It may seem surprising that one of those calling for tax fairness in the US just happens to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Dubya tax cuts: Warren Buffett, the Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and the third richest human being on the planet. But Buffett's been complaining the middle class has been shafted for a long time. And last week, he really started to rattle his saber and said enough is enough.
To prove his point, he calculated his effective tax rate on his multimillion dollar salary: 17%. Then he asked a random sample of his office pool at the Omaha, Nebraska -- based company to crunch their own numbers. Of the 18 he picked, 15 responded and not one, not even his own secretary (who packs in a cool $60k per year), had an effective rate below 30%.
Not only does he say he's not paying enough tax, Buffett also supports keeping the inheritance tax, going against the GOP which calls for its outright repeal. Not that it's going to hit his kids anyway -- he's already decided to donate over 80% of his fortune to the foundation run by Bill and Melinda Gates.
I'd like to see him put forward some concrete proposals on how this ought to be done. Does he think the top rate should be brought back up to just under 40%, where it was during the Bill Clinton years? Where would he set the basic exemption? What should the cap be on FICA tax? (Currently, the Social Security tax for wage earners is 7.65% of income to a maximum gross of $102,000 for employees, or $7803; double that for self-employed people -- which rate is actually much higher than the combined amount Canadians pay for EI and CPP or RRQ). And of course, how would he tax capital gains and dividends? (Most of the Wall Street crowd want all capitals gains to be tax free, all capital losses ineligible as writeoffs).
Still, it's refreshing to see someone of influence go against the grain and take the side of the progressives. To say that government should be a hand up, not a hand out; and that it's those who create the wealth that should carry the burden -- not those who sell their labour for wages.
Bill Maher adds his two cents:
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Where does Harper stand against Musharraf
Pervez Musharraf -- the alleged "ally" in South Asia against terrorism, has imposed a state of emergency and fired Pakistan's chief justice knowing the country's Supreme Court was days away from saying that he couldn't serve as President and military Chief of Staff at the same time. Independent media outlets were taken off the air and the country's under martial law -- again.
The country's President says the country is facing instability. It's been like that for years and this is only going to take things worse. The world has rightly condemned the action, as it should.
What has Canada done so far? A terse statement from the Foreign Minister, Maxime Bernier, but nothing from the PM. Silence. Just the same kind of silence from Harper's office about Canadians sitting on death rows in democratic countries, Canadians who in many cases had their treaty and due process rights violated by overzealous law enforcement agents and prosecutors.
The only conclusion I can reach is that Harper thinks democracy is only for white people. And if Musharraf can get away with declaring martial law, Harper will figure out a way too -- minority Parliament be damned.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The country's President says the country is facing instability. It's been like that for years and this is only going to take things worse. The world has rightly condemned the action, as it should.
What has Canada done so far? A terse statement from the Foreign Minister, Maxime Bernier, but nothing from the PM. Silence. Just the same kind of silence from Harper's office about Canadians sitting on death rows in democratic countries, Canadians who in many cases had their treaty and due process rights violated by overzealous law enforcement agents and prosecutors.
The only conclusion I can reach is that Harper thinks democracy is only for white people. And if Musharraf can get away with declaring martial law, Harper will figure out a way too -- minority Parliament be damned.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Steve sez no to inquiry against Big Chin
In response to a question today about whether the feds were going to call an inquiry into Brian Mulroney's secret commissions, Stephen Harper said no.
"Do they really want to say that I, as prime minister, should have a free hand to launch inquiries against my predecessors?" Harper said. The PM also suggested that if they were going to reopen the books on Mulroney, then perhaps questions about the business dealings of Chrétien and Martin should also be investigated.
Frankly, I say, why not?
After all, a Prime Minister is prima inter pares, first among equals. We expect a PM to adhere to the highest ethical standards. And even when they leave office, people still address former PMs with the title even if they no longer hold it out of respect. That's because we hope, perhaps forlornly, that they still live up to those standards.
Taking $300k in several brown paper bags, or holding a controlling interest in a shipping company while taking a corporate raider approach to slashing government spending (even though such cuts were necessary) isn't exactly my idea of ethics. We need this out in the open. We should expect the answer that Harper gave -- after all he's the most secretive PM in modern times.
But that's not the answer a leader would give. A leader would put all the cards on the table -- investigate all living PMs, including an outside investigation of himself, and let the chips fall where they might. After all, Clinton ordered a probe into his and his wife's financial dealings when they were still in Little Rock. Were it not for that we never would have heard the names Paula Jones, Juanita Broaderick or Monica Lewinsky. (The common links: Vernon Jordan and Linda Tripp.)
Who's the missing link here? Guess Harper doesn't want us to know. Because the truth would humiliate a lot more people than just him and Mulroney.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
"Do they really want to say that I, as prime minister, should have a free hand to launch inquiries against my predecessors?" Harper said. The PM also suggested that if they were going to reopen the books on Mulroney, then perhaps questions about the business dealings of Chrétien and Martin should also be investigated.
Frankly, I say, why not?
After all, a Prime Minister is prima inter pares, first among equals. We expect a PM to adhere to the highest ethical standards. And even when they leave office, people still address former PMs with the title even if they no longer hold it out of respect. That's because we hope, perhaps forlornly, that they still live up to those standards.
Taking $300k in several brown paper bags, or holding a controlling interest in a shipping company while taking a corporate raider approach to slashing government spending (even though such cuts were necessary) isn't exactly my idea of ethics. We need this out in the open. We should expect the answer that Harper gave -- after all he's the most secretive PM in modern times.
But that's not the answer a leader would give. A leader would put all the cards on the table -- investigate all living PMs, including an outside investigation of himself, and let the chips fall where they might. After all, Clinton ordered a probe into his and his wife's financial dealings when they were still in Little Rock. Were it not for that we never would have heard the names Paula Jones, Juanita Broaderick or Monica Lewinsky. (The common links: Vernon Jordan and Linda Tripp.)
Who's the missing link here? Guess Harper doesn't want us to know. Because the truth would humiliate a lot more people than just him and Mulroney.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Three cents
That is what it appears to have come down to in the battle between Hollywood studios and their writers. Since it's become almost impossible to get royalties from those who share videos without attribution, the writers have offered to increase the amount studios get from legitimate DVD sales -- from five cents to eight per unit. The studios call it outrageous.
Oh really? Where are they going to work, Uzbekistan? It's not like Canada (or at least English Canada) has had a real TV industry for over a decade. And American "humour" is much more overstated than that in the UK and their job posts are pretty much full.
A certain recording artist in Canada has long criticized other Canadian stars for mostly plying their trade in the United States and thus suggests they should be ineligible for the Junos. Problem was that many of those singers were also songwriters and for years the royalty on records was one cent per unit while in the States it was 5.5 -- and it stayed that way for over two decades until the early nineties.
What, Canadians were going to plead poverty for the sake of "patriotism?" You go where the money is. For the same reason many European hockey players come to the NHL. Or why Canadian soccer players are signed up to clubs in Europe. That's why the Canadian studios finally ponied up, because even with CANCON they were on the verge of losing its soul. And it's not like every major city in Canada has a 15k + seat stadium.
Many writers are well off, but a lot of others aren't. Three cents on a DVD that costs about $25 sounds like a bargain -- provided they actually provide us with entertainment with merit, not gossip. Even direct to DVD movies should get similar consideration ... it's not like the adult entertainment business is going to die out but a lot of those films are now being made in Mexico because those studio bosses have become cheapshots too.
I'm not joining a union any time soon, but if I was an actor or a TV host, I'd abide by Rule One: Everyone has a contract or no one works. If the actors have to ad lib during the Oscars or Golden Globes, tough.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Oh really? Where are they going to work, Uzbekistan? It's not like Canada (or at least English Canada) has had a real TV industry for over a decade. And American "humour" is much more overstated than that in the UK and their job posts are pretty much full.
A certain recording artist in Canada has long criticized other Canadian stars for mostly plying their trade in the United States and thus suggests they should be ineligible for the Junos. Problem was that many of those singers were also songwriters and for years the royalty on records was one cent per unit while in the States it was 5.5 -- and it stayed that way for over two decades until the early nineties.
What, Canadians were going to plead poverty for the sake of "patriotism?" You go where the money is. For the same reason many European hockey players come to the NHL. Or why Canadian soccer players are signed up to clubs in Europe. That's why the Canadian studios finally ponied up, because even with CANCON they were on the verge of losing its soul. And it's not like every major city in Canada has a 15k + seat stadium.
Many writers are well off, but a lot of others aren't. Three cents on a DVD that costs about $25 sounds like a bargain -- provided they actually provide us with entertainment with merit, not gossip. Even direct to DVD movies should get similar consideration ... it's not like the adult entertainment business is going to die out but a lot of those films are now being made in Mexico because those studio bosses have become cheapshots too.
I'm not joining a union any time soon, but if I was an actor or a TV host, I'd abide by Rule One: Everyone has a contract or no one works. If the actors have to ad lib during the Oscars or Golden Globes, tough.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
AMBER Alert
An AMBER Alert has been issued for a newborn baby kidnapped from a hospital in Sudbury, Ontario. Information here. If you have any tips, call 911.
UPDATE (9:09 PM EDT, 0109 Friday GMT): The kid's been found, safe and sound. Thank God.
UPDATE (9:09 PM EDT, 0109 Friday GMT): The kid's been found, safe and sound. Thank God.
Al Campanis wins moral victory from grave
In 1987, Ted Koeppel (then host of Nightline) unexpectedly created a news story that came close to eclipsing the Iran-contra hearings that year. On April 15th, Koeppel interviewed Al Campanis, general manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers. It was the 40th anniversary of Jackie Robinson "breaking the colour barrier" in the majors (although technically Robinson actually busted it a year earlier in the minors for the Montréal Royals). Koeppel asked a legitimate question -- why none of the then 26 Major League teams had a visible minority person as field manager -- or working in a meaningful position in the front office.
On live television -- unedited, unscripted -- Campanis had the gall to suggest blacks didn't have the necessities -- the quote was, blacks "may not have some of the necessities to be, let's say, a field manager, or, perhaps, a general manager" for these positions. Later in the interview he demurred that blacks are often poor swimmers "because they don't have the buoyancy." When Koeppel gave Campanis numerous opportunities to clarify or back track, Campanis made it worse. Two days later, Campanis was fired.
It's 2007. And the Dodgers caught a break from none other the Commissioner of Baseball, Bud Selig. The team was granted an exemption from a rule introduced as part of the backlash from the Campanis scandal -- that teams must list minority candidates they plan to interview, seriously, for management or coaching posts. Since the Dodgers had every intention to hire Joe Torre and not honestly consider anyone else, Selig decided there was no point into forcing the Dodgers into doing sham interviews. They're not the first to get such an exemption -- perhaps it's because the Dodgers have a better employment record for minorities than most other teams -- but that's no excuse.
Torre's a good coach, no doubt; but surely there are some blacks out there who deserve a change to compete in the marketplace and who should have been at least given a chance to present their credentials and how they'd set up crucial plays. Besides, it's not necessarily coaches that make bad teams on the field -- it's the players themselves who screw up and put the I in a team where there is no lower case "j."
Campanis must be smiling from hell. Along with Adolf Hitler, who must feel vindicated after getting humiliated by several black athletes during the Berlin Olympics in 1936 -- including John Woodruff, the 800 metre winner, who died two days ago.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
On live television -- unedited, unscripted -- Campanis had the gall to suggest blacks didn't have the necessities -- the quote was, blacks "may not have some of the necessities to be, let's say, a field manager, or, perhaps, a general manager" for these positions. Later in the interview he demurred that blacks are often poor swimmers "because they don't have the buoyancy." When Koeppel gave Campanis numerous opportunities to clarify or back track, Campanis made it worse. Two days later, Campanis was fired.
It's 2007. And the Dodgers caught a break from none other the Commissioner of Baseball, Bud Selig. The team was granted an exemption from a rule introduced as part of the backlash from the Campanis scandal -- that teams must list minority candidates they plan to interview, seriously, for management or coaching posts. Since the Dodgers had every intention to hire Joe Torre and not honestly consider anyone else, Selig decided there was no point into forcing the Dodgers into doing sham interviews. They're not the first to get such an exemption -- perhaps it's because the Dodgers have a better employment record for minorities than most other teams -- but that's no excuse.
Torre's a good coach, no doubt; but surely there are some blacks out there who deserve a change to compete in the marketplace and who should have been at least given a chance to present their credentials and how they'd set up crucial plays. Besides, it's not necessarily coaches that make bad teams on the field -- it's the players themselves who screw up and put the I in a team where there is no lower case "j."
Campanis must be smiling from hell. Along with Adolf Hitler, who must feel vindicated after getting humiliated by several black athletes during the Berlin Olympics in 1936 -- including John Woodruff, the 800 metre winner, who died two days ago.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Mulroney got kickbacks, Schreiber sez
With absolutely nothing to lose, Karlheinz Schreiber facing extradition from Canada said tonight that Brian Mulroney did in fact receive kickbacks from a number of sources including the Airbus sale to Air Canada -- although Mulroney didn't know about where the money came from. $300,000 worth. And while Mulroney did eventually disclose the payments and paid back taxes he and Schreiber jumped hoops to say what the money was supposed to be for -- consulting, exploring peacekeeping opportunities, and so forth.
This calls for a judicial inquiry. And if there's any evidence -- any at all -- that Mulroney was less than truthful he should be compelled to pay back the $2.1 million in legal expenses we had to pay to him when the Chrétien government "apologized."
Oh -- interesting footnote. At the end of the 5th Estate report, Linden McIntyre noted the Swiss are upset the Germans have been using sub poenaed Swiss bank account information to pursue tax evasion charges and want them to stop. Only thing with that -- not mentioned by Linden -- is that Switzerland is scheduled to join the Schengen Area next year (the borderless part of Europe, that is) and with open borders will come compulsory information sharing on security and criminal issues. The idea of bank secrecy in Europe is pretty much over unless you want to go next door to Liechtenstein.
Mulroney, who was just starting to regain a bit of class, is starting to look like the creep most of us thought he always was. And that's a truly pathetic notion.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
This calls for a judicial inquiry. And if there's any evidence -- any at all -- that Mulroney was less than truthful he should be compelled to pay back the $2.1 million in legal expenses we had to pay to him when the Chrétien government "apologized."
Oh -- interesting footnote. At the end of the 5th Estate report, Linden McIntyre noted the Swiss are upset the Germans have been using sub poenaed Swiss bank account information to pursue tax evasion charges and want them to stop. Only thing with that -- not mentioned by Linden -- is that Switzerland is scheduled to join the Schengen Area next year (the borderless part of Europe, that is) and with open borders will come compulsory information sharing on security and criminal issues. The idea of bank secrecy in Europe is pretty much over unless you want to go next door to Liechtenstein.
Mulroney, who was just starting to regain a bit of class, is starting to look like the creep most of us thought he always was. And that's a truly pathetic notion.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
In memoriam: Robert Goulet (1933-2007)
You either loved him or hated him. The Toronto Sun certainly fell in the latter category -- way back when the former SkyDome hosted Wrestlemania VI, Robert Goulet was chosen to sing the Canadian National Anthem -- and the paper wryly said it had an office pool about how far Goulet could get past the word "Oh" and what he'd sing after the first word.
But Goulet, a serious actor and singer, knew how to poke fun at himself -- even doing the "naughty" version of "Jingle Bells" on The Simpsons. And that's what a true showperson does ... is graceful even when the media isn't. Can you imagine Paris or Britney, Tom or Mel having that kind of class? Ever?
Another one bites the dust -- and with it, a link to a less complicated and more optimistic time when we believed we could do anything. Today, that's only if we've born into wine, beer or oil fortunes -- or Hollywood "royalty." What was Goulet's roots? The son of a security guard at a textile mill.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
But Goulet, a serious actor and singer, knew how to poke fun at himself -- even doing the "naughty" version of "Jingle Bells" on The Simpsons. And that's what a true showperson does ... is graceful even when the media isn't. Can you imagine Paris or Britney, Tom or Mel having that kind of class? Ever?
Another one bites the dust -- and with it, a link to a less complicated and more optimistic time when we believed we could do anything. Today, that's only if we've born into wine, beer or oil fortunes -- or Hollywood "royalty." What was Goulet's roots? The son of a security guard at a textile mill.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Minibudget: C-
So Slim Jim decided to go ahead with a 1% cut in the GST after all. He's also cutting income taxes -- increasing the exemption as well as rolling back the 0.5% income tax increase he stiffed us with 18 months ago. Corporate taxes are also being cut. Pretty good.
My feeling is that he's hoping the Alberta effect can be felt nationwide. Um ... sooner or later the good times are going to end. And we could end up where we started back in the 1980s -- when Trudeau and Mulroney nearly spent Canada into oblivion, if we're not careful. I'd rather have prudence than throwing caution to the wind.
This is a "fingers-cross" mini-budget; and because it's based on high hopes and blue skies rather than pragmatism -- I give it C-.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
My feeling is that he's hoping the Alberta effect can be felt nationwide. Um ... sooner or later the good times are going to end. And we could end up where we started back in the 1980s -- when Trudeau and Mulroney nearly spent Canada into oblivion, if we're not careful. I'd rather have prudence than throwing caution to the wind.
This is a "fingers-cross" mini-budget; and because it's based on high hopes and blue skies rather than pragmatism -- I give it C-.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, October 29, 2007
My suggestions for tax cuts
Looks like Jim Flaherty is going to try to shove another 1% cut in the GST whether Canadians want it or not. Well many do want it, but the reality is it simply is the wrong headed approach to putting money back into the pocketbooks of Canadians. Here's how I'd cut taxes instead:
1) What I've said before and will say again: Transfer the taxable Harper bucks into tax free money and add it to the base amount of the Canada Child Tax Credit. Instantly you'll take several hundred thousand families off the tax rolls on a net basis. Then increase the base amount to a maximum of $5000 per child under seven (and $3500 for seven to eighteen) over four years. Several hundred thousand more families off the rolls. Those who actually work for a living.
2) Give low income seniors an equal reward that wealthier seniors got. If those with pensions got an extra $1000 tax free, then it's only fair poorer seniors who live off the Guaranteed Income Supplement get an extra $1000 per year too.
3) Eliminate the marriage penalty, entirely. Equalizing the spousal amounts was a good thing, but it should go one step further to the true meaning of making single income and dual income families equal -- as well as single parents. This should be phased in over four or five years.
4) The Working Income Supplement should be ramped up to give lower income people a real tax break -- not a six pack per week.
5) Charitable contributions should get the same tax break as political contributions. Any excess should result in a direct refund.
6) The "fitness" tax credit should be extended to include kids training in the performing arts. We need people who can think, not just be thugs on the ice rink. (Like Todd Bertuzzi, for instance.) Québec has taken this approach for its provincial taxes; it should be a national policy too.
7) Finally, broad based tax cuts over and above this should be funded through interest savings. Such cuts should go to increasing the basic exemption over and above what indexing would call for. The debt to GDP ratio is down to 36% but it needs to get down to 25% before one can even think about percentage rate cuts -- let alone a cut in the GST.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
1) What I've said before and will say again: Transfer the taxable Harper bucks into tax free money and add it to the base amount of the Canada Child Tax Credit. Instantly you'll take several hundred thousand families off the tax rolls on a net basis. Then increase the base amount to a maximum of $5000 per child under seven (and $3500 for seven to eighteen) over four years. Several hundred thousand more families off the rolls. Those who actually work for a living.
2) Give low income seniors an equal reward that wealthier seniors got. If those with pensions got an extra $1000 tax free, then it's only fair poorer seniors who live off the Guaranteed Income Supplement get an extra $1000 per year too.
3) Eliminate the marriage penalty, entirely. Equalizing the spousal amounts was a good thing, but it should go one step further to the true meaning of making single income and dual income families equal -- as well as single parents. This should be phased in over four or five years.
4) The Working Income Supplement should be ramped up to give lower income people a real tax break -- not a six pack per week.
5) Charitable contributions should get the same tax break as political contributions. Any excess should result in a direct refund.
6) The "fitness" tax credit should be extended to include kids training in the performing arts. We need people who can think, not just be thugs on the ice rink. (Like Todd Bertuzzi, for instance.) Québec has taken this approach for its provincial taxes; it should be a national policy too.
7) Finally, broad based tax cuts over and above this should be funded through interest savings. Such cuts should go to increasing the basic exemption over and above what indexing would call for. The debt to GDP ratio is down to 36% but it needs to get down to 25% before one can even think about percentage rate cuts -- let alone a cut in the GST.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Some common sense from the Captain on THC
It's hard to agree with Ed Morrissey on most things, but here's a conservative who's asking what most progressives and liberals have been asking for years -- is the so-called "War on Drugs" really worth it? To my surprise, he actually said that: "Any rational look at the costs and benefits demonstrate that it simply hasn't come close."
Of course it hasn't. The States punishes people (other than celebrities) with 93 year jail sentences for having a single joint; while executives who steal $93 million from their employees' pension plans get away with 93 days of probation -- and zero restitution. Meanwhile, the taxpayer has to pick up the burden both for overcrowded prisons and plundered retirement accounts.
Where are America's priorities? And here in Canada, it looks as though we're going in the same direction -- rewarding kingpins more while punishing casual users more.
Maybe it's just time we taxed the stuff and regulated its THC content. We have, after all, safety regulations for alcohol and tobacco while taxing them. And the government takes a huge commission off the top from lotteries and casinos and racetracks -- the other major vices in our society. For one thing, it'd put a huge hole in the black market if not eliminating it all together.
Maybe it's time we went one step further, and reformed our sex trade laws to protect the prostitutes and punish the pimps -- and also make street walking legal. The drug issue and the red light districts often get entangled in messy ways and we need to ensure safety and common sense there.
For the record, I'll say it again: I've never toked. Never even considered it. I've never gotten the appeal. But both my parents inhaled -- they admitted it to me. And that was in a then communist country. While I'm still not entirely certain about the medical efficacy of marijuana, I wonder where Canada's priorities are when simple possession of a joint in the privacy of one's home can net a harsher criminal sanction than driving under the influence of THC (the latter of which, of course, should remain illegal). Who's the greater threat?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Of course it hasn't. The States punishes people (other than celebrities) with 93 year jail sentences for having a single joint; while executives who steal $93 million from their employees' pension plans get away with 93 days of probation -- and zero restitution. Meanwhile, the taxpayer has to pick up the burden both for overcrowded prisons and plundered retirement accounts.
Where are America's priorities? And here in Canada, it looks as though we're going in the same direction -- rewarding kingpins more while punishing casual users more.
Maybe it's just time we taxed the stuff and regulated its THC content. We have, after all, safety regulations for alcohol and tobacco while taxing them. And the government takes a huge commission off the top from lotteries and casinos and racetracks -- the other major vices in our society. For one thing, it'd put a huge hole in the black market if not eliminating it all together.
Maybe it's time we went one step further, and reformed our sex trade laws to protect the prostitutes and punish the pimps -- and also make street walking legal. The drug issue and the red light districts often get entangled in messy ways and we need to ensure safety and common sense there.
For the record, I'll say it again: I've never toked. Never even considered it. I've never gotten the appeal. But both my parents inhaled -- they admitted it to me. And that was in a then communist country. While I'm still not entirely certain about the medical efficacy of marijuana, I wonder where Canada's priorities are when simple possession of a joint in the privacy of one's home can net a harsher criminal sanction than driving under the influence of THC (the latter of which, of course, should remain illegal). Who's the greater threat?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Chrysler workers approve new contract -- just
56% of production workers and 51% of skilled trades -- a bare majority -- signed on to a four year contract patterned after the one at GM a few weeks back. There too, it took likes the union's going to pick up a much greater share of health care costs.
Ford is next, and its problems are pretty bleak ... so much so that the company even pledged its famous Blue Oval as collateral some time ago, according to the NYT. Ford says it can afford to pay for the health care trust's upfront costs -- which the union would then take over and run as its own -- but it's already given up Land Rover and Jaguar, two of the industry's crown jewels, and I wouldn't be surprised if Volvo is next.
Job security, or health care. That's what's coming up in a lot of union negotiations the next two years for a lot of US industries and with an election season the issue's going to get red hot. Even well-established and respected non-union companies, like John Deere (so big that it has its own finance arm that deals with much more than agricultural implements and lawnmowers; and even its own HMO -- seriously) may have to make some tough choices to make its balance sheet work; and the health care crisis and the sub-prime mortgage crisis are becoming increasingly linked in ways one could not have imagined even six months ago.
If one sees blue chip companies like Merrill Lynch write off $8 billion in bad loans -- ML, for God's sake! -- then America really is in trouble. And as much as we gloat over the strong loonie, Euro and pound, we're going to get dragged down by the US' coattails and fast unless there's decisive leadership in the US for a change; both on the economy as well as foreign policy.
And health care, too. I doubt we'll see a single payer system any time soon in the States; but "pay or play" like they have in Hawaii and Massachusetts; and in Illinois for minors, seems a definite possibility now.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Ford is next, and its problems are pretty bleak ... so much so that the company even pledged its famous Blue Oval as collateral some time ago, according to the NYT. Ford says it can afford to pay for the health care trust's upfront costs -- which the union would then take over and run as its own -- but it's already given up Land Rover and Jaguar, two of the industry's crown jewels, and I wouldn't be surprised if Volvo is next.
Job security, or health care. That's what's coming up in a lot of union negotiations the next two years for a lot of US industries and with an election season the issue's going to get red hot. Even well-established and respected non-union companies, like John Deere (so big that it has its own finance arm that deals with much more than agricultural implements and lawnmowers; and even its own HMO -- seriously) may have to make some tough choices to make its balance sheet work; and the health care crisis and the sub-prime mortgage crisis are becoming increasingly linked in ways one could not have imagined even six months ago.
If one sees blue chip companies like Merrill Lynch write off $8 billion in bad loans -- ML, for God's sake! -- then America really is in trouble. And as much as we gloat over the strong loonie, Euro and pound, we're going to get dragged down by the US' coattails and fast unless there's decisive leadership in the US for a change; both on the economy as well as foreign policy.
And health care, too. I doubt we'll see a single payer system any time soon in the States; but "pay or play" like they have in Hawaii and Massachusetts; and in Illinois for minors, seems a definite possibility now.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Colbert in 3rd place already
Is it possible we're living in a world where people are so desperate for a President who'll lead them that they'd actually vote ... for Stephen Colbert?
According to Rasmussen Reports, one of the most reliable polling firms in the States, Colbert would get 13% of the vote in a hypothetical three-way between himself, Sen. Hillary Clinton and former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani. That's just 6% points below where Ross Perot ended up finishing behind Slick Willy and the elder Bush in 1992. And Perot was a very serious candidate, whose main policy plank about reducing the deficit wound up being co-opted by Billy.
That a joke candidate could produce such strong numbers says a lot about both the quality of the candidate field (the leaders -- or rather who the Exempt Media want to be the leaders -- are crap; while the trailers with real ideas are being ignored) as well as just how important next year's results are going to be. America is facing a crisis of confidence the likes of which have only been seen three times before -- Shays' Rebellion, the Civil War and the Great Depression. Colbert of course is not a serious candidate; but the facts are simply that neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Giuliani have what it will take to guide America through the huge shakedown that's coming.
Perhaps that's the point of the exercise.
As Colbert says, "I am America, and so can you." Who will be the next guiding light; to lead Americans and the world? I'm not optimistic if the best hope right now is a guy who's running on both slates to lose on purpose.
UPDATE (Saturday 8:16 am EDT, 1216 GMT): Minor grammatical corrections. Also, thanks to all those who added me to their Facebook lists this week -- people from high school I thought I'd never hear from again.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
According to Rasmussen Reports, one of the most reliable polling firms in the States, Colbert would get 13% of the vote in a hypothetical three-way between himself, Sen. Hillary Clinton and former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani. That's just 6% points below where Ross Perot ended up finishing behind Slick Willy and the elder Bush in 1992. And Perot was a very serious candidate, whose main policy plank about reducing the deficit wound up being co-opted by Billy.
That a joke candidate could produce such strong numbers says a lot about both the quality of the candidate field (the leaders -- or rather who the Exempt Media want to be the leaders -- are crap; while the trailers with real ideas are being ignored) as well as just how important next year's results are going to be. America is facing a crisis of confidence the likes of which have only been seen three times before -- Shays' Rebellion, the Civil War and the Great Depression. Colbert of course is not a serious candidate; but the facts are simply that neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Giuliani have what it will take to guide America through the huge shakedown that's coming.
Perhaps that's the point of the exercise.
As Colbert says, "I am America, and so can you." Who will be the next guiding light; to lead Americans and the world? I'm not optimistic if the best hope right now is a guy who's running on both slates to lose on purpose.
UPDATE (Saturday 8:16 am EDT, 1216 GMT): Minor grammatical corrections. Also, thanks to all those who added me to their Facebook lists this week -- people from high school I thought I'd never hear from again.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
So what if Dumbledore was gay?
The religious right seems to have worked itself up into a lather over the bombshell last week from J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, where she stated matter of fact that one of the protagonists -- Albus Dumbledore -- was gay. On top of their already hating Potter for promoting Satanism (which Rowling clearly debunked in Deathly Hallows, where it became quite clear that the Three Musketeers were Christians all along), this must have been more ammunition in their cause to censor everything they don't like.
But what seems to have been lost is an important point: Yes, Dumbledore was gay; but he took his responsibilities seriously and his powers responsibly. And while he spent most of his career working with children and teenagers, he never abused them and did not tolerate professors under his command who even tried. So many on the right -- and even on the left -- want to make the connection between homosexuality and child abuse. And the link is not and has never been there. Most child abusers are heterosexual, not homosexual. And child abuse comes in many forms -- even the mental cruelty and manipulation that so many suffer, like Harry did at the hands of his aunt and uncle who were very straight.
So what if the headmaster was gay? Just because I'm personally opposed to gay marriage doesn't mean I try to avoid gay and lesbian couples or people who I know to be homosexual -- I work with them, go to dinner with them and get along with them just as with straight people. It's the proper thing to do. It's time we all got along because we've seen what happens when we try to divide people like the religious right wants. As Rowling wrote in Goblet of Fire, "We are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided." [p. 627, UK edition]
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
But what seems to have been lost is an important point: Yes, Dumbledore was gay; but he took his responsibilities seriously and his powers responsibly. And while he spent most of his career working with children and teenagers, he never abused them and did not tolerate professors under his command who even tried. So many on the right -- and even on the left -- want to make the connection between homosexuality and child abuse. And the link is not and has never been there. Most child abusers are heterosexual, not homosexual. And child abuse comes in many forms -- even the mental cruelty and manipulation that so many suffer, like Harry did at the hands of his aunt and uncle who were very straight.
So what if the headmaster was gay? Just because I'm personally opposed to gay marriage doesn't mean I try to avoid gay and lesbian couples or people who I know to be homosexual -- I work with them, go to dinner with them and get along with them just as with straight people. It's the proper thing to do. It's time we all got along because we've seen what happens when we try to divide people like the religious right wants. As Rowling wrote in Goblet of Fire, "We are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided." [p. 627, UK edition]
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
The haters among us
It was the 11th grade -- or it may have been the 12th. It's a long time ago now. But it's a memory from high school that is still seared like a branding iron. It's the time I got branded -- in a rather inappropriate way. Let me explain.
Maybe it's the sheltered life I had, but until I was in high school I actually had a hard time acknowledging that racism existed in Canada. I thought it was something that existed in other countries, not here. It took a while to get over that hump, so to speak -- it became obvious though when I started noticing the students of Italian origin hanging out only with each other, then the Polish students, etc. It certainly seemed to go against what I thought about what multiculturalism was supposed to be about.
But it was one day when I was walking in the hallways that one of my friends tapped me on the shoulder and said, "Hey Robert, you have something stuck on you."
I reached behind the sweater on my school uniform and after a couple of attempts managed to locate it and pull it off. I took a look at the sticker. Kind of like a Post-It. The caption on it said, "Isn't it time there was a pro-white newspaper for a change? Subscribe to the Granville Observer." And at the bottom, a number that was clearly from somewhere in British Columbia.
I had seen a sticker like it before -- someone plastered it on a window on one of the buses here in Hamilton. I just shook my head at the time and chuckled. But this time, it was personal.
Not knowing who'd pull a prank like that on me, I marched down to the vice-Principal's office -- well, there were two of them, I just picked the one that happened to be in his office at the time -- and I showed him the offending object. He said, "Thanks Robert, I'll look into it."
Like hell he did. I never saw or heard anything about it again. Which made me wonder -- was the evidence so flimsy that no one could ever be traced to it? Or was there something deeper going on? Perhaps the head honchos at the school, and the Catholic school board, supported the white identity movement?
The least they could have done is reported it as a hate crime. Bring in some of the usual suspects and ask the tough questions. I would have been happy to file a police report. But I was never asked even for something as simple as that. To this day, I still don't have an answer to why nothing was done.
Fast forward to 2007, and the present travelling royal commission in Québec on the issue of "reasonable accommodations," and the increasingly hostile atmosphere as one after another people in Québec are saying basically, "Why should we accommodate them? They moved here -- they should play by our rules." And ironically for a province that deliberately separated church and state in the 1960s, the debate is around Christianity being threatened by Orthodox Jews, Muslims and the Jehovah's Witnesses among others.
It's alarming ... but in reality it's not surprising at all. Because at the heart of the debate is what multiculturalism is supposed to be. As originally intended, it was meant to be a way to give all Canadians an equal voice regardless of race or religion; as well as to fight racism wherever and whenever it happened. In practice, it has only encouraged more segregation. And federal, provincial and local policies actually encourage the hate to continue.
One only has to take a look at the ongoing battle royale between Canadians of Croatian and Serbian origin as an example. Many Croats blame Serbs for all their problems. In turn, many Serbians claim all Croatians are neo-Nazis. One would hope people would leave their problems in the homeland, but there was at least a couple of instances in the past year where a riot broke out in the stands when the "Hamilton Croatia" and "Hamilton Serbia" soccer teams played in the regional league. And it goes on right into the shop floor and office pools. Us against them, not we're all in this together. It's like the war never ended. Because they don't want it to end.
If the Balkan War taught anything, it's that there was enough blame to go around. Atrocities were committed on all sides -- and no one can truly claim the moral high ground. It just makes me shudder that there was a protest outside the US Consulate not that long ago protesting the extradition of a suspected Croat General to the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. As if all Croatians who fought were totally innocent. Yeah right.
Some of my fellow Croatians consider me a traitor for having friendships with Bosnians and Serbians. I won't name names but you know who you are. And what gives? Really. I'll be friends with whoever I want to be friends with.
Of course, there are some legitimate grievances. The YWCA in Montréal, for instance had no reason to frost their windows so as not to offend Hasidic Jews who might be put off by exercising women. And no one should be afraid to speak out whether in print, on the screen, or in cartoon form such as the exploding Mohammad.
Let's face it, the haters among us are all of us. Every one of us is a little bit racist, sexist, whatever. It's how we deal with that that shapes who we are. And the best place to start would be on multiculturalism. Of course there's strength in diversity -- but we can't emphasize the diversity to the point where we're no longer strong. We need to make our country and our people strong. If that means turning around what we understand the term to be, so be it.
And it goes back, in part, to that sticker. Appealing to the worst sentiments in all of us, rather than to the best. Sometimes I wonder why I bother. Because if I don't marry within my "breed," I'll always be a "traitor" and my kids "half-breeds." How about something different for a change: Just calling each others Canadians, period?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Maybe it's the sheltered life I had, but until I was in high school I actually had a hard time acknowledging that racism existed in Canada. I thought it was something that existed in other countries, not here. It took a while to get over that hump, so to speak -- it became obvious though when I started noticing the students of Italian origin hanging out only with each other, then the Polish students, etc. It certainly seemed to go against what I thought about what multiculturalism was supposed to be about.
But it was one day when I was walking in the hallways that one of my friends tapped me on the shoulder and said, "Hey Robert, you have something stuck on you."
I reached behind the sweater on my school uniform and after a couple of attempts managed to locate it and pull it off. I took a look at the sticker. Kind of like a Post-It. The caption on it said, "Isn't it time there was a pro-white newspaper for a change? Subscribe to the Granville Observer." And at the bottom, a number that was clearly from somewhere in British Columbia.
I had seen a sticker like it before -- someone plastered it on a window on one of the buses here in Hamilton. I just shook my head at the time and chuckled. But this time, it was personal.
Not knowing who'd pull a prank like that on me, I marched down to the vice-Principal's office -- well, there were two of them, I just picked the one that happened to be in his office at the time -- and I showed him the offending object. He said, "Thanks Robert, I'll look into it."
Like hell he did. I never saw or heard anything about it again. Which made me wonder -- was the evidence so flimsy that no one could ever be traced to it? Or was there something deeper going on? Perhaps the head honchos at the school, and the Catholic school board, supported the white identity movement?
The least they could have done is reported it as a hate crime. Bring in some of the usual suspects and ask the tough questions. I would have been happy to file a police report. But I was never asked even for something as simple as that. To this day, I still don't have an answer to why nothing was done.
Fast forward to 2007, and the present travelling royal commission in Québec on the issue of "reasonable accommodations," and the increasingly hostile atmosphere as one after another people in Québec are saying basically, "Why should we accommodate them? They moved here -- they should play by our rules." And ironically for a province that deliberately separated church and state in the 1960s, the debate is around Christianity being threatened by Orthodox Jews, Muslims and the Jehovah's Witnesses among others.
It's alarming ... but in reality it's not surprising at all. Because at the heart of the debate is what multiculturalism is supposed to be. As originally intended, it was meant to be a way to give all Canadians an equal voice regardless of race or religion; as well as to fight racism wherever and whenever it happened. In practice, it has only encouraged more segregation. And federal, provincial and local policies actually encourage the hate to continue.
One only has to take a look at the ongoing battle royale between Canadians of Croatian and Serbian origin as an example. Many Croats blame Serbs for all their problems. In turn, many Serbians claim all Croatians are neo-Nazis. One would hope people would leave their problems in the homeland, but there was at least a couple of instances in the past year where a riot broke out in the stands when the "Hamilton Croatia" and "Hamilton Serbia" soccer teams played in the regional league. And it goes on right into the shop floor and office pools. Us against them, not we're all in this together. It's like the war never ended. Because they don't want it to end.
If the Balkan War taught anything, it's that there was enough blame to go around. Atrocities were committed on all sides -- and no one can truly claim the moral high ground. It just makes me shudder that there was a protest outside the US Consulate not that long ago protesting the extradition of a suspected Croat General to the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. As if all Croatians who fought were totally innocent. Yeah right.
Some of my fellow Croatians consider me a traitor for having friendships with Bosnians and Serbians. I won't name names but you know who you are. And what gives? Really. I'll be friends with whoever I want to be friends with.
Of course, there are some legitimate grievances. The YWCA in Montréal, for instance had no reason to frost their windows so as not to offend Hasidic Jews who might be put off by exercising women. And no one should be afraid to speak out whether in print, on the screen, or in cartoon form such as the exploding Mohammad.
Let's face it, the haters among us are all of us. Every one of us is a little bit racist, sexist, whatever. It's how we deal with that that shapes who we are. And the best place to start would be on multiculturalism. Of course there's strength in diversity -- but we can't emphasize the diversity to the point where we're no longer strong. We need to make our country and our people strong. If that means turning around what we understand the term to be, so be it.
And it goes back, in part, to that sticker. Appealing to the worst sentiments in all of us, rather than to the best. Sometimes I wonder why I bother. Because if I don't marry within my "breed," I'll always be a "traitor" and my kids "half-breeds." How about something different for a change: Just calling each others Canadians, period?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)