stuck in the low to mid double digits in terms of seats for quite some time to come.
Despite their many faults, the Liberals have the kinds of values that I believe in. Because I do not want to be aligned with any of the candidates for the leadership at this time -- until I've had more time to view their policies -- I have reactivated my membership not by contacting any of the leadership campaigns; but rather on the Party's website to cut out the "middle person." I did so last week, just before the extended deadline on July 4th.
I did this for two reasons. One, I suspect as many do that Harper will call a snap election this fall before the Liberals can choose a leader and I think he should pay the price if he is so tempted. Even if he waits, the Liberals are going to need a strong leader and for obvious reasons I want to be part of the process of selecting him or her. Second, a lot of the hard work done to improve the lives of Canadians is going to be torn asunder if Harper is allowed to complete his hidden agenda. There has to be someone who can show there is a better way, and it's not Harper's.
Let me say again: This was a tough decision for me. As late as last Tuesday morning, I was going to sit this out The tipping point for me, however, was "Steve" becoming not Dubya's fishing buddy but the bait. A strong leader for Canada would never do that -- he or she would both keep the White House on a leash while at the same time promoting stronger ties.
I pray that God will guide me, and my fellow members, in the choice of candidate. There's a lot riding on this one.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Saturday, July 8, 2006
More on the GST cut
I was going to do a post today about the current allegations that Ann Coulter plagarized substantial portions of her new book, Godless, but found it hard not to engage in the same kind of ad hominem dialogue that she uses to justify her arguments (such as noted here, where she tries to prove intelligent design by attacking liberals rather than using scientific facts). Attacking someone personally isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
So instead, I'm going to talk a bit more about the GST cut from 7% to 6% (I went into detail the other day as to why I think now was a bad time to introduce it).
The last few days, we've seen the Harperites bemoan the fact that many businesses and cities are not passing on the savings from the GST to consumers. Parking meter and lot fees are still the same, as are fares on VIA Rail. And we haven't seen vending machines drop the price of a can of pop by a penny, because those machines don't take maple leafs to begin with. Matter of fact, at the restaurant chain where I work, there was a broad-based increase in prices that more than offsets the GST reduction.
Blame that on higher fuel prices, as well as a quirk in the free trade treaty that allows processed food companies to buy frozen milk from the States while restaurants must buy fresh -- and at rapidly increasing levies set by the milk marketing board.
It's no different in other industries. Their costs aren't going down either. Someone has to absorb the cost. That's usually the consumer. So they're figuring a miniscule savings isn't worth the trouble of converting hundreds or even thousand of prices where the GST is already built in. Several small business owners tell me they've had to reprogram their computers or cash registers so the new tax would "take." That goes into overhead, which means -- naturally -- higher prices.
This reminds me of 1991, when the GST was introduced in the first place. Although it was strategically a smart decision, the Mulroney Government made the mistake of printing out a "meat chart" of how much people should have expected to save when the old hidden tax was removed. Naturally, people were running into furniture store and car dealerships wanting their 13% price cut. It wasn't going to happen. In fact, because in part of the massive conversion costs of having to collect two sales taxes instead of just one, the GST wound up fueling inflation and right in the middle of a recession and the first Persian Gulf Crisis -- in fact overall, prices tracked upwards about 6.5% that year.
If the Harper government wanted to give more money back to consumers, they should have increased the GST credit by about $14 a month, per person -- or increased the basic exemption by $1100 rather than cutting it by $400 as they did. That would have pumped $5 billion back into the economy and would have been more than made up by trickle-up benefits as ordinary people -- not just fat cats -- made more durable good purchases.
Oh, and another thing: The fact that the GST is harmonized with provincial taxes in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland-Labrador: It won't affect them too much since the provincial portion of 8% is untouched. Québec is a different story. Since their provincial sales tax (the TVQ) cascades on top of the federal rate, the 7.5% rate was really 8.025%. With the federal cut to 6%, the provincial tax dropped slightly as well -- to 7.95%. Since they weren't about to raise it on people, they raised corporate taxes instead. Which flows through to consumers in the form of -- higher prices. So even people who buy Québec produced or componented products in other provinces will indirectly pay them.
Overall, this is not smart policy. Even minor improvements in the GST credit and that other very effective negative income tax, the Child Tax Benefit -- rather than doing what Harper did, destroying it and making it partially taxable -- would have been much more effective.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
So instead, I'm going to talk a bit more about the GST cut from 7% to 6% (I went into detail the other day as to why I think now was a bad time to introduce it).
The last few days, we've seen the Harperites bemoan the fact that many businesses and cities are not passing on the savings from the GST to consumers. Parking meter and lot fees are still the same, as are fares on VIA Rail. And we haven't seen vending machines drop the price of a can of pop by a penny, because those machines don't take maple leafs to begin with. Matter of fact, at the restaurant chain where I work, there was a broad-based increase in prices that more than offsets the GST reduction.
Blame that on higher fuel prices, as well as a quirk in the free trade treaty that allows processed food companies to buy frozen milk from the States while restaurants must buy fresh -- and at rapidly increasing levies set by the milk marketing board.
It's no different in other industries. Their costs aren't going down either. Someone has to absorb the cost. That's usually the consumer. So they're figuring a miniscule savings isn't worth the trouble of converting hundreds or even thousand of prices where the GST is already built in. Several small business owners tell me they've had to reprogram their computers or cash registers so the new tax would "take." That goes into overhead, which means -- naturally -- higher prices.
This reminds me of 1991, when the GST was introduced in the first place. Although it was strategically a smart decision, the Mulroney Government made the mistake of printing out a "meat chart" of how much people should have expected to save when the old hidden tax was removed. Naturally, people were running into furniture store and car dealerships wanting their 13% price cut. It wasn't going to happen. In fact, because in part of the massive conversion costs of having to collect two sales taxes instead of just one, the GST wound up fueling inflation and right in the middle of a recession and the first Persian Gulf Crisis -- in fact overall, prices tracked upwards about 6.5% that year.
If the Harper government wanted to give more money back to consumers, they should have increased the GST credit by about $14 a month, per person -- or increased the basic exemption by $1100 rather than cutting it by $400 as they did. That would have pumped $5 billion back into the economy and would have been more than made up by trickle-up benefits as ordinary people -- not just fat cats -- made more durable good purchases.
Oh, and another thing: The fact that the GST is harmonized with provincial taxes in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland-Labrador: It won't affect them too much since the provincial portion of 8% is untouched. Québec is a different story. Since their provincial sales tax (the TVQ) cascades on top of the federal rate, the 7.5% rate was really 8.025%. With the federal cut to 6%, the provincial tax dropped slightly as well -- to 7.95%. Since they weren't about to raise it on people, they raised corporate taxes instead. Which flows through to consumers in the form of -- higher prices. So even people who buy Québec produced or componented products in other provinces will indirectly pay them.
Overall, this is not smart policy. Even minor improvements in the GST credit and that other very effective negative income tax, the Child Tax Benefit -- rather than doing what Harper did, destroying it and making it partially taxable -- would have been much more effective.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Friday, July 7, 2006
One year after 7/7
It's been one year since the bombings in London. And on the eve of the ominous anniversary, a new videotape was revealed from one of the suicide bombers, indicating that al-Qaeda had a hand in 7/7 after all; and then we learned this morning that the group was planning to shut down New York City by taking out the city's tunnels.
While there is no proven connection to AQ in the foiled Toronto plot as of yet, I would not be the least bit surprised if there turns out to be one there too. People gather around the queen bee -- and the "Queen" here is OBL. But even if there is a complete disconnect, the fact remains that Public Enemy #1 is an inspiration to many, and will continue to be when he is finally taken out.
We're still not "used" to terrorism here on Turtle Island, far less so than our brothers and sisters in Europe who have had to put up with rogue elements for years. The difference is that they don't freak out as much -- understanding a hit can happen any time, they've put in the kinds of measures that both try to deter such events from happening in the first place; and if they do, ensuring the civil liberties of the law-abiding majority are not trampled on. There's an old saying the Chinese word for "crisis" and "opportunity" are the same -- and rather than putting Europe in a state of virtual martial law, Europeans are fighting back with what works.
Consider that we tend to see closed-circuit television (CCTV) as Big Brother; Europeans see it as a helping hand to deter petty crime and find those who commit the major offences.. We see open borders as an invitation to terrorists; Europeans see them as a way to better fortify the outer frontiers while permitting the free flow of good and services within the zone. We see such tools as "anti-social behaviour orders" (ASBOs) as a threat to civil liberties, but people in the EU see the American approach -- indefinite detention in a Gulag -- as letting the terrorists win.
The track that should be taken, at all times, to deal with terrorism is to both be firm on those who would commit such acts, while creating the conditions to ensure people aren't frustrated with The System. In other words, getting tough on crime as well as on its causes. We can learn a few lessons from Europe. The least of these is their steely resolve and their determination to move on. Maybe it's me, but it seemed like it took New York a week to start up their markets again. In London and Mandrid, they got right back into it.
We do not forget what happened, but we honour their memory by taking care of business and not letting it grind to a halt.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
While there is no proven connection to AQ in the foiled Toronto plot as of yet, I would not be the least bit surprised if there turns out to be one there too. People gather around the queen bee -- and the "Queen" here is OBL. But even if there is a complete disconnect, the fact remains that Public Enemy #1 is an inspiration to many, and will continue to be when he is finally taken out.
We're still not "used" to terrorism here on Turtle Island, far less so than our brothers and sisters in Europe who have had to put up with rogue elements for years. The difference is that they don't freak out as much -- understanding a hit can happen any time, they've put in the kinds of measures that both try to deter such events from happening in the first place; and if they do, ensuring the civil liberties of the law-abiding majority are not trampled on. There's an old saying the Chinese word for "crisis" and "opportunity" are the same -- and rather than putting Europe in a state of virtual martial law, Europeans are fighting back with what works.
Consider that we tend to see closed-circuit television (CCTV) as Big Brother; Europeans see it as a helping hand to deter petty crime and find those who commit the major offences.. We see open borders as an invitation to terrorists; Europeans see them as a way to better fortify the outer frontiers while permitting the free flow of good and services within the zone. We see such tools as "anti-social behaviour orders" (ASBOs) as a threat to civil liberties, but people in the EU see the American approach -- indefinite detention in a Gulag -- as letting the terrorists win.
The track that should be taken, at all times, to deal with terrorism is to both be firm on those who would commit such acts, while creating the conditions to ensure people aren't frustrated with The System. In other words, getting tough on crime as well as on its causes. We can learn a few lessons from Europe. The least of these is their steely resolve and their determination to move on. Maybe it's me, but it seemed like it took New York a week to start up their markets again. In London and Mandrid, they got right back into it.
We do not forget what happened, but we honour their memory by taking care of business and not letting it grind to a halt.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Thursday, July 6, 2006
Democrats may run unopposed in Delay's old seat
Tom Delay, the rightly reviled House Republican Leader, quit both his leadership post as well as his seat (the 22nd district in Texas) because he thought he might be a drag on other Lone Star GOPers in this fall's elections. He claimed that since he now lives in Virginia, he was no longer eligible as a candidate in Texas and so asked a federal judge -- who just happens to be an appointee of Bush Sr -- to allow the state party to substitute a candidate of their own choice since he already won the primary.
But Judge Sam Sparks ruled that the Constitution only requires that a person be resident in the state on the day of the actual election -- not the primary. As a result, Delay is stuck on the ballot for a seat he's not even running for; in fact that he deliberately abandoned. The GOP is already filing an emergency appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans (or what's left of it).
On top of his very serious legal problems as regards campaign finance fraud, the people in Sugarland will be forced to make a choice: Choose a Democrat (Nick Lampson) they may not like but who will actually represent them, or a Republican who won't even show up for work but still collect his cheque. Shades of Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland, who don't take their seats in Westminster. Guess who they're going to pick? Not the Bugman. If Lampson winds up running unopposed, it could be smooth sailing for the other Democrats in the state.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
But Judge Sam Sparks ruled that the Constitution only requires that a person be resident in the state on the day of the actual election -- not the primary. As a result, Delay is stuck on the ballot for a seat he's not even running for; in fact that he deliberately abandoned. The GOP is already filing an emergency appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans (or what's left of it).
On top of his very serious legal problems as regards campaign finance fraud, the people in Sugarland will be forced to make a choice: Choose a Democrat (Nick Lampson) they may not like but who will actually represent them, or a Republican who won't even show up for work but still collect his cheque. Shades of Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland, who don't take their seats in Westminster. Guess who they're going to pick? Not the Bugman. If Lampson winds up running unopposed, it could be smooth sailing for the other Democrats in the state.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
NY court says no to gay marriage
The New York Court of Appeal has rejected (PDF) a bid to declare unconstitutional the state law that makes marriage one between a man and woman only. The 4-2 majority made it quite clear that while the state legislature can pass a gay marriage law if it wanted to, the status quo is also perfectly legal under both the US and state constitutions.
It concluded there is a rational basis for the restriction -- that heterosexual couples alone can procreate; and that all things being equal opposite sex parents are better for kids -- but it also said that someone who opposes same-sex unions should not also be dismissed as a bigot; that there might be legitimate reasons for one to personally oppose the practice. There was a huge difference, stated the majority, between laws that prohibited interracial marriage (ruled illegal in the 1960s) and this.
As I've stated previously, I part company with most progressives on the issue of same-sex marriage -- I oppose it. Civil unions are where I would draw the line. However, that the courts are recognizing that this is one issue they should probably stay away from is a positive step -- at least for me. More odious things such as police brutality and voting rights violations definitely are matters for the courts. This is not one of them.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
It concluded there is a rational basis for the restriction -- that heterosexual couples alone can procreate; and that all things being equal opposite sex parents are better for kids -- but it also said that someone who opposes same-sex unions should not also be dismissed as a bigot; that there might be legitimate reasons for one to personally oppose the practice. There was a huge difference, stated the majority, between laws that prohibited interracial marriage (ruled illegal in the 1960s) and this.
As I've stated previously, I part company with most progressives on the issue of same-sex marriage -- I oppose it. Civil unions are where I would draw the line. However, that the courts are recognizing that this is one issue they should probably stay away from is a positive step -- at least for me. More odious things such as police brutality and voting rights violations definitely are matters for the courts. This is not one of them.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Reforming Canada's tax system: The GST
In my last couple of posts in this series, I talked about the need to shake up personal and corporate income taxes by cutting both the rates as well as a substantial number of the deductions out there. The next issue is the Goods and Services Tax. What I'm about to write won't be popular, but I think it's essential to understand why I think the one percent GST cut was irresponsible, and why it should go back up to seven percent for the foreseeable future. It's not because of the kids that I think it should be increased. It's because of seniors.
A refresher: One of the reasons why the GST was created was to finance the interest payment on Canada's crippling debt; by shifting the burden of consumption from the manufacturer to the end user. The old Manufacturer's Sales Tax was set at 13.5% and was buried into the price of items purchased. It was also not recoverable by wholesalers or by retailers as goods passed from one party to another. To say the least, it was unpopular. Its replacement, the GST, was even more so.
But it worked. By making it a multistage tax, middle people could now subtract the tax they paid from the tax they collected and remit the difference. Thus, it was the final consumer -- who has no business number and therefore can't claim a direct rebate -- who shouldered the pain.
It does have its drawbacks, such as the fact lower income Canadians have to pay a greater percentage of their income on GST than higher ones -- which is partially abated by the GST rebate; really one of a number of earned income tax credits. But consider that at one point, thirty three cents out of every tax dollar went to pay the interest on the debt. Now, because the GST is such a cash cow, the interest requirement is down to about 17 cents on the dollar and still falling. It declined so fast during the late 1990s and early aughts that in 2003 the Chrétien Administration decided to end the "debt retirement account" and simply roll the GST into general revenues.
Just as well, because they were collecting $32 billion per year. It costs about $30 billion to run Old Age Security -- the portion of senior's pensions paid out of general revenues and not payroll taxes (as the CPP and RRQ are). The excess went directly to interest payments -- and there was plenty left over from other sources, too.
Based on that, the Harperites say that "it's our money, we have the right to get it back." True to a point. But it's also our debt, and we still have to pay both the interest and the principal. By cutting the rate by 1 percent, they're losing about $5 billion per year, and at the same time jeopardizing the OAS whose costs are going to explode as the Baby Boom starts collecting on their entitlements, from 2011 onward. Since seniors are a powerful lobby, it was probably easy for the Cons to shaft kids the way they did this year to make up the difference. After all, the later constituency doesn't even vote.
But it's wrong to risk the economic security of both seniors and kids in the name of tax relief. In my opinion, the GST should not have even been touched until the debt-to-GDP ratio went down to 25%. Currently, it's at 38.7% (using 2005 numbers, the final tally for 2006 will knock that down some more); and that's also helped in part by big surpluses in the trust funds of the employment insurance and employee-funded pension plans, which as I will discuss later should also not be touched. (According to the CIA, the US ratio is at 64.7% -- but that's probably overstating; it's more like 45% when the current surplus in Social Security is factored in, but that's going to begin to erode too and rapidly with their Baby Boom crisis looming. Since Americans in both parties see contrary to GWB on this one and want to protect the fund, cuts will have to come elsewhere and they're going to hurt.)
So bottom line: I'd bring the GST back up to 7% until the debt got down to 25%. Then, and only then, I'd begin a phase down to 6%; reduced further to 5% when the ratio was 20%, 4% at 15 and 3% at 10. When the debt is finally paid off, the GST would be eliminated. We're looking long term here -- maybe 20 or 25 years. But I can see the day when the odious tax is eliminated because it's no longer fiscally necessary and not out of political expediency.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
A refresher: One of the reasons why the GST was created was to finance the interest payment on Canada's crippling debt; by shifting the burden of consumption from the manufacturer to the end user. The old Manufacturer's Sales Tax was set at 13.5% and was buried into the price of items purchased. It was also not recoverable by wholesalers or by retailers as goods passed from one party to another. To say the least, it was unpopular. Its replacement, the GST, was even more so.
But it worked. By making it a multistage tax, middle people could now subtract the tax they paid from the tax they collected and remit the difference. Thus, it was the final consumer -- who has no business number and therefore can't claim a direct rebate -- who shouldered the pain.
It does have its drawbacks, such as the fact lower income Canadians have to pay a greater percentage of their income on GST than higher ones -- which is partially abated by the GST rebate; really one of a number of earned income tax credits. But consider that at one point, thirty three cents out of every tax dollar went to pay the interest on the debt. Now, because the GST is such a cash cow, the interest requirement is down to about 17 cents on the dollar and still falling. It declined so fast during the late 1990s and early aughts that in 2003 the Chrétien Administration decided to end the "debt retirement account" and simply roll the GST into general revenues.
Just as well, because they were collecting $32 billion per year. It costs about $30 billion to run Old Age Security -- the portion of senior's pensions paid out of general revenues and not payroll taxes (as the CPP and RRQ are). The excess went directly to interest payments -- and there was plenty left over from other sources, too.
Based on that, the Harperites say that "it's our money, we have the right to get it back." True to a point. But it's also our debt, and we still have to pay both the interest and the principal. By cutting the rate by 1 percent, they're losing about $5 billion per year, and at the same time jeopardizing the OAS whose costs are going to explode as the Baby Boom starts collecting on their entitlements, from 2011 onward. Since seniors are a powerful lobby, it was probably easy for the Cons to shaft kids the way they did this year to make up the difference. After all, the later constituency doesn't even vote.
But it's wrong to risk the economic security of both seniors and kids in the name of tax relief. In my opinion, the GST should not have even been touched until the debt-to-GDP ratio went down to 25%. Currently, it's at 38.7% (using 2005 numbers, the final tally for 2006 will knock that down some more); and that's also helped in part by big surpluses in the trust funds of the employment insurance and employee-funded pension plans, which as I will discuss later should also not be touched. (According to the CIA, the US ratio is at 64.7% -- but that's probably overstating; it's more like 45% when the current surplus in Social Security is factored in, but that's going to begin to erode too and rapidly with their Baby Boom crisis looming. Since Americans in both parties see contrary to GWB on this one and want to protect the fund, cuts will have to come elsewhere and they're going to hurt.)
So bottom line: I'd bring the GST back up to 7% until the debt got down to 25%. Then, and only then, I'd begin a phase down to 6%; reduced further to 5% when the ratio was 20%, 4% at 15 and 3% at 10. When the debt is finally paid off, the GST would be eliminated. We're looking long term here -- maybe 20 or 25 years. But I can see the day when the odious tax is eliminated because it's no longer fiscally necessary and not out of political expediency.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Wednesday, July 5, 2006
Reforming Canada's tax system: Corporate income taxes
Canada, compared to some other countries, actually has a fairly competitive corporate income tax structure. However, there are a myriad of rates and it can get rather complicated.
In general, however, the federal rate for large businesses is 22.1%, 13% for small businesses (small being defined as having made a profit of less than $300,000 for the year). The provinces and territories also set their own rates -- they range from a low of 8.9% in Québec to 17% in Saskatchewan on large companies, and as low as 3% in Alberta for small companies.
The rates in general have continued to decline, and with the phase out of the capital tax federally and in most jurisdictions companies do have more money to play with on an after-tax basis. But can they be lower? I think they should be.
Many people point to the "Irish Miracle," or as people in Ireland prefer to call it, the rise of the Celtic Tiger. There were many elements to their success, including substantial improvements to their education system, but the biggest one was a dramatic reduction in the corporate tax rate from 50 to 20 percent. It has since been reduced to 12.5%. Many other countries in the EU have screamed this gave Irish companies an "unfair advantage" over its trading partners, but the results have more than borne out: Unemployment dropped drastically and many US and Canadian companies are now choosing to set up offices in Ireland to expand their operations. The average income in Ireland is now second in the EU -- beaten only by Luxembourg. It's not a perfect model, but it does give an example of how letting companies keep more of their profits can work.
Could the same thing happen in Canada? I think it could. I favour a general corporate tax rate on all types of income -- whether they be from actual production or investment -- of 10% for large companies, and 5% for small (which I would define as having an income of less than $500,000).
To get to this rate, however, I would do the same thing for corporate taxes as I would do for individual income taxes in eliminating most of the deductions -- in other words, I would get rid of much of what is called corporate welfare. No more subsidies, period, with the sole exceptions being for retraining workers to improve skills on the job at that company; and real, quality, in-house daycare. Part of the reasons why the rates are so high, in my opinion, is that we're transferring wealth from smaller companies to the larger ones who threaten to leave unless we pay them off with tax "holidays" and the like. It's a shell game, and it has to stop. As a general rule, companies should get equal treatment.
Provinces, of course, would still be free to set their own rates -- but led by federal example they might be persuaded to give an equal reward to companies that choose to stay and invest in their people rather than outsource to Third World contries.
So far, Stephen Harper only has enough imagination to cut the federal rate to 19%, which quite frankly is still too high compared to who we have to compete with. When provincial rates are tacked on, it's still much higher. We need some more imagination than that. I firmly believe we can remain fiscally responsible and generate the same kinds of revenues, if only we change the focus of profit-making from benefitting the shareholders only to creating the conditions for full employment so both employees and stockbearers prosper. For me that means no more corporate welfare.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
In general, however, the federal rate for large businesses is 22.1%, 13% for small businesses (small being defined as having made a profit of less than $300,000 for the year). The provinces and territories also set their own rates -- they range from a low of 8.9% in Québec to 17% in Saskatchewan on large companies, and as low as 3% in Alberta for small companies.
The rates in general have continued to decline, and with the phase out of the capital tax federally and in most jurisdictions companies do have more money to play with on an after-tax basis. But can they be lower? I think they should be.
Many people point to the "Irish Miracle," or as people in Ireland prefer to call it, the rise of the Celtic Tiger. There were many elements to their success, including substantial improvements to their education system, but the biggest one was a dramatic reduction in the corporate tax rate from 50 to 20 percent. It has since been reduced to 12.5%. Many other countries in the EU have screamed this gave Irish companies an "unfair advantage" over its trading partners, but the results have more than borne out: Unemployment dropped drastically and many US and Canadian companies are now choosing to set up offices in Ireland to expand their operations. The average income in Ireland is now second in the EU -- beaten only by Luxembourg. It's not a perfect model, but it does give an example of how letting companies keep more of their profits can work.
Could the same thing happen in Canada? I think it could. I favour a general corporate tax rate on all types of income -- whether they be from actual production or investment -- of 10% for large companies, and 5% for small (which I would define as having an income of less than $500,000).
To get to this rate, however, I would do the same thing for corporate taxes as I would do for individual income taxes in eliminating most of the deductions -- in other words, I would get rid of much of what is called corporate welfare. No more subsidies, period, with the sole exceptions being for retraining workers to improve skills on the job at that company; and real, quality, in-house daycare. Part of the reasons why the rates are so high, in my opinion, is that we're transferring wealth from smaller companies to the larger ones who threaten to leave unless we pay them off with tax "holidays" and the like. It's a shell game, and it has to stop. As a general rule, companies should get equal treatment.
Provinces, of course, would still be free to set their own rates -- but led by federal example they might be persuaded to give an equal reward to companies that choose to stay and invest in their people rather than outsource to Third World contries.
So far, Stephen Harper only has enough imagination to cut the federal rate to 19%, which quite frankly is still too high compared to who we have to compete with. When provincial rates are tacked on, it's still much higher. We need some more imagination than that. I firmly believe we can remain fiscally responsible and generate the same kinds of revenues, if only we change the focus of profit-making from benefitting the shareholders only to creating the conditions for full employment so both employees and stockbearers prosper. For me that means no more corporate welfare.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Ken Lay dies
He may have escaped the justice of humans by dying before his earthly sentence, but he won't be able to escape the judgement of the Lord.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
If it was no insurance, I'd be banned from driving, but parking fines ...
The City of Toronto said they're having an impossible time trying to collect parking fines from people visiting the city from out of province. They say people from Alberta are the worst scofflaws when it comes to illegally parking in Toronto, but they also have consistent problems with people from British Columbia, Québec and New York State, among other jurisdictions. I'm not really surprised though; years ago I travelled to Prince Edward Island and at a gas station in New Brunswick someone had chucked their parking ticket from Halifax, Nova Scotia.
When Toronto approached those other jurisdictions and others to go after the violators, most flatly said they wouldn't cooperate at all, while others wanted a commission to share vehicle registration information. The only ones that would agree to go after the law-breakers for free were New York, Pennsylvania and Maine. Note that no Canadian province was among them.
This is amazing. The 407 toll road is vicious in going after out-of-province users, as well as those within it. Ontario has reciprocity with a number of jurisdictions on moving violations and insurance requirements. In fact, neighbouring New York bans drivers from out of state for one year if they're not carrying the minimum insurance requirements.
Closer to home, if I let a parking ticket lapse here, I couldn't renew my license.
But other than property taxes, parking fines and public museum fees are just about the only source of revenue cities have. Until the provinces start allowing them to charge hotel taxes, for instance, they need that money badly. If we want to do convention business with those other places, they should at least owe us some courtesy and play with us on this one. The law is the law, and just because your license plate is from another jurisdiction doesn't give you immunity.
Unless of course, you're a diplomat; and you drive drunk and kill someone.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
When Toronto approached those other jurisdictions and others to go after the violators, most flatly said they wouldn't cooperate at all, while others wanted a commission to share vehicle registration information. The only ones that would agree to go after the law-breakers for free were New York, Pennsylvania and Maine. Note that no Canadian province was among them.
This is amazing. The 407 toll road is vicious in going after out-of-province users, as well as those within it. Ontario has reciprocity with a number of jurisdictions on moving violations and insurance requirements. In fact, neighbouring New York bans drivers from out of state for one year if they're not carrying the minimum insurance requirements.
Closer to home, if I let a parking ticket lapse here, I couldn't renew my license.
But other than property taxes, parking fines and public museum fees are just about the only source of revenue cities have. Until the provinces start allowing them to charge hotel taxes, for instance, they need that money badly. If we want to do convention business with those other places, they should at least owe us some courtesy and play with us on this one. The law is the law, and just because your license plate is from another jurisdiction doesn't give you immunity.
Unless of course, you're a diplomat; and you drive drunk and kill someone.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Tuesday, July 4, 2006
Putz of Pyongyang fires missles; Dubya should have gone after North Korea FIRST
Remember the phrase "axis of evil," uttered by Dubya but in fact coined by Canadian David Frum? They were supposed to represent the three worst countries in the world, in the minds of the neo-cons, the countries most desperately in need of regime change: Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
There was no real reason to go after Iraq and Iran other than for their oil. North Korea, however, is a different story. It does pose a serious threat to its neighbours, including South Korea, China and Japan. And it's really been no secret that they've had a nuclear weapons program -- I learned in high school they had weapons twenty years ago. No matter what the international community says, this should have been no surprise to anyone.
As late as last night, the White House was telling everyone that the Putz of Pyongyang, Kim Jong-Il, wasn't serious when he said that they were going to launch a missile. Yet this afternoon, that's exactly what Kim did. In fact, he fired six of them.
If he had it to do all over again, I suspect Dubya would be wishing now he went after North Korea first and liberated it. It would have beeen a far more worthwhile cause -- after all, the country has been in famine for over a decade, and the Korean people on both sides of the DMZ belong together no less than the Germans do. That's what I would have done -- after all, anyone who leads a personality cult of the scale that Kim runs deserves to be sent to the Hague for war crimes prosecution.
But it's too late to do a do-over, and on top of trying to control a civil war in Iraq he now has to deal with this. If he's willing to solicit advice from even a few members of the progressive movement, it would be this: No appeasement, period. It didn't work with Hitler. It won't work with Kim. The only difference is that this time around, Kim actually does have the bomb. And Seoul is just 50 km or so away from the DMZ.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
There was no real reason to go after Iraq and Iran other than for their oil. North Korea, however, is a different story. It does pose a serious threat to its neighbours, including South Korea, China and Japan. And it's really been no secret that they've had a nuclear weapons program -- I learned in high school they had weapons twenty years ago. No matter what the international community says, this should have been no surprise to anyone.
As late as last night, the White House was telling everyone that the Putz of Pyongyang, Kim Jong-Il, wasn't serious when he said that they were going to launch a missile. Yet this afternoon, that's exactly what Kim did. In fact, he fired six of them.
If he had it to do all over again, I suspect Dubya would be wishing now he went after North Korea first and liberated it. It would have beeen a far more worthwhile cause -- after all, the country has been in famine for over a decade, and the Korean people on both sides of the DMZ belong together no less than the Germans do. That's what I would have done -- after all, anyone who leads a personality cult of the scale that Kim runs deserves to be sent to the Hague for war crimes prosecution.
But it's too late to do a do-over, and on top of trying to control a civil war in Iraq he now has to deal with this. If he's willing to solicit advice from even a few members of the progressive movement, it would be this: No appeasement, period. It didn't work with Hitler. It won't work with Kim. The only difference is that this time around, Kim actually does have the bomb. And Seoul is just 50 km or so away from the DMZ.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
What I would give the jerks who urinated on the National War Memorial
There's only so much I can tolerate, and this crosses the line even for me. Were I judge, this would be my sentence:
Five years, hard labour, 12 hours a day, seven days a week -- with solitary confinment in the off-hours. No parole, no weekend passes, no TV, no newspapers, no internet, and no family or conjugal visits.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Five years, hard labour, 12 hours a day, seven days a week -- with solitary confinment in the off-hours. No parole, no weekend passes, no TV, no newspapers, no internet, and no family or conjugal visits.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Monday, July 3, 2006
Reforming Canada's tax system: Personal income taxes
This past weekend, just as Canadians were marking a 1 percent cut in the Goods and Services Tax, we also got a not-so pleasant surprise: A one-half percent rise in the lowest income tax tier to 15.5%. Because we have a progressive tax system, every working Canadian rich or poor was hit by this -- and it will mean an average of $170 per Canadian more will go into federal coffers.
The Conservatives claim this was a tax cut from last fall's "mini-budget" as the House of Commons never passed the budget into law. The budget may not have been passed, true, but the Harperites voted against a Ways and Means Motion that the Liberals, NDP and Bloc supported that cut the rate from 16% to 15% -- and a W & M motion gives the government the authority to raise or lower taxes even if the budget itself hasn't passed. So to say the tax cut wasn't passed is actually a lie.
To add insult to injury, the Basic Exemption was also cut by $400, which means we start paying taxes at an even lower level of income -- a patently ridiculous $8649.
Not to mention the Harper government also has given us a whole bunch of new tax credits that while sounding large on the surface amount to a hill of beans. A five hundred dollar sports equipment credit, for example, is really only $77.50 since the credit is applied at the lowest tax rate. Similar credits are being doled out for public transit paseses, the cost of books at university, and equipment and clothing allowances for work. Peanuts compared to the stated amounts.
Incredible for a party that once championed the flat tax which, in its purest form, works on the presumption that deductions suck. (Alberta does have a flat tax per se; but it's really more of a flat rate, based on the federal definition of taxable income and even then is subject to the same barrage of non-refundable credits that also exist federally before arriving at the final total.)
I could write a lengthy essay about what I think should be done, but I prefer to keep it short and simple. While in the long run, I think a flat tax would make the most sense, I also believe in the short term it is simply not sustainable as long as we have a debt we still need to finance.
So here's what I would do. Seven bold, radical steps.
First, I would raise the exemption substantially -- to $20,000. The spousal amount, which is currently much less than the personal amount, would also go to $20,000. This would eliminate the "marriage penalty" that favours two income families over single parents and stay at home mothers and put all families on a level playing field. It would also ensure many working families don't pay taxes at all -- even before a much more enhanced child tax benefit which will be discussed in a later post.
Second, there would be only three tax rates (from the current four), they'd be lower than the rates that exist right now, and the income thresholds much higher. One jumps into the second tier at 22% after hitting just $36,413 something, which is nuts. Instead I'd set the first rate at 10% on incomes up to $100,000; 15% for earnings from $100,001 to $200,000; and 20% on anything over $200,000.
Third, and to recover much of the revenues that would otherwise be lost by the lower rates, I would get rid of some of the more frivolous deductions that exist out there. Some of the ones introduced this year are just some examples; but I'd make corresponding changes on the business side and get rid of such things as the deduction for a reserved parking space. Tax shelters, such as labour sponsored investment funds, would also be subject to review to see if they're meeting their policy objectives. If they aren't, they'll no longer be sheltered. Of course, RRSPs and company pension plan contributions would still be deductible.
Fourth, to help students, I would roll together the education and "book" amounts, then hike it again, substantially -- to $1000 per month for full time students and $500 for part time. If a student wants to transfer his or her deduction for tuition plus the monthly allowances to a parent, grandparent or spouse, I'd double the maximum transfer to $10,000. A student could also now choose to transfer the deduction to a sibling, if he or she has claimed him or her as the "equivalent to spouse" for that year as the law currently allows one to do. (If, of course, a student wanted to keep the excess for themselves for another year, he or she could still do so.)
Fifth, all deductions and allowances that would survive (including the child care deduction, the northern residents allowance and the disability amount) would be indexed for inflation every year. Some of the amounts haven't changed since 1985 -- the cost of living, of course, has gone up substantially. I'd also set the amounts at a more reasonable level with indexing to take place from that point. So among other things, the northern deduction would double to $30 a day right away; the maximum deduction for child care expenses would go from the current levels of $4,000 to 10,000 (which vary depending on a child's age and whether he or she is disabled) to $8,000 to 20,000; and the disability amount would go all the way up from the current $6800 or so to a far more appropriate $20,000 -- the same as what I suggest the exemption should be.
Sixth, a couple may file a joint return if it would be more tax advantageous to do so. In case of tax evasion, however, strict rules would be put in place so only the evading partner -- not both -- would be held liable.
Seventh, indexing which is currently based on the consumer price index (CPI) should instead be an average of CPI and average labour wage rate increases, since labour contracts tend to outpace inflation. This would protect workers who aren't part of unions as well as pensioners who actually see their lifestyle fall behind those who are so lucky.
In short, the goal is to keep it short and simple -- KISS. In my opinion there is little reason why the form shouldn't be much longer than two pages. But a maximum of four would be far more reasonable than the average of 20 that a Canadian must file every year just for the federal taxes -- let alone what the provinces pile on.
What do you think? Do you have some better ideas? Feel free to leave your comments.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
The Conservatives claim this was a tax cut from last fall's "mini-budget" as the House of Commons never passed the budget into law. The budget may not have been passed, true, but the Harperites voted against a Ways and Means Motion that the Liberals, NDP and Bloc supported that cut the rate from 16% to 15% -- and a W & M motion gives the government the authority to raise or lower taxes even if the budget itself hasn't passed. So to say the tax cut wasn't passed is actually a lie.
To add insult to injury, the Basic Exemption was also cut by $400, which means we start paying taxes at an even lower level of income -- a patently ridiculous $8649.
Not to mention the Harper government also has given us a whole bunch of new tax credits that while sounding large on the surface amount to a hill of beans. A five hundred dollar sports equipment credit, for example, is really only $77.50 since the credit is applied at the lowest tax rate. Similar credits are being doled out for public transit paseses, the cost of books at university, and equipment and clothing allowances for work. Peanuts compared to the stated amounts.
Incredible for a party that once championed the flat tax which, in its purest form, works on the presumption that deductions suck. (Alberta does have a flat tax per se; but it's really more of a flat rate, based on the federal definition of taxable income and even then is subject to the same barrage of non-refundable credits that also exist federally before arriving at the final total.)
I could write a lengthy essay about what I think should be done, but I prefer to keep it short and simple. While in the long run, I think a flat tax would make the most sense, I also believe in the short term it is simply not sustainable as long as we have a debt we still need to finance.
So here's what I would do. Seven bold, radical steps.
First, I would raise the exemption substantially -- to $20,000. The spousal amount, which is currently much less than the personal amount, would also go to $20,000. This would eliminate the "marriage penalty" that favours two income families over single parents and stay at home mothers and put all families on a level playing field. It would also ensure many working families don't pay taxes at all -- even before a much more enhanced child tax benefit which will be discussed in a later post.
Second, there would be only three tax rates (from the current four), they'd be lower than the rates that exist right now, and the income thresholds much higher. One jumps into the second tier at 22% after hitting just $36,413 something, which is nuts. Instead I'd set the first rate at 10% on incomes up to $100,000; 15% for earnings from $100,001 to $200,000; and 20% on anything over $200,000.
Third, and to recover much of the revenues that would otherwise be lost by the lower rates, I would get rid of some of the more frivolous deductions that exist out there. Some of the ones introduced this year are just some examples; but I'd make corresponding changes on the business side and get rid of such things as the deduction for a reserved parking space. Tax shelters, such as labour sponsored investment funds, would also be subject to review to see if they're meeting their policy objectives. If they aren't, they'll no longer be sheltered. Of course, RRSPs and company pension plan contributions would still be deductible.
Fourth, to help students, I would roll together the education and "book" amounts, then hike it again, substantially -- to $1000 per month for full time students and $500 for part time. If a student wants to transfer his or her deduction for tuition plus the monthly allowances to a parent, grandparent or spouse, I'd double the maximum transfer to $10,000. A student could also now choose to transfer the deduction to a sibling, if he or she has claimed him or her as the "equivalent to spouse" for that year as the law currently allows one to do. (If, of course, a student wanted to keep the excess for themselves for another year, he or she could still do so.)
Fifth, all deductions and allowances that would survive (including the child care deduction, the northern residents allowance and the disability amount) would be indexed for inflation every year. Some of the amounts haven't changed since 1985 -- the cost of living, of course, has gone up substantially. I'd also set the amounts at a more reasonable level with indexing to take place from that point. So among other things, the northern deduction would double to $30 a day right away; the maximum deduction for child care expenses would go from the current levels of $4,000 to 10,000 (which vary depending on a child's age and whether he or she is disabled) to $8,000 to 20,000; and the disability amount would go all the way up from the current $6800 or so to a far more appropriate $20,000 -- the same as what I suggest the exemption should be.
Sixth, a couple may file a joint return if it would be more tax advantageous to do so. In case of tax evasion, however, strict rules would be put in place so only the evading partner -- not both -- would be held liable.
Seventh, indexing which is currently based on the consumer price index (CPI) should instead be an average of CPI and average labour wage rate increases, since labour contracts tend to outpace inflation. This would protect workers who aren't part of unions as well as pensioners who actually see their lifestyle fall behind those who are so lucky.
In short, the goal is to keep it short and simple -- KISS. In my opinion there is little reason why the form shouldn't be much longer than two pages. But a maximum of four would be far more reasonable than the average of 20 that a Canadian must file every year just for the federal taxes -- let alone what the provinces pile on.
What do you think? Do you have some better ideas? Feel free to leave your comments.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Sunday, July 2, 2006
More on the Miracle Channel, and the company they keep
In the latest post at The Miracle Channel Review, Tim Thibault writes about the conviction of Gregory Setser who defrauded thousands in a classic Ponzi scheme -- including televangelist Benny Hinn (although the self-proclaimed "Pastor" claims he made a profit before he smelled a rat and bailed out). There is a Canadian connection, as several allies of Setser are now facing investigation by the BC Securities Commission. Those suspected also happen to be highly respected by Dick Dewert of Lethbridge TV station CJIL, a.k.a. The Miracle Channel.
It's a great post. The larger point Tim makes, as he has for well over a year, is how the "Word of Faith" movement that outlets like CJIL champion plays on people's hopes and fears; demanding money for a reward from God, claiming if a person gets sick again after a remission it's because he or she has "lost their faith," and either ridiculing or condemning those who use discernment and question the very underpinnings of the Health and Wealth gospel.
Tim writes, in part:
For my part, I'd like to know how it is that some people view the late Kenneth E. Hagin as a prophet, when he was exposed as a plagarist over two decades ago -- lifting entire passages verbatim from E.W. Kenyon and John A MacMillan; how Benny Hinn and other faith healers are viewed as the "annointed" when in fact they're nothing except the successors to Franz Mesmer; and how they twist even the most commonly accepted historical facts (such as this claim that Jesus was duped by Judas -- even though the Bible plainly teaches the Man from Galilee already knew who was going to betray him).
As ever, I support the presumption of innocence. However, I also believe that one can be assessed not only by the fruits of one's labour but also by the company he or she keeps. Leading people down a garden path to salvation then shooting them down and saying they are condemned because they didn't keep their faith is one of the reasons so many are disillusioned with religion in general and why many have turned to the various forms of the occult -- from horoscopes to overt practice of Wicca. To add salt to the wound and say certain otherwise regarded people are one's friends makes one think the whole world is against them.
As Christians, we may have differences of opinion about some of the more obscure points of theology. Admittedly, there some issues that I have with the Catholic Church that I belong to.
There should be no quarrel, however, over the Twelve Articles of Faith as presented in the Nicene Creed. Those who question the plain truths defined in any one of them is, by definition, either is not a Christian or is one who has lost his or her way. Which pretty much describes how I feel about many of the personalities that populate the outlets which we pretty much have no choice to receive, but get as part of "must carry" rules.
Keep it up, Tim. I still have hope, dim as it may be, that Team Dewert and those they associate with will see the light. Something's got to give.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Comments:
Belmont Manitoba 2009 High ...wrote:
Tim says it like you say it - direct and to the point, without fear. Thank God for him, and for folks like you. Time and the courts will determine whether Wes Campbell is guilty of the charges, but I suspect his wife Stacey must have turned off her spiritual discernment when it came to the Ponzi scheme - God does move in mysterious ways. How does New Life Church reconcile the fact that their #1 prophet appears to have screwed up? They haven't seen fit to answer my e-mails questioning why none of this is mentioned in the website.
July 24 / 06
It's a great post. The larger point Tim makes, as he has for well over a year, is how the "Word of Faith" movement that outlets like CJIL champion plays on people's hopes and fears; demanding money for a reward from God, claiming if a person gets sick again after a remission it's because he or she has "lost their faith," and either ridiculing or condemning those who use discernment and question the very underpinnings of the Health and Wealth gospel.
Tim writes, in part:
The difficulty in bringing these impostors to justice is that within their “Christian” organization, there is no official investment firm or business whose sole purpose is wealth building for its clients. When companies such as IPIC and Amber Investments are perceived to be a fraudulent sham, they are investigated and if the investigation reveals convincing evidence, they are then brought to trial. But when Christian ministries such as the Miracle Channel or Storehouse Ministries (Clive Pick) make promises of wealth transfer, divine healing, favor, etc., in exchange for donations (an “investment” into the “kingdom” or the “releasing of a seed”) and the promised return does not transpire, the religious huckster gets the money AND gets off scott-free. The victims are left worse off than before, blaming themselves (because they have been conditioned by these same ministries to believe it’s their fault) for not receiving their promised return from God.
For my part, I'd like to know how it is that some people view the late Kenneth E. Hagin as a prophet, when he was exposed as a plagarist over two decades ago -- lifting entire passages verbatim from E.W. Kenyon and John A MacMillan; how Benny Hinn and other faith healers are viewed as the "annointed" when in fact they're nothing except the successors to Franz Mesmer; and how they twist even the most commonly accepted historical facts (such as this claim that Jesus was duped by Judas -- even though the Bible plainly teaches the Man from Galilee already knew who was going to betray him).
As ever, I support the presumption of innocence. However, I also believe that one can be assessed not only by the fruits of one's labour but also by the company he or she keeps. Leading people down a garden path to salvation then shooting them down and saying they are condemned because they didn't keep their faith is one of the reasons so many are disillusioned with religion in general and why many have turned to the various forms of the occult -- from horoscopes to overt practice of Wicca. To add salt to the wound and say certain otherwise regarded people are one's friends makes one think the whole world is against them.
As Christians, we may have differences of opinion about some of the more obscure points of theology. Admittedly, there some issues that I have with the Catholic Church that I belong to.
There should be no quarrel, however, over the Twelve Articles of Faith as presented in the Nicene Creed. Those who question the plain truths defined in any one of them is, by definition, either is not a Christian or is one who has lost his or her way. Which pretty much describes how I feel about many of the personalities that populate the outlets which we pretty much have no choice to receive, but get as part of "must carry" rules.
Keep it up, Tim. I still have hope, dim as it may be, that Team Dewert and those they associate with will see the light. Something's got to give.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Comments:
Belmont Manitoba 2009 High ...wrote:
Tim says it like you say it - direct and to the point, without fear. Thank God for him, and for folks like you. Time and the courts will determine whether Wes Campbell is guilty of the charges, but I suspect his wife Stacey must have turned off her spiritual discernment when it came to the Ponzi scheme - God does move in mysterious ways. How does New Life Church reconcile the fact that their #1 prophet appears to have screwed up? They haven't seen fit to answer my e-mails questioning why none of this is mentioned in the website.
July 24 / 06
Saturday, July 1, 2006
Canadians, less and less, remember their history
On this the 139th birthday of the Canadian federation, I wonder as do others how many know about Canada's history. Quite a few know not much, it seems.
A few years back, the Dominion Institute had a survey testing Canadians and Americans on their knowledge of civics. I doubt the numbers have changed much. In sum:
A few years back, the Dominion Institute had a survey testing Canadians and Americans on their knowledge of civics. I doubt the numbers have changed much. In sum:
- 90% of Americans knew their first President was George Washington; but only 54% of Canadians knew John A. MacDonald was their first Prime Minister.
- 87% of Americans knew America's founding principles are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"; whereas only 41% of Canadians knew Canada's founding doctrine was "peace, order and good government."
- 61% of Americans knew their year of independence was 1776; only 45% of Canadians knew Canada won home rule in 1867.
- In an ironic twist, far more Canadians than Americans knew the first US citizen in space was Alan Shepard (33% to 14%).
It hasn't gotten much better since then. The most recent survey of Canadian knowledge of their history that I can find -- for 2005 -- showed only 8% of Canadians remember the National Energy Policy and only 5% know their country's first political crisis was the Pacific Scandal (which involved kickbacks in the building of the first transcontinental railway). On the other hand, 74% knew Eaton's (which was later melded into Sears) had both the first catalogue and the first money-back guarantee in North America.
Back in high school, I had to take a compulsory course in Canadian history. It was fine for what it was, but we actually spent more time talking about the Holocaust; than we did about Beaumont-Hamel, Vimy Ridge, Dieppe, Normandy and Appeldorn. Combined. Not that the massacre of over 11 million people wasn't important, but I would have wanted to learn more about both our triumphs as well as our failures. The internment of Japanese and Italian Canadians during World War II was reduced to a "detail."
Further, we talked about the British North America Act but very little about what happened between the Charlottetown Conference of 1864 and the ultimate creation of Canada as we know it today. My later research -- in university -- showed it was a lot more tense than was was learned in high school.
Several years back, the government of Ontario decided that Confederation and even the period from 1900 to 1914 didn't matter anymore. So kids here don't learn about Clifford Sifton's policies that led to the mass settlement of the Prairies with immigrants; the founding of Ontario Hydro; or even the infamous Regulation 17 that banned the teaching of French in schools in this province, even as a second language (on the grounds that all Franco-Ontarians were "mentally defective.")
At the rate things are going, they'll next push the start date to 1945 -- so not only will the Holocaust be a non-fact, but so too will the Great Depression and the sad story of how the Ontario government colluded in the sexual and mental abuse of the Dionne Quintuplets.
George W Bush's entire raison d'être is he can count on Americans' ignorance of the world. He has also twisted some basic American facts as well, but a growing number of people in his country are finally realizing they're way smarter and know the truth. They remember the accomplishments as well as the drawbacks that came from the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the civil rights movement and the Great Society. And they're finding their voice again.
Canada's politicians succeed because they know that, on the contrary, we're ignorant of our history; that somehow medicare just happened and that certain presumed rights are in fact privileges. If we have any hope of getting our country back before it's destroyed, we need to learn about our triumphs and failures -- fast. We can start by making the learning Canadian history from the Vikings to today mandatory -- in every province and territory -- and encouraging kids to tell their parents the story of our country.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)