It used to be the CBC played a very vital role in the lives of Canadians, especially in the regions.
Then began the era of budget slashing in the 1980s. Some funding was restored in the 1990s but in the last couple of years the game has begun again. Last week, some major cuts were made to programming, including some long standing shows on CBC Radio One that provided important investigational work including the sports show The Inside Track. There are still a few bright spots, such as The Age of Persuasion (which is very educational, by the way) but that is actually produced outside by an advertising agency on contract -- a break away from when all programming was done in house. And with very very minor variations (i.e. the evening news), there's very little distinct flavour with the regions anymore.
So, I'm offering an open question I've asked before but should definitely be asked now: Should CBC / Radio-Canada go to a self-funding model of having as they have in most European countries a TV license? One obviously thinks of the BBC, which mainly relies on "the license" (currently £139.50 per year) but also has other sources of revenue including magazines tied to its many productions as well as being the UK's largest record company -- but then one only stops long enough to think of how enforcement for non-payment can be quite draconian (and both collection and enforcement is contracted to a third party no less!)
Should we go that model, with the tradeoff being less or even no advertising? Or having a mixed model with both a license and ads like in France (for the country's networks 2 through 5 -- 1 was sold off some years ago)? Incidentally, the fee in France right now is €116 in "metropolitan" France (the mainland and Corsica) and €74 in the overseas colonies (including St. Pierre - Miquelon, Mayotte and St. Martin) and is collected as part of property taxes.
I'm going to offer an open thread (with moderation, of course). Let me know what you think, including if such a model was adopted how you think it should be funded (a surcharge on income taxes, direct billed, or included as part of cable or satellite bills).
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Who's running Ontario: McGuinty or [The Scottish Play]?
In the scene in "The Scottish Play" where the body of Duncan is discovered, we see the night watchman commiserate over random things as the incessant pounding of the castle door continues and he rushes to open the gate before everyone else wakes up. One of them was about "faith, here's an equivocator who could swear in both the scales against either scale." This was a blatant reference by Shakespeare to a then recent trial where a minister of the church on trial for treason who kept giving contradictory evidence, but could not be caught up because although he wasn't exactly telling the truth, he wasn't exactly lying either.
This makes me think about Dalton McGuinty's flip-flop-flip on the minimum wage. First he says it's going up to $10.25 per hour next year. Then he said last Friday it might not go up to help Ontario businesses "stay competitive" (even though the introduction of a multi-stage value added tax next summer is supposed to address that very issue!) Today, totally humiliated, the Great Equivocator said yes, the wage increase will take place after all.
What has Ontario become? This was supposed to be a place to stand and a place to grow. Lately it's become the Land of a Thousand Idiots -- and two of them are named McGuinty and Flaherty. At least the latter is honest when he admits he wants to screw over his home province.
More and more, McGuinty has become much like Brian Mulroney in the 1980s, in the sense he has the right policies but a completely wrong way of presenting them, and a hell of a way to not keep his mouth shut when he should.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
This makes me think about Dalton McGuinty's flip-flop-flip on the minimum wage. First he says it's going up to $10.25 per hour next year. Then he said last Friday it might not go up to help Ontario businesses "stay competitive" (even though the introduction of a multi-stage value added tax next summer is supposed to address that very issue!) Today, totally humiliated, the Great Equivocator said yes, the wage increase will take place after all.
What has Ontario become? This was supposed to be a place to stand and a place to grow. Lately it's become the Land of a Thousand Idiots -- and two of them are named McGuinty and Flaherty. At least the latter is honest when he admits he wants to screw over his home province.
More and more, McGuinty has become much like Brian Mulroney in the 1980s, in the sense he has the right policies but a completely wrong way of presenting them, and a hell of a way to not keep his mouth shut when he should.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Watch group issues donor alert on Miracle Channel
My brother in Jesus Christ, Tim Thibault of Under the Son Ministries in Humboldt, Saskatchewan, has this week issued a "donor alert" about CJIL, aka The Miracle Channel. Included in his latest post are the two most recent complaints he has filed with the CRTC about the station and its on air fundraising practices and the station's responses. Note in particular within the transcripts the appeal made to Canada's First Nations.
I will not comment further either on the donor alert or the station's response, but encourage you to read the post and the attachments within and come to your own conclusions about whether the station is riding the line regarding fundraising versus proselytizing and politicking. If anyone at the station wants to add to what has already been said by Mr. Klassen in the replies to the CRTC, I will post the comment here (at the original blog, but not on Facebook where posts are cc'd), also without further comment.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I will not comment further either on the donor alert or the station's response, but encourage you to read the post and the attachments within and come to your own conclusions about whether the station is riding the line regarding fundraising versus proselytizing and politicking. If anyone at the station wants to add to what has already been said by Mr. Klassen in the replies to the CRTC, I will post the comment here (at the original blog, but not on Facebook where posts are cc'd), also without further comment.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Remember Three Mile Island?
With Earth Hour tonight (hence the dark page today), an observation of mine.
Thirty years ago today, a little movie was playing in the theatres and was struggling to get business. It was doing so poorly that many cinema owners were threatening to pull it off the screens, making it yet another in a series of Hollywood busts. Then, in a life imitates art situation, people suddenly started flocking to it and became one of the most popular movies of 1979.
That movie was The China Syndrome (which was as much about the cover up attempted in the film as the actual incidents), and the all true life event which saved it from oblivion was the "incident" at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania (near the state capital of Harrisburg) and the conflicting "explanations" about what happened in the days that followed. This, plus the public uproar over nuclear anything at the time, effectively ended any plans for new civilian nuclear plants in the United States. Not one has been built, or even considered, since, even though the population has grown by a third and demand for electricity nearly triple even that.
Right now, Pointy Head says Ontario needs more nuclear power. It's just a question of siting. While the current facilities at Darlington, Pickering and Bruce are among the obvious choices, another possibility is to place one or two reactors where there used to be a thermal (i.e. coal) plant but are now in the process of being decommissioned. They now say 2014 but the date keeps getting pushed back. It seems pretty obvious at first -- you have all those power rights of way that would be totally useless once the coal plant shuts down so just have a nuclear plant ready to go -- one goes offline the other goes on. Think of the coal plants shut down at Lakeview (Mississauga), Hearn (Toronto) and the ones still operating in Thunder Bay, Nanticoke, Lambton and Atikokan.
It's not that I'm totally against nuclear power. Many countries have proven it can be used in significant amounts, and when run properly (and that's a big if) it can be efficient. France for instance relies on nuclear for about 85% of its power, Belgium 54%, Finland 27% (and which is looking to build more so it can be less reliant on its neighbour, Russia) and the UK 20%.
The problem is that as a general rule, nuclear power has always had cost overruns just in the building of the facilities. Then you have to run them. It takes about seven years to properly train a plant operator, according to Ontario Power Generation. While our CANDU technology can handle so-called "incidents" better than reactors used in other countries, such incidents still can happen and they cost a fortune to clean up.
Plus, where do we store all the nuclear waste? Right now, for the most part, they are being stored on site, and often under very lax security. A goldmine for terrorists. Plans to bury the waste in caverns, near Las Vegas and under northern Saskatchewan, are half baked and even outright dangerous concepts. Now we learn there may be another cavern, right next to Bruce. Yeah, like residents want that in their backyard but the waste will have to go somewhere eventually; it takes 10,000 years to cool after all.
Plus, little is being said about real alternatives. What about wind, solar, biomass and geothermal? Natural gas -- isn't there a huge pool of it under Lake Erie and along the shoreline?
And how about good old energy conservation? We don't need to keep the lights on all the time now, do we? And what some department stores and supermarkets are doing today, turning off only a third or a half of their normal lighting -- well, they can do that every day, and alternate days on which lights will be turned on or off -- it's still just as bright in the stores for heaven's sake! Same in most manufacturing facilities and office pools.
As it is, Three Mile Island is still in business and is about to get another twenty year extension on its operating license. You know they'll find ways of keeping Bruce, Pickering and Darlington running well past their expiry dates and again at taxpayers' expense.
As for one of the "cleaner" alternatives, water -- well, the tunnel they're building right now to double capacity at Adam Beck in Niagara Falls is going to cost triple what they thought. There's also plenty of water power potential up north, but there are outstanding land claims still to be settled and the process could be just as acrimonious as in Northern Québec with the Cree.
I'll be the first to concede, as I have before, that nuclear will inevitably be part of the mix of power generation for the next twenty to forty years. But it should be the last option considered, not the first. There are better options for new plants, especially for Nanticoke.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thirty years ago today, a little movie was playing in the theatres and was struggling to get business. It was doing so poorly that many cinema owners were threatening to pull it off the screens, making it yet another in a series of Hollywood busts. Then, in a life imitates art situation, people suddenly started flocking to it and became one of the most popular movies of 1979.
That movie was The China Syndrome (which was as much about the cover up attempted in the film as the actual incidents), and the all true life event which saved it from oblivion was the "incident" at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania (near the state capital of Harrisburg) and the conflicting "explanations" about what happened in the days that followed. This, plus the public uproar over nuclear anything at the time, effectively ended any plans for new civilian nuclear plants in the United States. Not one has been built, or even considered, since, even though the population has grown by a third and demand for electricity nearly triple even that.
Right now, Pointy Head says Ontario needs more nuclear power. It's just a question of siting. While the current facilities at Darlington, Pickering and Bruce are among the obvious choices, another possibility is to place one or two reactors where there used to be a thermal (i.e. coal) plant but are now in the process of being decommissioned. They now say 2014 but the date keeps getting pushed back. It seems pretty obvious at first -- you have all those power rights of way that would be totally useless once the coal plant shuts down so just have a nuclear plant ready to go -- one goes offline the other goes on. Think of the coal plants shut down at Lakeview (Mississauga), Hearn (Toronto) and the ones still operating in Thunder Bay, Nanticoke, Lambton and Atikokan.
It's not that I'm totally against nuclear power. Many countries have proven it can be used in significant amounts, and when run properly (and that's a big if) it can be efficient. France for instance relies on nuclear for about 85% of its power, Belgium 54%, Finland 27% (and which is looking to build more so it can be less reliant on its neighbour, Russia) and the UK 20%.
The problem is that as a general rule, nuclear power has always had cost overruns just in the building of the facilities. Then you have to run them. It takes about seven years to properly train a plant operator, according to Ontario Power Generation. While our CANDU technology can handle so-called "incidents" better than reactors used in other countries, such incidents still can happen and they cost a fortune to clean up.
Plus, where do we store all the nuclear waste? Right now, for the most part, they are being stored on site, and often under very lax security. A goldmine for terrorists. Plans to bury the waste in caverns, near Las Vegas and under northern Saskatchewan, are half baked and even outright dangerous concepts. Now we learn there may be another cavern, right next to Bruce. Yeah, like residents want that in their backyard but the waste will have to go somewhere eventually; it takes 10,000 years to cool after all.
Plus, little is being said about real alternatives. What about wind, solar, biomass and geothermal? Natural gas -- isn't there a huge pool of it under Lake Erie and along the shoreline?
And how about good old energy conservation? We don't need to keep the lights on all the time now, do we? And what some department stores and supermarkets are doing today, turning off only a third or a half of their normal lighting -- well, they can do that every day, and alternate days on which lights will be turned on or off -- it's still just as bright in the stores for heaven's sake! Same in most manufacturing facilities and office pools.
As it is, Three Mile Island is still in business and is about to get another twenty year extension on its operating license. You know they'll find ways of keeping Bruce, Pickering and Darlington running well past their expiry dates and again at taxpayers' expense.
As for one of the "cleaner" alternatives, water -- well, the tunnel they're building right now to double capacity at Adam Beck in Niagara Falls is going to cost triple what they thought. There's also plenty of water power potential up north, but there are outstanding land claims still to be settled and the process could be just as acrimonious as in Northern Québec with the Cree.
I'll be the first to concede, as I have before, that nuclear will inevitably be part of the mix of power generation for the next twenty to forty years. But it should be the last option considered, not the first. There are better options for new plants, especially for Nanticoke.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
McGuinty: When cough medicine simply isn't drowsy enough, screw Ontario even more
So it's true except for the official announcement: Ontario will enter into negotiations with Ottawa to harmonize the two sales taxes, and it will kick in July 1, 2010.
From a business standpoint, a harmonized tax is mostly good news. First it should clear up a lot of bureaucracy since the provincial tax they pay for supplies can be deducted from the amount they collect from consumers, essentially making it tax free for the operators; second exports will immediately become less expensive (by 7.4% since they would be going back to a base of 100 and not 108) and third only one tax remittance has to be filed, not two. This last item is something harmonized jurisdiction businesses actually like, sending only one form or e-file every two weeks or four to Ottawa (in the case of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland-Labrador) or Québec City (in the case of Québec).
From a consumer standpoint, especially for lower income people, this will be a big setback even with rebate cheques of $1000 per year (which if true should really be combined with the GST cheques we're getting instead of being sent separately). And you know it's going to get the triskadekaphobics out in full force. 13% on everything? 13 -- no I don't believe the superstition but many people do.
The time to have done this was during the time the GST was actually introduced back in 1991. It would have given businesses the chance to convert to a harmonized system right then and there. We all remember the fury over conversion costs then, now they're going to have to go through the process again. And besides which, does anyone really believe that a cut in internal costs will be passed on to consumers, especially in times like these? Did Canadians get cost savings when the hidden 13.5% federal sales tax was replaced by the 7% (now 5%) GST? Inflation more than doubled to 6%, then when it settled down all too quickly, we actually went into deflation (-1%) for a year. A spiral like that now is the last thing Ontario needs.
The best part is reports this morning suggest that the province will actually wind up with less revenue overall, not more, as the result of this. All this will do is increase the fortunes of the provincial NDP. But rest assured: A tax implemented is a tax that is almost never eliminated. (The temporary "war" income tax, which has been in place since 1917, for instance -- which started as a wealth tax but quickly spread to nearly the entire population.) Not even the NDP will dare tamper with such a cash cow.
And as Alberta's oil royalties begin to become more unstable look to it to follow Ontario's example and finally impose a sales tax of its own -- also harmonized with the GST.
The pill would be a lot easier to swallow if there are some goodies in today's provincial budget -- a move to universal day care, or more money for seniors besides the paltry $250 property tax rebate and the $83 per month poor seniors get as a top up on their Old Age Security cheques. Heck, I'd be happy with a universal drug plan like Québec has.
But I'm not betting on any of those. Unless this is a budget for the people, McGuinty has lost my vote come the next election -- it will either be NDP or Green depending on my mood.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
From a business standpoint, a harmonized tax is mostly good news. First it should clear up a lot of bureaucracy since the provincial tax they pay for supplies can be deducted from the amount they collect from consumers, essentially making it tax free for the operators; second exports will immediately become less expensive (by 7.4% since they would be going back to a base of 100 and not 108) and third only one tax remittance has to be filed, not two. This last item is something harmonized jurisdiction businesses actually like, sending only one form or e-file every two weeks or four to Ottawa (in the case of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland-Labrador) or Québec City (in the case of Québec).
From a consumer standpoint, especially for lower income people, this will be a big setback even with rebate cheques of $1000 per year (which if true should really be combined with the GST cheques we're getting instead of being sent separately). And you know it's going to get the triskadekaphobics out in full force. 13% on everything? 13 -- no I don't believe the superstition but many people do.
The time to have done this was during the time the GST was actually introduced back in 1991. It would have given businesses the chance to convert to a harmonized system right then and there. We all remember the fury over conversion costs then, now they're going to have to go through the process again. And besides which, does anyone really believe that a cut in internal costs will be passed on to consumers, especially in times like these? Did Canadians get cost savings when the hidden 13.5% federal sales tax was replaced by the 7% (now 5%) GST? Inflation more than doubled to 6%, then when it settled down all too quickly, we actually went into deflation (-1%) for a year. A spiral like that now is the last thing Ontario needs.
The best part is reports this morning suggest that the province will actually wind up with less revenue overall, not more, as the result of this. All this will do is increase the fortunes of the provincial NDP. But rest assured: A tax implemented is a tax that is almost never eliminated. (The temporary "war" income tax, which has been in place since 1917, for instance -- which started as a wealth tax but quickly spread to nearly the entire population.) Not even the NDP will dare tamper with such a cash cow.
And as Alberta's oil royalties begin to become more unstable look to it to follow Ontario's example and finally impose a sales tax of its own -- also harmonized with the GST.
The pill would be a lot easier to swallow if there are some goodies in today's provincial budget -- a move to universal day care, or more money for seniors besides the paltry $250 property tax rebate and the $83 per month poor seniors get as a top up on their Old Age Security cheques. Heck, I'd be happy with a universal drug plan like Québec has.
But I'm not betting on any of those. Unless this is a budget for the people, McGuinty has lost my vote come the next election -- it will either be NDP or Green depending on my mood.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Livent operators: Guilty
I am not entirely surprised -- but there could be enough grounds for an appeal. The twosome of Drabinsky and Gottlieb now face up to fourteen years in prison. With their otherwise strong reputations, it will probably be at Club Fed and not in supermax with Paul Bernardo so it's really no sentence at all.
It's also not unreasonable to demand some kind of compensation for the stockholders who were taken for a ride and forced to sell in the end for pennies of what they were entitled to.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
It's also not unreasonable to demand some kind of compensation for the stockholders who were taken for a ride and forced to sell in the end for pennies of what they were entitled to.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Judgment in Toronto, Broadway style
In a short while, we will find out the fate of two former giants of the Canadian entertainment business and it's ... another sign I'm way too old for my thirty-six years: I remember when Live Entertainment, or Livent, was the toast of Toronto and Broadway. Beginning as a division of Cineplex ™, the guys who ran that division, Garth Drabinsky and partner Myron Gottlieb, bought out the division and restored the abandoned Pantages Theatre (later renamed the Canon ™) for the Toronto production of Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom of the Opera. I had a chance to see the show in Toronto (on a student discount while I was going to McMaster) and later my late mom and I went to the revival of Showboat (which was as close to perfection as it could get -- and we got a laugh out when we discovered one of the stars also had a recurring character on Married With Children! (Among other shows the company produced were Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, Kiss of the Spider Woman, Ragtime and Fosse).
What few knew at the time was that Livent was a troubled company almost from the start. In going over the top for its audiences, it went over the top in its finances, even after it went public. When it started losing money, mega-agent Michael Ovitz (who had just been unceremoniously fired from Walt Disney ™ with a record severance package in the nine figures -- that's NINE) was brought in to clean up the mess; and the next thing people knew Drabinsky and Gottlieb were escorted out of the company they founded.
Long story short: The Mounties and the SEC looked further into the company and have alleged the twosome falsified the true nature of the company. Among the allegations: They personally took $4.6 million in corporate funds for their personal use, and that overall the company's value was overstated by about half a billion dollars. The company was eventually sold for $98 million (peanuts) to the behemoth now known as Live Nation ™, and Drabinsky and Gottlieb are wanted in the States for failing to answer to a warrant. Here in Canada they are on trial for each of nineteen counts of fraud over $5000.
What will be the outcome? Given the Toronto Crown's recent track record, it really could go either way. The two guys made Toronto the entertainment hotspot it is today -- but did they break the rules? My sense, even if they are acquitted, there are some ethical questions that may never be answered in full. If they ever produce another show again, people may ask twice about purchasing a ticket for an event sponsored by them. Heck -- I'd rather go to Stratford anyway, what with free parking courtesy the local chamber of commerce, and the drive there is always relaxing.
Update later.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
What few knew at the time was that Livent was a troubled company almost from the start. In going over the top for its audiences, it went over the top in its finances, even after it went public. When it started losing money, mega-agent Michael Ovitz (who had just been unceremoniously fired from Walt Disney ™ with a record severance package in the nine figures -- that's NINE) was brought in to clean up the mess; and the next thing people knew Drabinsky and Gottlieb were escorted out of the company they founded.
Long story short: The Mounties and the SEC looked further into the company and have alleged the twosome falsified the true nature of the company. Among the allegations: They personally took $4.6 million in corporate funds for their personal use, and that overall the company's value was overstated by about half a billion dollars. The company was eventually sold for $98 million (peanuts) to the behemoth now known as Live Nation ™, and Drabinsky and Gottlieb are wanted in the States for failing to answer to a warrant. Here in Canada they are on trial for each of nineteen counts of fraud over $5000.
What will be the outcome? Given the Toronto Crown's recent track record, it really could go either way. The two guys made Toronto the entertainment hotspot it is today -- but did they break the rules? My sense, even if they are acquitted, there are some ethical questions that may never be answered in full. If they ever produce another show again, people may ask twice about purchasing a ticket for an event sponsored by them. Heck -- I'd rather go to Stratford anyway, what with free parking courtesy the local chamber of commerce, and the drive there is always relaxing.
Update later.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Canada's chance to invade Turks and Caicos? Uh, no
There have long been proposals -- quite serious ones, it seems -- that the Turks and Caicos Islands (which is home base for a lot of "shell" corporations) should secede from Great Britain and join Canada, specifically Nova Scotia. Those dreamers, nearly all of them Canadians, have new ammunition today with word that the TCI's PM has resigned over allegations (denied) of selling government lands for personal gain.
I just post this to point out the story is out there. But really, folks -- does anyone really want TCI to be a part of Canada? Especially those living there? They don't want to give up their currency -- the US dollar. And as long as there are outposts like the TCI, Britain can still claim to say that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" -- or what's left of it.
Besides, we all see what happens when we whites move into a black majority area and try to impose their "civilization". Blueprint: Africa, and most Caribbean states.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I just post this to point out the story is out there. But really, folks -- does anyone really want TCI to be a part of Canada? Especially those living there? They don't want to give up their currency -- the US dollar. And as long as there are outposts like the TCI, Britain can still claim to say that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" -- or what's left of it.
Besides, we all see what happens when we whites move into a black majority area and try to impose their "civilization". Blueprint: Africa, and most Caribbean states.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Canadian oil for Canadians
I wonder if Justin Trudeau, in his comfy office on The Hill, must be stewing in his own juices this morning after learning as we all have that Petro Canada (Big Daddy's creation that led directly to the creation of the western rights movement) has agreed to a "friendly" takeover by Suncor Energy. As I understand it, the US and Canadian operations of Sunoco are separate, but the fact that another Canadian created company has been divested to the wilds of American oil speculators who own most of the stock of Suncor is not a good story.
There are some legal technicalities, among them since there is only so much one entity can own in Petrocan it needs the approval of Parliament. The twosome can always get around it by having a reverse takeover where Petrocan takes over Suncor then immediately changes its name to Suncor.
Canadian oil is Canadian and should be owned and sold by Canadians. Not Americans, not Saudis, not anyone else. We may need American expertise to dig some of it up (actually, Americans are using our slant drilling knowledge to dig up theirs!), but ownership should essentially remain ours. This is a major loss of our sovereignty.
What's next? Canada joins OPEC? It's no secret that there is an invitation to do so -- but Canada does not want to be seen screwing the Americans or the EU. But the way things are going, I won't be surprised if it does happen. It would certainly make Edmonton happy to fuck the rest of Canada all over again, just by turning off the taps.
Oh yeah, it also means my points card is now totally worthless, since with the other one you only get points if you fill up with extra premium (which cost 20 t0 25 cents more per litre than regular) and which 99% of the cars on the road don't even need. Thanks a lot, motherfuckers.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
There are some legal technicalities, among them since there is only so much one entity can own in Petrocan it needs the approval of Parliament. The twosome can always get around it by having a reverse takeover where Petrocan takes over Suncor then immediately changes its name to Suncor.
Canadian oil is Canadian and should be owned and sold by Canadians. Not Americans, not Saudis, not anyone else. We may need American expertise to dig some of it up (actually, Americans are using our slant drilling knowledge to dig up theirs!), but ownership should essentially remain ours. This is a major loss of our sovereignty.
What's next? Canada joins OPEC? It's no secret that there is an invitation to do so -- but Canada does not want to be seen screwing the Americans or the EU. But the way things are going, I won't be surprised if it does happen. It would certainly make Edmonton happy to fuck the rest of Canada all over again, just by turning off the taps.
Oh yeah, it also means my points card is now totally worthless, since with the other one you only get points if you fill up with extra premium (which cost 20 t0 25 cents more per litre than regular) and which 99% of the cars on the road don't even need. Thanks a lot, motherfuckers.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Kenney: Right, and wrong on immigration
You'd think I'd find everything about the current immigration minister disagreeable with my values. However, Jason Kenney did say something that I do agree with, at least in principle: Potential new immigrants to Canada, especially in the regular class, should possess a working knowledge of English or French -- or both if planning to migrate to an area where bilingualism is essential, such as Ottawa or Montréal. While this is the law, it's often not enforced by immigration intake workers especially if there is a labour supply shortage in Canada.
However, I am disturbed by the implication of some of what the minister said about immigrants who are here (particularly in the refugee and family classes) who still don't have a demonstrable knowledge of either official language, or know just enough to pass the citizenship test. This is certainly not a uniquely Canadian problem, it has gone on for years. Adding fuel to the fire in a recession, however (i.e. implying such Canadians, and they are in the hundreds of thousands, should be deported), is not the way of going about it.
We should, however, as a society attempt to integrate newcomers with ESL or FSL programs, with training programs that reflect the actual language used in society (including slang) as well as intensive immersion programs where for a number of weeks one attempts to speak and read the new language only, including old and new media sources. That's what happens with some programs Anglophones and Anglophiles take when they go to language "boot camps" in places like Trois Pistoles, Québec -- where exposure to English is completely non existent, and you're constantly monitored, losing marks if you slip into English even accidentally. The idea is by the time you're done you're functionally bilingual.
I am sensitive to this issue as both my parents are immigrants -- my father as a political refugee. But both Mom and Dad made it a point to take ESL classes almost as soon as they got here, and while my father's delivery is still less than perfect it's enough to carry on a conversation. I do have to admit I am disturbed that there are some communities large enough that one can spend his or her entire life here not speaking a single word of English or French, if one just stays in the ghetto markets and goes to private schools in his or her "own" language only. The lack of pride in being Canadian even if in name only is a problem, that we need to address.
The way it is right now, migrants tend to gravitate to their own communities allowing them to continue to speak their home languages while integrating into Canada. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it goes against my idea of multiculturalism where we share in each others' diversity and share in our common future as Canadians; not pigeon hole ourselves each in our own corners, advertise only to our segmented communities, and so forth. The integration process would go faster is if they went in headlong first -- particularly on language. Of course they should have contacts with people among their group but not at the expense of using local, not home, languages. A mosaic is made up of many pieces, they cannot be isolated into their individual parts.
It also doesn't help, however, when classes and immigrant settlement programs are among the first to get sacrificed first on the altar of budget cuts -- so in effect, those who complain about the problem are the ones making it even worse. And of course, those who want to learn English or French can't often take those classes without affordable day care for their children, something else the Conservatives oppose (see where this is going)? Forcing them to learn the same way their kids are -- by watching stupid educational shows for pre-schoolers on the CBC or educational television.
In many EU states, you can't apply for naturalization (a non-native born gaining citizenship of his or her adopted country) unless you can prove you speak the national language well enough to function in the workplace. There are some exceptions to this: Germany, which does have a language requirement for most, does grant citizenship as a matter of course to some of the victims of Nazi atrocities (who were stripped of their statehood by Hitler) and their children and grandchildren.
Trudeau's vision of nation-wide bilingualism is a farce, except as a practical matter in the areas I mentioned above. Still is it really too much to ask for a little bit of English or French from newcomers, regardless of the class they are applying in? No, I don't, and asking applicants to take the TOEFL or the TCF is not an undue burden.
But I also don't appreciate people making the suggestion in threatening or menacing words, be they by connotation or denotation, that lack of knowledge should automatically be a disqualifying factor. Instead, we need to say, okay, we'll let you in on a work permit but you have such and such amount of time to learn English and / or French and pass the tests that prove it; if you can, then you'll get full immigrant status retroactive to the time of entry. The vast majority of applicants would take the offer, and there's no question they'd pass not one but both tests. The more immigrants that know three, four or more languages, the more competitive we then become as we sell our wares and services overseas.
With that, I'm off to church ... and one of my prayers this morning is that only saner and less bigoted thoughts will fill the halls of the Centre Block.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
However, I am disturbed by the implication of some of what the minister said about immigrants who are here (particularly in the refugee and family classes) who still don't have a demonstrable knowledge of either official language, or know just enough to pass the citizenship test. This is certainly not a uniquely Canadian problem, it has gone on for years. Adding fuel to the fire in a recession, however (i.e. implying such Canadians, and they are in the hundreds of thousands, should be deported), is not the way of going about it.
We should, however, as a society attempt to integrate newcomers with ESL or FSL programs, with training programs that reflect the actual language used in society (including slang) as well as intensive immersion programs where for a number of weeks one attempts to speak and read the new language only, including old and new media sources. That's what happens with some programs Anglophones and Anglophiles take when they go to language "boot camps" in places like Trois Pistoles, Québec -- where exposure to English is completely non existent, and you're constantly monitored, losing marks if you slip into English even accidentally. The idea is by the time you're done you're functionally bilingual.
I am sensitive to this issue as both my parents are immigrants -- my father as a political refugee. But both Mom and Dad made it a point to take ESL classes almost as soon as they got here, and while my father's delivery is still less than perfect it's enough to carry on a conversation. I do have to admit I am disturbed that there are some communities large enough that one can spend his or her entire life here not speaking a single word of English or French, if one just stays in the ghetto markets and goes to private schools in his or her "own" language only. The lack of pride in being Canadian even if in name only is a problem, that we need to address.
The way it is right now, migrants tend to gravitate to their own communities allowing them to continue to speak their home languages while integrating into Canada. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it goes against my idea of multiculturalism where we share in each others' diversity and share in our common future as Canadians; not pigeon hole ourselves each in our own corners, advertise only to our segmented communities, and so forth. The integration process would go faster is if they went in headlong first -- particularly on language. Of course they should have contacts with people among their group but not at the expense of using local, not home, languages. A mosaic is made up of many pieces, they cannot be isolated into their individual parts.
It also doesn't help, however, when classes and immigrant settlement programs are among the first to get sacrificed first on the altar of budget cuts -- so in effect, those who complain about the problem are the ones making it even worse. And of course, those who want to learn English or French can't often take those classes without affordable day care for their children, something else the Conservatives oppose (see where this is going)? Forcing them to learn the same way their kids are -- by watching stupid educational shows for pre-schoolers on the CBC or educational television.
In many EU states, you can't apply for naturalization (a non-native born gaining citizenship of his or her adopted country) unless you can prove you speak the national language well enough to function in the workplace. There are some exceptions to this: Germany, which does have a language requirement for most, does grant citizenship as a matter of course to some of the victims of Nazi atrocities (who were stripped of their statehood by Hitler) and their children and grandchildren.
Trudeau's vision of nation-wide bilingualism is a farce, except as a practical matter in the areas I mentioned above. Still is it really too much to ask for a little bit of English or French from newcomers, regardless of the class they are applying in? No, I don't, and asking applicants to take the TOEFL or the TCF is not an undue burden.
But I also don't appreciate people making the suggestion in threatening or menacing words, be they by connotation or denotation, that lack of knowledge should automatically be a disqualifying factor. Instead, we need to say, okay, we'll let you in on a work permit but you have such and such amount of time to learn English and / or French and pass the tests that prove it; if you can, then you'll get full immigrant status retroactive to the time of entry. The vast majority of applicants would take the offer, and there's no question they'd pass not one but both tests. The more immigrants that know three, four or more languages, the more competitive we then become as we sell our wares and services overseas.
With that, I'm off to church ... and one of my prayers this morning is that only saner and less bigoted thoughts will fill the halls of the Centre Block.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
The multiple double standards in the banning of George Galloway
George Galloway's banning from Canada by Immigration Minister Jason Kenney simply because the former was trying to carry £1 million of humanitarian supplies into the Gaza Strip, an area presently ruled by the democratically elected party (and listed terrorist group) Hamas, has really worked up a lather with most of my fellow ProgBloggers who have written about it: Maxwell Devin, Cliff Hesby, David Climenhaga, Bernadette Wagner, and Scott Tribe, just to name a few. Of course, the Conservatives don't have a monopoly on banning entry to those who rub them the wrong way, the Liberals did the same to Louis Farrakhan some years ago. But I disagreed with that decision (despite Farrakhan's well known anti-Semitic views) and I have to disagree with this one.
My opinion is along with the majority of my fellow (and more articulate) progressive blogging scribes: Let the guy into Canada so he can speak. Here's my sense:
He's a loudmouth, to be certain, but he poses no threat to Canada's national security. He threatens our law and order as much as Don Cherry threatens club-level ice hockey in Europe. They're never going to take his pro-fighting stance seriously (and as a journalist, if you can call him that, he can travel to any EU country so he can bash the Europeans he hates so much); any more than we would take to heart Galloway's more bombastic opinions about the situation in the Middle East and South Asia. He's wrong about much of it, but that doesn't mean he's dangerous.
For what it's worth he's also pretty inconsisent on GBLT issues: He voted to lower the age of consent for homosexuals to the same age as that of heterosexuals (21 to 16) and supports adoption rights for gay and unmarried couples, but has also taken donations from anti-gay groups.
To place Galloway in the same company as Osama Bin Laden is ridiculous. For Mr. Kenney to compare Galloway to Oliver Cromwell is laughable. (The expression used was "an infandous street corner Cromwell." I didn't even know "infandous" was a word -- but I looked it up and it means "too odious to be expressed or mentioned." Even the NY Times, which seldom mentions Canada, got a howl out of that one, and noted the word hasn't been regularly used since 1708 -- incidentally the same year Queen Anne I vetoed an Act of Parliament and the last time a royal veto has been used in the UK.) We've seen some of our citizens say some incendiary things, Don Cherry for one, but you don't see other countries banning them from travelling there. And when you limit what outsiders can say, going to the point of banning them even from sending accredited reporters to tell the story, it's only a few steps away from limiting what your own citizens can say, which inevitably happens.
Just ask the people who live in any country run by a dictatorship. Burma and Zimbabwe on an ongoing basis, for instance, where humanitarian aid is also routinely denied or confiscated by army officials. Or what happened in Beijing in 1989 after the reporters were forced to leave.
Using the same logical fallacies used to ban Mr. Galloway, one could suggest that George W. Bush should not have been allowed into Canada this week to make a speech in Calgary for starting a war that killed tens of thousands of civilians and made the humanitarian crisis there even worse -- but he was.
It can often be hard to separate a group's political and humanitarian aims. When the group is outlawed by Canada, the United States, and the European Union, it should raise more than a few alarm bells. (That's why when there is a major disaster, I usually find it safer to donate to the Red Cross or the Salvation Army, because of the general political neutrality of both in relief efforts.) But to classify the whole Gaza population as lovers of terror is wrong. To call Galloway a supporter of terror because he genuinely wants to help Gazans is stupid.
The powers that be couldn't make anything stick to him on Oil for Food because there was no story there -- the documents that maligned him were forged.
Prove that he has actually trained in a terror camp with Hamas or Hezbollah, or that he supplied arms to them, then you might convince me. Right now, there is no proof that even meets the sniff test. If Canada still had grand juries, they'd laugh the "evidence" right out of court and issue a no true bill.
There's no question there are some people who shouldn't be allowed into Canada -- a whole slew of terrorists and criminals come to mind. I don't know how long our banned list is (the number is an "official secret" but I suppose it is probably in the tens of thousands or higher, since the Schengen list of "undesirables" banned entry to the European open border zone presently totals over one million.)
And it's not like there's a precedent for personnae non grata being granted entry here -- Gerry Adams of Sinn Féin has been repeatedly allowed into Canada despite well-reputed links to the IRA, and there's no doubt that some Basque leaders who support ETA's have slipped in as the legitimate "political wing" representatives of the otherwise outlawed group. (Most Basques, it should be pointed out, are completely opposed to ETA's tactics; they want greater autonomy for their corner currently in Spain and France but not in that way.)
Canada has a large Tamil community, and many of its members regularly send remittances to the political arm of LTTE, which is an outlawed terrorist group if for no other reason than their use of child soldiers during the bloody civil war. Protesting the conditions their brothers and sisters are living in right now as the Sri Lanka army has pretty much cornered the Tamil community on the island should not be seen as terroristic -- but apparently, the Conservative government seems to think differently since Tiger flags were flown at the protest last weekend, even though you can easily get one of those flags on Craigslist or eBay.
And, the Cons seem to think that Omar Khadr, whose status at Gitmo is still up in the air, is not a child soldier. There's a nice double standard for you right there.
But Galloway certainly doesn't fit the bill. And even if he did, you just don't change the rules mid-course to satisfy your own political ends. I find much of what he stands for repulsive.
But this is just reactionism by the incumbent Canadian government, plain and simple. I say let him in and speak. To deny him just gives him the publicity he seeks. (And it also makes Canada a laughing stock, which is why I selected "humour" as one of the tags for this entry.)
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
My opinion is along with the majority of my fellow (and more articulate) progressive blogging scribes: Let the guy into Canada so he can speak. Here's my sense:
He's a loudmouth, to be certain, but he poses no threat to Canada's national security. He threatens our law and order as much as Don Cherry threatens club-level ice hockey in Europe. They're never going to take his pro-fighting stance seriously (and as a journalist, if you can call him that, he can travel to any EU country so he can bash the Europeans he hates so much); any more than we would take to heart Galloway's more bombastic opinions about the situation in the Middle East and South Asia. He's wrong about much of it, but that doesn't mean he's dangerous.
For what it's worth he's also pretty inconsisent on GBLT issues: He voted to lower the age of consent for homosexuals to the same age as that of heterosexuals (21 to 16) and supports adoption rights for gay and unmarried couples, but has also taken donations from anti-gay groups.
To place Galloway in the same company as Osama Bin Laden is ridiculous. For Mr. Kenney to compare Galloway to Oliver Cromwell is laughable. (The expression used was "an infandous street corner Cromwell." I didn't even know "infandous" was a word -- but I looked it up and it means "too odious to be expressed or mentioned." Even the NY Times, which seldom mentions Canada, got a howl out of that one, and noted the word hasn't been regularly used since 1708 -- incidentally the same year Queen Anne I vetoed an Act of Parliament and the last time a royal veto has been used in the UK.) We've seen some of our citizens say some incendiary things, Don Cherry for one, but you don't see other countries banning them from travelling there. And when you limit what outsiders can say, going to the point of banning them even from sending accredited reporters to tell the story, it's only a few steps away from limiting what your own citizens can say, which inevitably happens.
Just ask the people who live in any country run by a dictatorship. Burma and Zimbabwe on an ongoing basis, for instance, where humanitarian aid is also routinely denied or confiscated by army officials. Or what happened in Beijing in 1989 after the reporters were forced to leave.
Using the same logical fallacies used to ban Mr. Galloway, one could suggest that George W. Bush should not have been allowed into Canada this week to make a speech in Calgary for starting a war that killed tens of thousands of civilians and made the humanitarian crisis there even worse -- but he was.
It can often be hard to separate a group's political and humanitarian aims. When the group is outlawed by Canada, the United States, and the European Union, it should raise more than a few alarm bells. (That's why when there is a major disaster, I usually find it safer to donate to the Red Cross or the Salvation Army, because of the general political neutrality of both in relief efforts.) But to classify the whole Gaza population as lovers of terror is wrong. To call Galloway a supporter of terror because he genuinely wants to help Gazans is stupid.
The powers that be couldn't make anything stick to him on Oil for Food because there was no story there -- the documents that maligned him were forged.
Prove that he has actually trained in a terror camp with Hamas or Hezbollah, or that he supplied arms to them, then you might convince me. Right now, there is no proof that even meets the sniff test. If Canada still had grand juries, they'd laugh the "evidence" right out of court and issue a no true bill.
There's no question there are some people who shouldn't be allowed into Canada -- a whole slew of terrorists and criminals come to mind. I don't know how long our banned list is (the number is an "official secret" but I suppose it is probably in the tens of thousands or higher, since the Schengen list of "undesirables" banned entry to the European open border zone presently totals over one million.)
And it's not like there's a precedent for personnae non grata being granted entry here -- Gerry Adams of Sinn Féin has been repeatedly allowed into Canada despite well-reputed links to the IRA, and there's no doubt that some Basque leaders who support ETA's have slipped in as the legitimate "political wing" representatives of the otherwise outlawed group. (Most Basques, it should be pointed out, are completely opposed to ETA's tactics; they want greater autonomy for their corner currently in Spain and France but not in that way.)
Canada has a large Tamil community, and many of its members regularly send remittances to the political arm of LTTE, which is an outlawed terrorist group if for no other reason than their use of child soldiers during the bloody civil war. Protesting the conditions their brothers and sisters are living in right now as the Sri Lanka army has pretty much cornered the Tamil community on the island should not be seen as terroristic -- but apparently, the Conservative government seems to think differently since Tiger flags were flown at the protest last weekend, even though you can easily get one of those flags on Craigslist or eBay.
And, the Cons seem to think that Omar Khadr, whose status at Gitmo is still up in the air, is not a child soldier. There's a nice double standard for you right there.
But Galloway certainly doesn't fit the bill. And even if he did, you just don't change the rules mid-course to satisfy your own political ends. I find much of what he stands for repulsive.
But this is just reactionism by the incumbent Canadian government, plain and simple. I say let him in and speak. To deny him just gives him the publicity he seeks. (And it also makes Canada a laughing stock, which is why I selected "humour" as one of the tags for this entry.)
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
We never should have closed down our German bases
Last night, we learned that four more soldiers have been killed in the line of duty for Canada: Master Corporal Scott Vernelli and Corporal Tyler Crooks of November Company, 3rd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment; and Troopers Yack Bouthillier and Corey Joseph Hayes of the Royal Canadian Dragoons. Eight others were wounded and reported in "stable" condition.
That brings the total death toll to 117 -- 116 soliders and one diplomat -- killed in the line of duty since 9/11. Two Canadian aid workers have also been killed.
Obviously, it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. And it is truly infuriating that most of NATO is still not pulling its weight in Afghanistan. Only five countries have full time combat operations there right now: Canada, the US, the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands. Other countries put so many conditions for the rules of engagement for their fighting men and women that it makes joint operations that would be more effective, impossible to execute. As NATO marks 60 years next month, the success or failure of the operation could well depend on whether more countries will be persuaded to jump in.
However, there is one aspect of the situation -- the wounded -- that still bothers me.
While we have a modern field hospital at the base in Kandahar City that is fully capable of handling critical injuries -- for our troops, our allies alongside, and even our enemies who we capture as POWs -- it is, at its "base" a critical care facility (in and out, so to speak). To handle the more serious injuries that will take a longer recovery period, we have to transfer our WIAs to an American air base facility in Ramstein, Germany. Their physicians, nurses and other specialists are just about the best there is and there is no question our soldiers are in good hands there. And it also helps that there are Canadians posted there on a full time basis (as well as troops from 10 other NATO members), to help keep the wounded company.
But the fact is we had our own base in Germany for decades -- the base at Baden-Soellingen, in addition to facilities in Lahr and Zweibrüken. These were not only staging areas for conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, they also had the facilities you'd expect back home including top-notch medical personnel. Zweibrüken was closed after the three branches (army, air force and navy) unifed their command in the late 1960s, but the other two remained open -- until Mulroney ordered them closed in the early 1990s under the guise of budget constraints. Canada wasn't the only one, other countries pulled out of Germany too with the end of communism in most of Europe.
But many world leaders totally missed the shifting paradigm. It was no longer East versus West as in Eastern vs Western Europe. As the Cold War ended and Europe was becoming more united (with customs-free borders beginning in 1995) the Eastern boundary had now shifted, to the Middle East, South Asia and the Asia Pacific -- and small but well armed and financed groups who were prepared to fight unconventional war against us.
They also missed the opportunity to have battle ready people able to move in in several hours notice, not having to organize a deployment months in the making (as is the case now), fly them half way around the world, and then having to ship the wounded half-way back to a foreign country's facilities. It's insane -- we had our own army hospitals in Germany, good ones, and we shut them down and have the Americans bill us (and we know how expensive their health care is!)?
Too: Having a continued presence would have strengthened Canada's hand in dealing with the EU. We're finally into free trade talks with them now, but this could have been done a decade or more ago -- when we pulled out it was like we were snubbing the people we helped liberate in World War II so they had no reason to reason, particularly during the cod and turbot "wars." Why do you think America can be as tough as it is with the EU, and vice versa? It's because of the physical American presence in Europe.
The other thing is all those "support our troops" stickers you see on bumpers. I'd like to ask them if support means supporting PMS and his policies, or does it mean really supporting our troops -- giving them the best and most up to date fighting equipment possible, not Bay of Pigs relics? Does it mean subletting long term care of wounded soldiers, airmen and sailors to the Americans, or having them in our own army hospitals? Does it mean just giving soldiers their LTD when they get back -- or also emotional, financial and every other support they're going to need, for a lifetime? "Support our troops" in the context presently being used is a sinister one and it is costing our troops dearly. You don't fight terrorists equipped with Kalashnikovs and Berettas when all you have are the equivalent of starters' pistols which is basically what we're doing right now.
I support our troops. Supporting them means they get it in every way, and that includes treatment of the injured by Canadians, from start to finish. Again, I admire the work that the men and women at Ramstein do and I think we should thank them for their friendship and service; but we really need to have Canadians treating Canadians. Flying them home all the way would be impractical, so a mid-way point would have been nice. Closing Baden and Lahr was about the stupidest thing we could have done. And we can't have them back either -- they were sold and redeveloped commercially.
Not too surprising, given conservatives -- progressive and regressive conservatives -- have a penchant for selling top class land at fire sale prices.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
That brings the total death toll to 117 -- 116 soliders and one diplomat -- killed in the line of duty since 9/11. Two Canadian aid workers have also been killed.
Obviously, it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. And it is truly infuriating that most of NATO is still not pulling its weight in Afghanistan. Only five countries have full time combat operations there right now: Canada, the US, the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands. Other countries put so many conditions for the rules of engagement for their fighting men and women that it makes joint operations that would be more effective, impossible to execute. As NATO marks 60 years next month, the success or failure of the operation could well depend on whether more countries will be persuaded to jump in.
However, there is one aspect of the situation -- the wounded -- that still bothers me.
While we have a modern field hospital at the base in Kandahar City that is fully capable of handling critical injuries -- for our troops, our allies alongside, and even our enemies who we capture as POWs -- it is, at its "base" a critical care facility (in and out, so to speak). To handle the more serious injuries that will take a longer recovery period, we have to transfer our WIAs to an American air base facility in Ramstein, Germany. Their physicians, nurses and other specialists are just about the best there is and there is no question our soldiers are in good hands there. And it also helps that there are Canadians posted there on a full time basis (as well as troops from 10 other NATO members), to help keep the wounded company.
But the fact is we had our own base in Germany for decades -- the base at Baden-Soellingen, in addition to facilities in Lahr and Zweibrüken. These were not only staging areas for conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, they also had the facilities you'd expect back home including top-notch medical personnel. Zweibrüken was closed after the three branches (army, air force and navy) unifed their command in the late 1960s, but the other two remained open -- until Mulroney ordered them closed in the early 1990s under the guise of budget constraints. Canada wasn't the only one, other countries pulled out of Germany too with the end of communism in most of Europe.
But many world leaders totally missed the shifting paradigm. It was no longer East versus West as in Eastern vs Western Europe. As the Cold War ended and Europe was becoming more united (with customs-free borders beginning in 1995) the Eastern boundary had now shifted, to the Middle East, South Asia and the Asia Pacific -- and small but well armed and financed groups who were prepared to fight unconventional war against us.
They also missed the opportunity to have battle ready people able to move in in several hours notice, not having to organize a deployment months in the making (as is the case now), fly them half way around the world, and then having to ship the wounded half-way back to a foreign country's facilities. It's insane -- we had our own army hospitals in Germany, good ones, and we shut them down and have the Americans bill us (and we know how expensive their health care is!)?
Too: Having a continued presence would have strengthened Canada's hand in dealing with the EU. We're finally into free trade talks with them now, but this could have been done a decade or more ago -- when we pulled out it was like we were snubbing the people we helped liberate in World War II so they had no reason to reason, particularly during the cod and turbot "wars." Why do you think America can be as tough as it is with the EU, and vice versa? It's because of the physical American presence in Europe.
The other thing is all those "support our troops" stickers you see on bumpers. I'd like to ask them if support means supporting PMS and his policies, or does it mean really supporting our troops -- giving them the best and most up to date fighting equipment possible, not Bay of Pigs relics? Does it mean subletting long term care of wounded soldiers, airmen and sailors to the Americans, or having them in our own army hospitals? Does it mean just giving soldiers their LTD when they get back -- or also emotional, financial and every other support they're going to need, for a lifetime? "Support our troops" in the context presently being used is a sinister one and it is costing our troops dearly. You don't fight terrorists equipped with Kalashnikovs and Berettas when all you have are the equivalent of starters' pistols which is basically what we're doing right now.
I support our troops. Supporting them means they get it in every way, and that includes treatment of the injured by Canadians, from start to finish. Again, I admire the work that the men and women at Ramstein do and I think we should thank them for their friendship and service; but we really need to have Canadians treating Canadians. Flying them home all the way would be impractical, so a mid-way point would have been nice. Closing Baden and Lahr was about the stupidest thing we could have done. And we can't have them back either -- they were sold and redeveloped commercially.
Not too surprising, given conservatives -- progressive and regressive conservatives -- have a penchant for selling top class land at fire sale prices.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Friday night music vault: Softly
This one goes way back to 1969, and the old Johnny Cash show. Softly is one of Gordon Lightfoot's somewhat lesser known songs, but certainly one of the most beautiful ones, the performance a few months before he released his monster hit song If You Could Read My Mind.
Where are the songwriters like this now? I mean, really? Is Taylor Hicks and Justin Timberlake the best the Machine can give us?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Where are the songwriters like this now? I mean, really? Is Taylor Hicks and Justin Timberlake the best the Machine can give us?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Charest: Sitting pretty, running deficits
Could this be a sign of things to come for the rest of the country? The Charest government introduced their 2009 budget for Québec and it is not pretty. For one thing it is "suspending" the province's balanced budget law, which in any province is really a worthless piece of paper to begin with, and announcing deficits for the next four years. As well, it will increase user fees and start indexing them to inflation (except for daycare); and starting in 2011 the provincial sales tax is going up to 8.5%, which of course is going to hit lower income people the most.
There is some targeted stimulus, which is a good thing, but there is nothing in there to explain what the heck happened at the Caisse de dépôt. There's also something a bit confusing in the budget papers, and that's that revenues from natural resources is going to be negative $80 million or so. Someone help me out on that one: The province is a paradise for fish and game, and they're going to lose that much money on permits -- what, they're giving them away for free or something?
Rumour is that the finance minister in the province, Monique Jérôme-Forget, may quit her post because she's gotten fed up with fighting with Slim Jim ™ over transfer payments and equalization. On the other hand, the province also has the kind of flexibility to arrange its finances in a way that other provinces could only dream of and it (relying for resources for much of its economy) saw the warning signs long before the rest of the country, so Charest just can't say it's the global economy's fault. Of course, he has a majority for four years so the Richard Simmons wannabe can just sit pretty until things get better -- if they do.
****
Ontario will have its budget coming any day now, and one claim is that the province will consider harmonizing its sales tax with the GST, as does Québec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland-Labrador. We were already lied to about the health tax. Without a huge cut in the sales tax rate, or a big increase in the personal income tax exemption, or a cut in income taxes I say nyet.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
There is some targeted stimulus, which is a good thing, but there is nothing in there to explain what the heck happened at the Caisse de dépôt. There's also something a bit confusing in the budget papers, and that's that revenues from natural resources is going to be negative $80 million or so. Someone help me out on that one: The province is a paradise for fish and game, and they're going to lose that much money on permits -- what, they're giving them away for free or something?
Rumour is that the finance minister in the province, Monique Jérôme-Forget, may quit her post because she's gotten fed up with fighting with Slim Jim ™ over transfer payments and equalization. On the other hand, the province also has the kind of flexibility to arrange its finances in a way that other provinces could only dream of and it (relying for resources for much of its economy) saw the warning signs long before the rest of the country, so Charest just can't say it's the global economy's fault. Of course, he has a majority for four years so the Richard Simmons wannabe can just sit pretty until things get better -- if they do.
****
Ontario will have its budget coming any day now, and one claim is that the province will consider harmonizing its sales tax with the GST, as does Québec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland-Labrador. We were already lied to about the health tax. Without a huge cut in the sales tax rate, or a big increase in the personal income tax exemption, or a cut in income taxes I say nyet.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Out of nothing at all!
If some Third World countries like -- name any of a number of them -- tried to print money like this, their money would be devalued instantly by several factors and their economy in tatters.
But today the US Fed said that it would create $1 trillion in new securities to try to unlock credit markets -- in other words, they're effectively printing that much in new money. This had the effect of having the dollar drop about 3% against major currencies. Only three percent, I emphasize. How do they get away with it? Because they can.
I may be just ranting here, but isn't making something out of nothing equal to making nothing?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
But today the US Fed said that it would create $1 trillion in new securities to try to unlock credit markets -- in other words, they're effectively printing that much in new money. This had the effect of having the dollar drop about 3% against major currencies. Only three percent, I emphasize. How do they get away with it? Because they can.
I may be just ranting here, but isn't making something out of nothing equal to making nothing?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)