Thursday, December 31, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Canada warms to idea of a tougher ‘perimeter’ –Star Dec. 27th
[Letter to the editor]
And it’s about time. The days of defining ourselves as “not American” belong to another era.
We Canadians have always been ambivalent about our relationship with the US – a kind of sibling rivalry with our bigger brother to the south. We pretend that our “culture” is different and must be protected –at any cost. We worry about being swallowed up by the huge entity south of our borders, all the while selling them everything from soup to nuts; and hollering “uncle” when they balk at buying our stuff, as in “Buy American”; or put an import duty on our lumber export. We often act like spoiled brats, wanting all of the benefits but none of the responsibilities that go with a fair, neighbourly relationship. We gladly take the protection the American can give us, as long as they don’t step on our “toes”, or as we say, “sovereignty”.
Prime Minister Harper had that one right: “Threats to the Unites States are threats to Canada”. Let’s take our fair share of the burden of defence; we are two democracies with much in common, both economically and culturally. A common defence perimeter and an open border is a good start.
Yankee gun boats off Newfoundland? What about Portuguese and Spanish trawlers cleaning out the cod on the Grand Banks? Guns flowing northward –who are we kidding? They are flowing now, nay, it’s more like a torrent.
If Europe, with its many languages, different cultures and history of wars can get together with a common border and currency; should not we, North-Americans, with a common language ( mostly) and history, manage to do as much? What do you think would happen to us if Americans really closed the border? They can do without us –we cannot do without them. Sell more to Europe? Trudeau tried that and failed miserably, and he did not even have the European Union to contend with. Get real, Canadians; remember the old adage “you cannot have your cake and eat it too!” Be grateful that we have a strong, peaceful neighbour to mollycoddle us and let us have our vaunted Medicare and social safety net, while giving pittance in return.
And it’s about time. The days of defining ourselves as “not American” belong to another era.
We Canadians have always been ambivalent about our relationship with the US – a kind of sibling rivalry with our bigger brother to the south. We pretend that our “culture” is different and must be protected –at any cost. We worry about being swallowed up by the huge entity south of our borders, all the while selling them everything from soup to nuts; and hollering “uncle” when they balk at buying our stuff, as in “Buy American”; or put an import duty on our lumber export. We often act like spoiled brats, wanting all of the benefits but none of the responsibilities that go with a fair, neighbourly relationship. We gladly take the protection the American can give us, as long as they don’t step on our “toes”, or as we say, “sovereignty”.
Prime Minister Harper had that one right: “Threats to the Unites States are threats to Canada”. Let’s take our fair share of the burden of defence; we are two democracies with much in common, both economically and culturally. A common defence perimeter and an open border is a good start.
Yankee gun boats off Newfoundland? What about Portuguese and Spanish trawlers cleaning out the cod on the Grand Banks? Guns flowing northward –who are we kidding? They are flowing now, nay, it’s more like a torrent.
If Europe, with its many languages, different cultures and history of wars can get together with a common border and currency; should not we, North-Americans, with a common language ( mostly) and history, manage to do as much? What do you think would happen to us if Americans really closed the border? They can do without us –we cannot do without them. Sell more to Europe? Trudeau tried that and failed miserably, and he did not even have the European Union to contend with. Get real, Canadians; remember the old adage “you cannot have your cake and eat it too!” Be grateful that we have a strong, peaceful neighbour to mollycoddle us and let us have our vaunted Medicare and social safety net, while giving pittance in return.
Friday, December 25, 2009
BEING FOREIGN
When I first arrived in Canada in 1960, I was sometimes called a DP. This was an appellation attached to European refugees, or "displaced persons", which I was not. Being young and with little command of the English language, it went "over my head."
As a European , I did not face the cultural shock that today’s immigrants from places such as Asia face; but I was still in a strange land with a different language, foods and customs. I too, felt a disconnect between the old and the new country’s culture.
Though the pull of the “old country” waned as time went on, I still had the feeling of being a foreigner, even as I integrated with the culture and language of my chosen home. I travelled “back home” less and less often, especially after my parents died, and old friends died or moved away. I began to feel like a tourist in my own country, a sense of not belonging there, while at the same time I felt more “Canadian” –although there was still a piece missing; that of my childhood in the “old country”.
My connection with other expatriates became less frequent as my identification with native Canadians grew stronger. Yet, there was always that “missing link” of childhood experiences, a kind of duality that still lingers; a feeling of them, instead of us. Yes, as a “willing foreigner”, with extended family “back home”, I could have returned. I chose not to. After many years away, you cannot go back again; the adjustment would be too great; the roots in the new country too deep.
Of course, Canada is a kaleidoscope of cultures and races, so no one needs to feel like an outsider in this happy human alphabet soup. However, immigrants of all kinds will always be a little schizoid; with one foot planted in the new; the other tentatively in the old. In my case, this was especially wistful, as I lost my Norwegian citizenship when I bcame a Canadian citizen in 1965. Norway does not recognize dual citizenship, so I had no choice if I wanted to fully partake in Canadian society. Most Norwegians here retain their Norwegian citizenship, leaving the door open for a return, even after years of life in Canada. I sometimes resent it when I hear these people critizise our government, yet they do not care enough to become citizens.
The first generation of immigrants, no matter how integrated, must live with the dichotomy of “being foreign” it in all its many manifestations, theough they might have little or no connection with the country they left.
In the end, what's important is not whence you came, but where you are going.
As a European , I did not face the cultural shock that today’s immigrants from places such as Asia face; but I was still in a strange land with a different language, foods and customs. I too, felt a disconnect between the old and the new country’s culture.
Though the pull of the “old country” waned as time went on, I still had the feeling of being a foreigner, even as I integrated with the culture and language of my chosen home. I travelled “back home” less and less often, especially after my parents died, and old friends died or moved away. I began to feel like a tourist in my own country, a sense of not belonging there, while at the same time I felt more “Canadian” –although there was still a piece missing; that of my childhood in the “old country”.
My connection with other expatriates became less frequent as my identification with native Canadians grew stronger. Yet, there was always that “missing link” of childhood experiences, a kind of duality that still lingers; a feeling of them, instead of us. Yes, as a “willing foreigner”, with extended family “back home”, I could have returned. I chose not to. After many years away, you cannot go back again; the adjustment would be too great; the roots in the new country too deep.
Of course, Canada is a kaleidoscope of cultures and races, so no one needs to feel like an outsider in this happy human alphabet soup. However, immigrants of all kinds will always be a little schizoid; with one foot planted in the new; the other tentatively in the old. In my case, this was especially wistful, as I lost my Norwegian citizenship when I bcame a Canadian citizen in 1965. Norway does not recognize dual citizenship, so I had no choice if I wanted to fully partake in Canadian society. Most Norwegians here retain their Norwegian citizenship, leaving the door open for a return, even after years of life in Canada. I sometimes resent it when I hear these people critizise our government, yet they do not care enough to become citizens.
The first generation of immigrants, no matter how integrated, must live with the dichotomy of “being foreign” it in all its many manifestations, theough they might have little or no connection with the country they left.
In the end, what's important is not whence you came, but where you are going.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
“Creba killer was police tipster” –Star Dec.23rd
“Valentine was raised by his single mother, Marcia, in the Jane-Finch area.” This could be the standard epithet for all young, mainly black criminals in the Jane-Finch corridor, and perhaps also Regent Park. But, it’s not endemic to only Toronto; it is a problem in many North-American cities, such as Chicago. Even Barack Obama made reference to the young black men who take no responsibility for their offspring. Perhaps he should have included the mothers, who go along producing children who will grow up without a father, live in poverty and frustration; without hope and social station. They face an identity crisis which is usually only abated by joining violent gangs. In fact, it’s almost a requirement for survival in their circumstances.
In some cases, immigration hopefuls marry a Canadian citizen and stay just long enough to produce a child and obtain landed status; in other cases they are homegrown sperm donators, and in most cases, the result is youth without purpose, guidance and social mores.
The solution is not more money, more social programs or more police. This problem can be solved only by the community itself, accepting responsibility; and by educating the parents in social norms (socializing). Otherwise, we will only perpetuate the vicious circle. “Political correctness” encourages social blinders that prevent proper intervention and change in behavior patterns.
In some cases, immigration hopefuls marry a Canadian citizen and stay just long enough to produce a child and obtain landed status; in other cases they are homegrown sperm donators, and in most cases, the result is youth without purpose, guidance and social mores.
The solution is not more money, more social programs or more police. This problem can be solved only by the community itself, accepting responsibility; and by educating the parents in social norms (socializing). Otherwise, we will only perpetuate the vicious circle. “Political correctness” encourages social blinders that prevent proper intervention and change in behavior patterns.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Youth and moral relativism
In case you're worried about what's going to become of the younger generation, it's going to grow up and start worrying about the younger generation.
--Roger Allen
What do the ravages of time not injure? Our parent’s age has produced us, more worthless still, who will soon give rise to another vicious generation.
--Horace; 65-8 BC
The older generation has always complained about the younger generation, from time immemorial. A certain amount of rebellion is normal as the young are finding their own stride. However, if we have infused them with good values, mores and beliefs while young, this should help them get through the rebellious youth without too much damage; and develop their own independent character and personality.
Today there are more diversions and choices, good and bad, for young people. The drug culture is a problem today as it was for the earlier generation, and it is getting worse, with more dangerous drugs and more general acceptance of it.
There are, as I see it, two diverse problems our society faces with the young today, and both are largely caused by bad parenting:
First, there are the spoiled brats; the product of over - parenting. The child is coddled and overindulged; over- managed and overprotected, and they come to think of themselves as the centre of the earth. As a result, they show little respect for others, including adults. If disciplined at school, the parents spring to their defence, whether or not they deserve defending. And these are just the good parents.
I recall a young man I had hired as a salesman for my firm. It was his first “real” job, and he was not cutting it. I had several talks with him, trying to steer him in the right direction, but I finally had to let him go. He was rather upset, and told me that his father had died a couple of years ago while taking him to a ball game, and he now felt that I had a duty to assist him, as a mentor; to help him becoming a success, since he was fatherless. I should mention that this was not a young man form a poor family; he lived in a upper class neighbourhood, Lorne Park, in a large house, and his mother was a business executive. This young man had a high sense of entitlement and of expectations –of me.
Second, at the other extreme are those whose parents don’t care; like some the children of single mothers who have no time for them. One of my young workers told me that when he was growing up, he had a new “father” each year.
What runs through much of these families are a serious lack of morals and mores, with parents who themselves are operating in a moral vacuum. Our society is one of entitlement and rights, without the concomitant responsibilities and social commitment. When leaving the nest, the child is bewildered and confused; lacking direction and goals. This hits home, in particular, to the poorer who often drop out of school early, but the upper classes also often get their wings clipped in the world of work.
Our generation, the baby-boomers, started this downward spiral. It might have to be up to the next generation to discover that moral values and a sense of duty are worth having. The chickens are coming home to roost, and the present severe recession is only the harbinger of what to come if we don’t come to our senses.
What people today lack is a sense of shame. A sense of shame is generated by a cohesive community with common mores, and is policed by the community by shaming (and even shunning) the offenders. It is an effective in censuring and restraining the culpable. What we lack now is a community with common mores and practices. We are bombarded with news about politicians and sports heroes who commit the most outrageous acts, both criminal and amoral, often with impunity. What we are developing into is a relativist society –moral relativism –where everything goes as long as it does not directly hurt another person. Without a clear moral beacon, young people are navigating in the dark; and when they flounder, there is no one to hold then to account, and it is someone else’s fault that they fail.
The disdain of a cohesive moral society is a stronger control of behaviour than any police force can muster. It’s also much cheaper. It’s a shame we don’t do more shaming.
--Roger Allen
What do the ravages of time not injure? Our parent’s age has produced us, more worthless still, who will soon give rise to another vicious generation.
--Horace; 65-8 BC
The older generation has always complained about the younger generation, from time immemorial. A certain amount of rebellion is normal as the young are finding their own stride. However, if we have infused them with good values, mores and beliefs while young, this should help them get through the rebellious youth without too much damage; and develop their own independent character and personality.
Today there are more diversions and choices, good and bad, for young people. The drug culture is a problem today as it was for the earlier generation, and it is getting worse, with more dangerous drugs and more general acceptance of it.
There are, as I see it, two diverse problems our society faces with the young today, and both are largely caused by bad parenting:
First, there are the spoiled brats; the product of over - parenting. The child is coddled and overindulged; over- managed and overprotected, and they come to think of themselves as the centre of the earth. As a result, they show little respect for others, including adults. If disciplined at school, the parents spring to their defence, whether or not they deserve defending. And these are just the good parents.
I recall a young man I had hired as a salesman for my firm. It was his first “real” job, and he was not cutting it. I had several talks with him, trying to steer him in the right direction, but I finally had to let him go. He was rather upset, and told me that his father had died a couple of years ago while taking him to a ball game, and he now felt that I had a duty to assist him, as a mentor; to help him becoming a success, since he was fatherless. I should mention that this was not a young man form a poor family; he lived in a upper class neighbourhood, Lorne Park, in a large house, and his mother was a business executive. This young man had a high sense of entitlement and of expectations –of me.
Second, at the other extreme are those whose parents don’t care; like some the children of single mothers who have no time for them. One of my young workers told me that when he was growing up, he had a new “father” each year.
What runs through much of these families are a serious lack of morals and mores, with parents who themselves are operating in a moral vacuum. Our society is one of entitlement and rights, without the concomitant responsibilities and social commitment. When leaving the nest, the child is bewildered and confused; lacking direction and goals. This hits home, in particular, to the poorer who often drop out of school early, but the upper classes also often get their wings clipped in the world of work.
Our generation, the baby-boomers, started this downward spiral. It might have to be up to the next generation to discover that moral values and a sense of duty are worth having. The chickens are coming home to roost, and the present severe recession is only the harbinger of what to come if we don’t come to our senses.
What people today lack is a sense of shame. A sense of shame is generated by a cohesive community with common mores, and is policed by the community by shaming (and even shunning) the offenders. It is an effective in censuring and restraining the culpable. What we lack now is a community with common mores and practices. We are bombarded with news about politicians and sports heroes who commit the most outrageous acts, both criminal and amoral, often with impunity. What we are developing into is a relativist society –moral relativism –where everything goes as long as it does not directly hurt another person. Without a clear moral beacon, young people are navigating in the dark; and when they flounder, there is no one to hold then to account, and it is someone else’s fault that they fail.
The disdain of a cohesive moral society is a stronger control of behaviour than any police force can muster. It’s also much cheaper. It’s a shame we don’t do more shaming.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Prisoner issue turns into dangerous test of wills –James Tavers in The Star, Dec.12th.
I am disappointed and chagrined to see the Afghan prisoner transfers problem turn into another political standoff in our Parliament. Prime Minister Harper seems to have a penchant for brinkmanship, but this issue could become a constitutional debacle.
We are at war in Afghanistan, and these things happen in war. If an error was made, it can be corrected for the future, without using it as a political football. Talk of an inquiry is as foolish as is Harper’s intransigence. It ought to be possible for men of good will to resolve this tempest in a teapot and get on with solving real problems.
We are at war in Afghanistan, and these things happen in war. If an error was made, it can be corrected for the future, without using it as a political football. Talk of an inquiry is as foolish as is Harper’s intransigence. It ought to be possible for men of good will to resolve this tempest in a teapot and get on with solving real problems.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Millions wasted in welfare programs –Toronto Star, Dec.8/09.
Dalton McGuinty and his fellow Liberals are leaving a trail of ill conceived projects and mismanagement of the public purse. Following such scandals as eHealth and the OLGC, we now have waste and fraud in its welfare system (Community and Social Services Ministry), and sloppy management of other areas of responsibility.
While governmental waste is nothing new, McGuinty’s government, which came in with promises of responsible and honest government, seems especially prone to financial missteps and carelessness in managing its economic affairs. While expanding the civil service, it has relied excessively on overpaid consultants in many of its agencies, while picking the consumer’s pockets with the harmonization of the PST/GST.
I am not implying that Premier McGuinty is dishonest. I am saying that he is a poor manager. He needs to demand better performance and greater accountability from his Ministers, and the various agencies that seems to be doing their own thing without much accountability.
While governmental waste is nothing new, McGuinty’s government, which came in with promises of responsible and honest government, seems especially prone to financial missteps and carelessness in managing its economic affairs. While expanding the civil service, it has relied excessively on overpaid consultants in many of its agencies, while picking the consumer’s pockets with the harmonization of the PST/GST.
I am not implying that Premier McGuinty is dishonest. I am saying that he is a poor manager. He needs to demand better performance and greater accountability from his Ministers, and the various agencies that seems to be doing their own thing without much accountability.
Monday, December 7, 2009
John Stuart Mill vs. Michael Ignatieff
I am reading, with much enjoyment, a biography of John Stuart Mill. I particularly enjoyed the chapter on his time in the British Parliament ( 1865 -1868 ).While he was not the Liberal party leader ( Gladstone was ), there is much our current Liberal leader could learn from his trials and tribulations as a new MP. His erudition and fame as an intellectual, while helping to elect him, was no advantage, as he was criticized for his “superior tone”, “too clever for this house” and lamented by newspapers as the “lost philosopher”.
He soon found his stride, however, and left us with some memorable quotes, viz. after being taken to task for a derogatory statement in his Representative Government, he rose in the house and said:
What I stated was that the Conservative party was, by their own constitution, necessarily the stupidest party. Now, I do not retract this assertion; but I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conserative.
Where is Mill now that we need him.
He soon found his stride, however, and left us with some memorable quotes, viz. after being taken to task for a derogatory statement in his Representative Government, he rose in the house and said:
What I stated was that the Conservative party was, by their own constitution, necessarily the stupidest party. Now, I do not retract this assertion; but I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conserative.
Where is Mill now that we need him.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
An American in Italy, guilty of murder –The Star, Saturday Dec.5th
Amanda Knox, in a drug, alcohol and deviant sex frenzy, took an active part in the killing of her roommate Meredith Kercher. Only the killer’s identity was ever in question, and is now, beyond reasonable doubt, established.
I find it incongruous that the American media, in unison, are excoriating the Italian court, police and society in general, while defending and excusing the accused and now convicted killer. Little is heard about the victim and her family, and their pain caused by this evil trio.
I cannot but think how this story would have played out if the “shoe was on the other foot”; if an Italian citizen had murdered an American girl. The press would no doubt be then extolling the fairness and impartiality of the American justice system, after which they would find her guilty and sentence her to death.
I find it incongruous that the American media, in unison, are excoriating the Italian court, police and society in general, while defending and excusing the accused and now convicted killer. Little is heard about the victim and her family, and their pain caused by this evil trio.
I cannot but think how this story would have played out if the “shoe was on the other foot”; if an Italian citizen had murdered an American girl. The press would no doubt be then extolling the fairness and impartiality of the American justice system, after which they would find her guilty and sentence her to death.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Mark Steyn’s Column, Maclean’s Nov.30th.
Though I have no issue with the gist of Mr. Steyn’s position regarding “political correctness”, I do have a point to make regarding the issue of “honour killings” –surely an oxymoron if there ever was one.
While Muslim “honour killings” have been in the news lately, as mentioned by Mr. Steyn; such killings have also been perpetrated by non-Muslim immigrants in the past; in particular new Canadians from the more traditional cultures of southern Europe. Their cause was also the problem of their daughter wanting to dress as and emulate the native Canadian women in their social circles and schools. The parents try to shield and “protect” their children from unwanted (by them) intrusion on their old world habits, culture and beliefs, but feel they are losing a degree of control over their children as they grow older and mill with the general population, as they inevitably must.
From the point of view of Canadian society, this integration process is a good thing; but a stressful one for the “old country” generation with “old country” mores; particularly where the cultural gap is wide, such as between southern and northern Europe; or South Asian or Middle Eastern cultures; regardless of religion. Disobedient children combined with the lack of identity and control they feel in a foreign land, lends itself to friction and stress within the family unit, and in the extreme, to violence and mayhem, even murder.
There should be a requirement for better preparation of immigrants from such cultures, before they are encouraged to immigrate here. They should understand that in accepting our economic and social benefits, they must also be ready to make some adjustments for Canadian culture and social mores; lest the cultural divide become an unbridgeable schism.
While Muslim “honour killings” have been in the news lately, as mentioned by Mr. Steyn; such killings have also been perpetrated by non-Muslim immigrants in the past; in particular new Canadians from the more traditional cultures of southern Europe. Their cause was also the problem of their daughter wanting to dress as and emulate the native Canadian women in their social circles and schools. The parents try to shield and “protect” their children from unwanted (by them) intrusion on their old world habits, culture and beliefs, but feel they are losing a degree of control over their children as they grow older and mill with the general population, as they inevitably must.
From the point of view of Canadian society, this integration process is a good thing; but a stressful one for the “old country” generation with “old country” mores; particularly where the cultural gap is wide, such as between southern and northern Europe; or South Asian or Middle Eastern cultures; regardless of religion. Disobedient children combined with the lack of identity and control they feel in a foreign land, lends itself to friction and stress within the family unit, and in the extreme, to violence and mayhem, even murder.
There should be a requirement for better preparation of immigrants from such cultures, before they are encouraged to immigrate here. They should understand that in accepting our economic and social benefits, they must also be ready to make some adjustments for Canadian culture and social mores; lest the cultural divide become an unbridgeable schism.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
STOP THE LAMA LOVE-IN – Andy Lamey in Maclean’s Nov.30th
While your Mr. Lamey makes some valid points regarding the Dalai Lama, I must take issue with a few of his comments, viz comparing the Dalai Lama to Mandalea and South Africa. Mandalea was fighting apartheid within his own country, and while generally peaceful, his ANC Youth League, after the Sharpsville Massacre in 1960, was outlawed, and Mandalea was put on trial for treason; but the trial collapsed in 1961and Mandalea was set free.
Later, he joined with other leaders in an organization called Umkhoto we Zizwe, which advocated armed struggle. Put on trial for his life in Rivonia for illegal exit and for sabotage (his organization blew up some power lines), he made the famous defensive speech partly quoted by Mr. Lamey. While Mandalea was not a terrorist, neither was he a peacenik, and the comparison of him to the Dalai Lama is rather fanciful. A better comparison would be Mahatma Gandhi who did fully embrace non-violent resistance. Yet, also he was operating from within his country, and though he faced a colonial empire, it was a liberal-democratic one, tired of war and ready to compromise. Hardly today’s China.
To imply that the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans should take up armed resistance towards China is just foolish. With its 2,300,000 population and less than 500,000 square miles of territory, it stands zero chance in armed conflict with a ruthless and totalitarian regime of 1.4 billion Chinese. To do anything but sending his regards and prayers for a successful Olympics would have given the Chinese leaders great ammunition against the Tibetans. Even with his good will towards their Olympics, he was accused of interference and anti-Chinese agitation. Mr. Lamey’s comment about the equivalent moral case of armed resistance of France against Nazi Germany in WWII is just as naive. France was assisted by the Allies, with the Free French army in England; hardly the situation with Tibet and China.
The comment about Dalai Lama’s epicurean tastes and selective vegetarianism is not really relevant to his cause, and is, if I may say so, a punch below his belt. Accusing him of relativist tendencies because he vacillates on same-sex union is also rather lame(y).
I don’t remember reading anything by Andy Lamey in you magazine before, but if this is the kind of rationale and logic he brings to the table, I’d rather go somewhere else.
Later, he joined with other leaders in an organization called Umkhoto we Zizwe, which advocated armed struggle. Put on trial for his life in Rivonia for illegal exit and for sabotage (his organization blew up some power lines), he made the famous defensive speech partly quoted by Mr. Lamey. While Mandalea was not a terrorist, neither was he a peacenik, and the comparison of him to the Dalai Lama is rather fanciful. A better comparison would be Mahatma Gandhi who did fully embrace non-violent resistance. Yet, also he was operating from within his country, and though he faced a colonial empire, it was a liberal-democratic one, tired of war and ready to compromise. Hardly today’s China.
To imply that the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans should take up armed resistance towards China is just foolish. With its 2,300,000 population and less than 500,000 square miles of territory, it stands zero chance in armed conflict with a ruthless and totalitarian regime of 1.4 billion Chinese. To do anything but sending his regards and prayers for a successful Olympics would have given the Chinese leaders great ammunition against the Tibetans. Even with his good will towards their Olympics, he was accused of interference and anti-Chinese agitation. Mr. Lamey’s comment about the equivalent moral case of armed resistance of France against Nazi Germany in WWII is just as naive. France was assisted by the Allies, with the Free French army in England; hardly the situation with Tibet and China.
The comment about Dalai Lama’s epicurean tastes and selective vegetarianism is not really relevant to his cause, and is, if I may say so, a punch below his belt. Accusing him of relativist tendencies because he vacillates on same-sex union is also rather lame(y).
I don’t remember reading anything by Andy Lamey in you magazine before, but if this is the kind of rationale and logic he brings to the table, I’d rather go somewhere else.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
“Police dragnet oversteps” –Star Editorial Monday Nov.16th
This conundrum could be called a Hobson’s choice: do I let the police in, or do I stand on my Charter rights and refuse. If I do refuse, surely I will give the police no choice but to get a warrant, since my refusal could indicate that I have something to hide. I don’t envy the police who have to make such individual decisions.
I empathise with the police force faced with this dilemma, but I do question the efficacy of going through everyone’s garbage. If anything were to be found, it would surely be gone after all the publicity. Perhaps what we are dealing with here is theatre: the appearance of “leaving no stone unturned”. Why else would you turn police into expensive garbage collectors?
We should not abridge citizens rights unless in the most dire circumstances. Once done, we are on a slippery slope –it will become routine, and eventually substitute for real detective work.
I empathise with the police force faced with this dilemma, but I do question the efficacy of going through everyone’s garbage. If anything were to be found, it would surely be gone after all the publicity. Perhaps what we are dealing with here is theatre: the appearance of “leaving no stone unturned”. Why else would you turn police into expensive garbage collectors?
We should not abridge citizens rights unless in the most dire circumstances. Once done, we are on a slippery slope –it will become routine, and eventually substitute for real detective work.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
DEFENDING THE ROYALS –Andrew Coyne, Maclean`s Nov 23rd
The current Royal visit has been a non-event here. Canadian apathy and perceived difficulty of changing the constitution militate against a change in the status quo anytime soon. Canadians are largely indifferent to the monarchy, except perhaps when they try to envision Charles and Camilla as their king and queen.
We also tend to look south of the border and find the American system wanting –certainly not worth the upheaval that would ensue if we chose the American type politics.
Andrew Coyne makes a fair argument about why we should have a Canadian Royal. It would accomplish two things: keeping our present true and tried political system, and having our own Royal family. His suggestion about offering the Crown to Prince Harry is a good one. We could do as Norway did in 1905, when they chose a Danish prince for their king. We would have a domestic sovereign and could then dispense with the vacuous office of the Governor General.
We also tend to look south of the border and find the American system wanting –certainly not worth the upheaval that would ensue if we chose the American type politics.
Andrew Coyne makes a fair argument about why we should have a Canadian Royal. It would accomplish two things: keeping our present true and tried political system, and having our own Royal family. His suggestion about offering the Crown to Prince Harry is a good one. We could do as Norway did in 1905, when they chose a Danish prince for their king. We would have a domestic sovereign and could then dispense with the vacuous office of the Governor General.
A textbook for Canada –Maclean`s editorial Nov. 23rd issue
You are right that `Ottawa should give every Canadian a copy of its new citizenship booklet`.
What the Ottawa and all the provinces should also do (since education is a provincial responsibility) is make Canadian History a compulsory subject right through high school. I have often been astonished to hear what little the Canadian-born citizens know about their own history. I recommend reading `Who killed Canadian history` by J.L. Granatstein for a start.
What the Ottawa and all the provinces should also do (since education is a provincial responsibility) is make Canadian History a compulsory subject right through high school. I have often been astonished to hear what little the Canadian-born citizens know about their own history. I recommend reading `Who killed Canadian history` by J.L. Granatstein for a start.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
What is Canada becoming? Is Canada's tolerance misplaced?
Mahfooz Kanwar, PHD, Is A Sociologist And An Instructor Emeritus at Mount Royal College
By Mahfooz Kanwar, For The Calgary Herald, March 30, 2009 -Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Canada's Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is getting flak from the usual
suspects, but he deserves praise instead.
Recently, Kenney pointed out that while at a meeting in Toronto, members of
Canada's Pakistani community called on him to make Punjabi one of Canada's
official languages. It makes me angry that such an idea would enter the minds
of my fellow and former countrymen, let alone express them to a Minister of
the Crown.
A few months ago, I was dismayed to learn that Erik Millett, the principal of
Belleisle School in Springfield, N.B., limited playing our national anthem
because the families of a couple of his students objected to it.
As a social scientist, I oppose this kind of political correctness, lack of
assimilation of new immigrants to mainstream Canada, hyphenated-Canadian
identity, and the lack of patriotism in our great nation.
Increasingly, Canadians feel restricted in doing things the Canadian way lest
we offend minorities. We cannot even say Merry Christmas without fear of
causing offence. It is amazing that 77 per cent of the Canadian majority are
scared of offending 23 per cent of minorities. We have become so timid that
the majority cannot assert its own freedom of expression. We cannot publicly
question certain foreign social customs, traditions and values that do not fit
into the Canadian ethos of equality. Rather than encouraging new immigrants to
adjust to Canada, we tolerate peculiar ways of doing things. We do not remind
them that they are in Canada, not in their original homelands.
In a multicultural society, it is the responsibility of minorities to adjust
to the majority. It does not mean that minorities have to totally amalgamate
with the majority. They can practice some of their cultural traditions within
their homes -- their backstage behavior. However, when outside of their homes,
their front stage behavior should resemble mainstream Canadian behavior.
Whoever comes to Canada must learn the limits of our system. We do not kill
our daughters or other female members of our families who refuse to wear
hijab, niqab or burka which are not mandated by the Qur'an anyway. We do not
kill our daughters if they date the "wrong" men. A 17-year-old Sikh girl
should not have been killed in British Columbia by her father because she was
caught dating a Caucasian man.
We do not practice the dowry system in Canada, and do not kill our brides
because they did not bring enough dowry. Millions of female fetuses are
aborted every year in India, and millions of female infants have been killed
by their parents in India and China. Thousands of brides in India are burned
to death in their kitchens because they did not bring enough dowry into a
marriage. Some 30,000 Sikhs living abroad took the dowries but abandoned their
brides in India in 2005. This is not accepted in Canada.
In some countries, thousands of women are murdered every year for family or
religious honour. We should not hide behind political correctness and we
should expose the cultural and religious background of these heinous crimes,
especially if it happens in Canada. We should also expose those who bring
their cultural baggage containing the social custom of female circumcision. I
was shocked when I learned about two cases of this barbaric custom practiced
in St. Catharines , Ont. A few years ago.
I have said it on radio and television, have written in my columns in the
Calgary Herald, and I have written in my latest book, Journey to Success, that
I do not agree with the hyphenated identity in Canada because it divides our
loyalties. My argument is that people are not forced to come to Canada and
they are not forced to stay here. Those who come here of their own volition
and stay here must be truly patriotic Canadians or go back.
I am a first-generation Canadian from Pakistan. I left Pakistan 45 years ago.
I cannot ignore Pakistan, because it is the homeland of my folks, but my first
loyalty should be and is to Canada. I am, therefore, a proud Canadian, no
longer a Pakistani-Canadian. I am a Canadian Muslim, not a Muslim Canadian.
I do not agree with those Canadians who engage in their fight against the
system in their original countries on Canadian soil. They should go back and
fight from within. For example, some of the Sikhs, Tamil Tigers, Armenians and
others have disturbed the peace in Canada because of their problems back home.
Recently, a low-level leader of MQM, the
Mafia of Pakistan, came to Canada as a refugee and started to organize public
rallies to collect funds for their cause in Pakistan. On July 18, 2007, the
Federal Court of Canada ruled that MQM is a terrorist group led by
London-based Altaf Hussain, their godfather. As a member in the coalition
government of Pakistan, this terrorist group is currently collaborating with
the Taliban in Pakistan. That refugee was deported back to Pakistan.
Similarly, I disagree with newcomers who bring their religious baggage here.
For example, Muslims are less than two per cent of the Canadian population,
yet in 2004 and 2005, a fraction of them, the fundamentalists, wanted to bring
Sharia law to Canada. If they really want to live under Shara, they should go
to the prison-like countries where Sharia is practiced.
I once supported multiculturalism in Canada because I believed it gave us a
sense of pluralism and diversity. However, I have observed and experienced
that official multiculturalism has encouraged convolution of the values that
make Canada the kind of place people want to immigrate to in the first place.
Here, we stand on guard for Canada, not for countries we came from. Like it or
not, take it or leave it, standing on guard only for Canada is our national
maxim. Remember, O Canada is our national anthem which must not be disregarded
by anybody, including the teacher in Springfield, N. B.
Mahfooz Kanwar, PHD, Is A Sociologist And An Instructor Emeritus at Mount Royal College.
By Mahfooz Kanwar, For The Calgary Herald, March 30, 2009 -Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Canada's Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is getting flak from the usual
suspects, but he deserves praise instead.
Recently, Kenney pointed out that while at a meeting in Toronto, members of
Canada's Pakistani community called on him to make Punjabi one of Canada's
official languages. It makes me angry that such an idea would enter the minds
of my fellow and former countrymen, let alone express them to a Minister of
the Crown.
A few months ago, I was dismayed to learn that Erik Millett, the principal of
Belleisle School in Springfield, N.B., limited playing our national anthem
because the families of a couple of his students objected to it.
As a social scientist, I oppose this kind of political correctness, lack of
assimilation of new immigrants to mainstream Canada, hyphenated-Canadian
identity, and the lack of patriotism in our great nation.
Increasingly, Canadians feel restricted in doing things the Canadian way lest
we offend minorities. We cannot even say Merry Christmas without fear of
causing offence. It is amazing that 77 per cent of the Canadian majority are
scared of offending 23 per cent of minorities. We have become so timid that
the majority cannot assert its own freedom of expression. We cannot publicly
question certain foreign social customs, traditions and values that do not fit
into the Canadian ethos of equality. Rather than encouraging new immigrants to
adjust to Canada, we tolerate peculiar ways of doing things. We do not remind
them that they are in Canada, not in their original homelands.
In a multicultural society, it is the responsibility of minorities to adjust
to the majority. It does not mean that minorities have to totally amalgamate
with the majority. They can practice some of their cultural traditions within
their homes -- their backstage behavior. However, when outside of their homes,
their front stage behavior should resemble mainstream Canadian behavior.
Whoever comes to Canada must learn the limits of our system. We do not kill
our daughters or other female members of our families who refuse to wear
hijab, niqab or burka which are not mandated by the Qur'an anyway. We do not
kill our daughters if they date the "wrong" men. A 17-year-old Sikh girl
should not have been killed in British Columbia by her father because she was
caught dating a Caucasian man.
We do not practice the dowry system in Canada, and do not kill our brides
because they did not bring enough dowry. Millions of female fetuses are
aborted every year in India, and millions of female infants have been killed
by their parents in India and China. Thousands of brides in India are burned
to death in their kitchens because they did not bring enough dowry into a
marriage. Some 30,000 Sikhs living abroad took the dowries but abandoned their
brides in India in 2005. This is not accepted in Canada.
In some countries, thousands of women are murdered every year for family or
religious honour. We should not hide behind political correctness and we
should expose the cultural and religious background of these heinous crimes,
especially if it happens in Canada. We should also expose those who bring
their cultural baggage containing the social custom of female circumcision. I
was shocked when I learned about two cases of this barbaric custom practiced
in St. Catharines , Ont. A few years ago.
I have said it on radio and television, have written in my columns in the
Calgary Herald, and I have written in my latest book, Journey to Success, that
I do not agree with the hyphenated identity in Canada because it divides our
loyalties. My argument is that people are not forced to come to Canada and
they are not forced to stay here. Those who come here of their own volition
and stay here must be truly patriotic Canadians or go back.
I am a first-generation Canadian from Pakistan. I left Pakistan 45 years ago.
I cannot ignore Pakistan, because it is the homeland of my folks, but my first
loyalty should be and is to Canada. I am, therefore, a proud Canadian, no
longer a Pakistani-Canadian. I am a Canadian Muslim, not a Muslim Canadian.
I do not agree with those Canadians who engage in their fight against the
system in their original countries on Canadian soil. They should go back and
fight from within. For example, some of the Sikhs, Tamil Tigers, Armenians and
others have disturbed the peace in Canada because of their problems back home.
Recently, a low-level leader of MQM, the
Mafia of Pakistan, came to Canada as a refugee and started to organize public
rallies to collect funds for their cause in Pakistan. On July 18, 2007, the
Federal Court of Canada ruled that MQM is a terrorist group led by
London-based Altaf Hussain, their godfather. As a member in the coalition
government of Pakistan, this terrorist group is currently collaborating with
the Taliban in Pakistan. That refugee was deported back to Pakistan.
Similarly, I disagree with newcomers who bring their religious baggage here.
For example, Muslims are less than two per cent of the Canadian population,
yet in 2004 and 2005, a fraction of them, the fundamentalists, wanted to bring
Sharia law to Canada. If they really want to live under Shara, they should go
to the prison-like countries where Sharia is practiced.
I once supported multiculturalism in Canada because I believed it gave us a
sense of pluralism and diversity. However, I have observed and experienced
that official multiculturalism has encouraged convolution of the values that
make Canada the kind of place people want to immigrate to in the first place.
Here, we stand on guard for Canada, not for countries we came from. Like it or
not, take it or leave it, standing on guard only for Canada is our national
maxim. Remember, O Canada is our national anthem which must not be disregarded
by anybody, including the teacher in Springfield, N. B.
Mahfooz Kanwar, PHD, Is A Sociologist And An Instructor Emeritus at Mount Royal College.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
“What a waste” –Maclean’s Nov.16th issue.
What a waste indeed! As long as our farms can produce an abundance of foods at low cost, there is not much that can be done about it –save a real change in attitude of consumers, or legal restraints on production and/or consumption. I don’t see either as a realistic option.
Marketing boards can underpin prices –which benefit farmers –by either buying up surpluses and destroying it, as you describe, or restrict production, which is probably the lesser of two evils, because at least the food is not wasted and produced with its concomitant energy usage. Either way it reduces price variability and supports the farmer. However, the supply-controlling quotas also create inefficiencies and must be complemented by import restrictions on the same farm products.
In a more philosophical way, it is a shame that we in the western, developed world, gorge on foods to where it damages our health; while many in the developing world are living on starvation rations. I don’t pretend to have an easy the answer to that conundrum.
As a child in Europe during the war and after, I experienced food shortages, though not starvation. If we did not clean our plates, mother would have a standard statement: “think of the poor starving children in Africa”. Not much has changed in parts of Africa, but it certainly has in my birth country. Food waste and excess consumption is just as rampant as in Canada and the US. So soon we forget.
Thank you for bringing this subject to the fore. Perhaps it will help bring attention to the horrendous waste in modern society; whether it is food, energy or other resources.
Marketing boards can underpin prices –which benefit farmers –by either buying up surpluses and destroying it, as you describe, or restrict production, which is probably the lesser of two evils, because at least the food is not wasted and produced with its concomitant energy usage. Either way it reduces price variability and supports the farmer. However, the supply-controlling quotas also create inefficiencies and must be complemented by import restrictions on the same farm products.
In a more philosophical way, it is a shame that we in the western, developed world, gorge on foods to where it damages our health; while many in the developing world are living on starvation rations. I don’t pretend to have an easy the answer to that conundrum.
As a child in Europe during the war and after, I experienced food shortages, though not starvation. If we did not clean our plates, mother would have a standard statement: “think of the poor starving children in Africa”. Not much has changed in parts of Africa, but it certainly has in my birth country. Food waste and excess consumption is just as rampant as in Canada and the US. So soon we forget.
Thank you for bringing this subject to the fore. Perhaps it will help bring attention to the horrendous waste in modern society; whether it is food, energy or other resources.
DARTS AND LAURELS –Twenty Liberal and NDP MP’S -The Star, Nov 7th
I must take issue with your comment criticizing the MP’s who voted to abolish the (long) gun registry. The Star, and other media, has criticized Steven Harper for controlling his MP’s; here we have criticisms against Michael Ignatieff for not doing so. Which is it? “You cannot have your cake and also eat it”.
MP’s owe their allegiances to their constituents, first and foremost. MP’s are ultimately responsible to those who voted them in. Liberal MP’s from the Prairie Provinces would respond to their local voters who are mostly against registration of their long guns. Rural westerners are used to keeping rifles and shotguns around, and resent the bureaucratic intrusion on their way of life. MP’S do well to listen to the will of their home base. That’s what we call democracy.
MP’s owe their allegiances to their constituents, first and foremost. MP’s are ultimately responsible to those who voted them in. Liberal MP’s from the Prairie Provinces would respond to their local voters who are mostly against registration of their long guns. Rural westerners are used to keeping rifles and shotguns around, and resent the bureaucratic intrusion on their way of life. MP’S do well to listen to the will of their home base. That’s what we call democracy.
Friday, November 6, 2009
“‘No regrets’ about days that bear his name, Rae says” –Star Nov.6th
Deep down, there must be some feeling of righteous glee in Bob Rae’s hearth. When as NDP Premier he faced a 12-billion deficit from the previous Liberal government in 1992, he tried to save public-sectors jobs by having them “share the work”; taking 12unpaid days off a year. The unions showed their appreciation by stabbing him in the back for the effort.
I remember being hospitalized for a few days during that time, and spent a night in a room just outside the nurse’s station. The nurses, in unison, were busy complaining about “Rae days”, and how terrible it was for the Premier to expect them to share the burden. If they would only have known, that after getting rid of the terrible Rae, they would face a new Premier, Conservative Mike Harris, who had no sympathy for their “plight”, and rather than sharing work, many of them would be sharing unemployment. Egoistic behaviour often leads to perdition.
Now they are facing “Dalton days” –same bird, different name. And a bigger deficit. Perhaps the sheltered public servants have learned their lesson and will discover the virtue of sharing this time –but don’t hold your breath.
I remember being hospitalized for a few days during that time, and spent a night in a room just outside the nurse’s station. The nurses, in unison, were busy complaining about “Rae days”, and how terrible it was for the Premier to expect them to share the burden. If they would only have known, that after getting rid of the terrible Rae, they would face a new Premier, Conservative Mike Harris, who had no sympathy for their “plight”, and rather than sharing work, many of them would be sharing unemployment. Egoistic behaviour often leads to perdition.
Now they are facing “Dalton days” –same bird, different name. And a bigger deficit. Perhaps the sheltered public servants have learned their lesson and will discover the virtue of sharing this time –but don’t hold your breath.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Raitt accused of expense abuse –Star Nov 5th
There seems to be growing problems with public servants abusing their position and their expense accounts. Lisa Raitt has continued to be controversial in her function as a cabinet minister, showing carelessness with official documents (though she has not equaled Maxime Bernier there) and public utterances; yet, she is still holding on to her cabinet post, unlike poor Mr. Bernier. I guess Prime Minister Harper cannot afford to remove another minister.
I wonder if these instances of abuse of public trust is something that has always been the norm in public service, or is it that public morals, in general, has declined?
There might be another reason: abuse of public trust has always been the same, but the media – the Star, in particular – is more focused on such behaviour.
I wonder if these instances of abuse of public trust is something that has always been the norm in public service, or is it that public morals, in general, has declined?
There might be another reason: abuse of public trust has always been the same, but the media – the Star, in particular – is more focused on such behaviour.
Elena’s scraps of love –Star, Nov 5th
Kudos to you for publishing the sad but beautiful story of Elena Desserich and her family. This kind of reporting is a welcome break from the proliferation of murder and mayhem it seems we read about daily.
Having finished reading about an angelic child and loving parents, I get to ``Murder mimicked favourite lyrics, trial told``; about the 14-year old boy – inspired by the rapper Eminem –killing his mother by shooting her eight times in the head and burying her in her own back yard.
I guess the latter is also our world, but we could use more of the former.
Having finished reading about an angelic child and loving parents, I get to ``Murder mimicked favourite lyrics, trial told``; about the 14-year old boy – inspired by the rapper Eminem –killing his mother by shooting her eight times in the head and burying her in her own back yard.
I guess the latter is also our world, but we could use more of the former.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Royal visit or royal pain?
The current Royal visit is a non-event here. Canadian apathy and perceived difficulty of changing the constitution militate against a change in the status quo anytime soon. Canadians are largely indifferent to the monarchy, except perhaps when they try to envision Charles and Camilla as their king and queen.
We also tend to look south of the border and find the American system wanting –certainly not worth the upheaval that would ensue if we chose the American type politics.
There is, however, a third way. We could do as Norway did in 1905, when they chose a Danish prince for their king. Why not offer the crown to Prince Charles oldest son, William? We would have a domestic sovereign and we could then dispense with the vacuous office of the Governor General.
We also tend to look south of the border and find the American system wanting –certainly not worth the upheaval that would ensue if we chose the American type politics.
There is, however, a third way. We could do as Norway did in 1905, when they chose a Danish prince for their king. Why not offer the crown to Prince Charles oldest son, William? We would have a domestic sovereign and we could then dispense with the vacuous office of the Governor General.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
“The loonie requires urgent inaction” –Andrew Coyne, Maclean’s Nov. 9th issue.
“The loonie requires urgent inaction” –Andrew Coyne, Maclean’s Nov. 9th issue.
Andrew Coyne’s column is at once funny and serious. I am impressed with his polymathic ability to deal with complex and obtuse subjects, like the economy and monetary policy, as he does in your current issue. He manages to delineate the rather obscure subject of money in a simple and straight-forward way. Guess he comes by it honestly; his father was James Coyne, Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1957 to 1961.The C$ was worth as much as $1.14 in 1961, due mainly to heavy foreign investment in Canada, mainly by the US. This brought pressure on the Government from exporters to do something (Coyne’s “Do Something lobby”). Printing money would debase the currency, but would also be highly inflationary, so the Government chose to fix the dollar. Fixing the dollar’s value is called a peg. This was done by John Diefenbaker`s Government in 1961, to the chagrin and eventually demise of Andrew Coyne`s father, Bank of Canada governor James Coyne, who resigned that year. The dollar was initially pegged at 92 cents US (and given the facetious appellation Diefenbuck), but in the seventies, the peg became too expensive for the government to maintain (i.e. The Bank of Canada had to buy US dollars or treasury notes to relieve the pressure on the dollar), and we went to a more flexible, floating exchange rate (a managed rate, or `dirty float`).
There are always two sides to every coyne (pardon the pun). With a strong dollar, importers gain, and consumers are happy. Exporters are sad. At least in the short run. But, as Mr. Coyne points out; importers can buy productive inputs at a lower price abroad, and their lower costs will trickle down (at least theoretically) through the economy, and both consumers and producers will gain –in the long run. The reverse is true for a weak Canadian dollar. It is the frequent fluctuation in value that causes most stress, because it does not give the economy enough time to adjust. It also leaves room for speculators to play their arbitrage game, and further destabilise the currency.
Andrew Coyne is correct in saying that maintaining a fixed rate would negate the need for a C$. It would also emasculate the Bank of Canada and destroy Canadian independent (or rather, semi-independent) monetary policy. The best the Bank can do is to ``lean against the wind``; to smooth the vagaries of economic life, and minimize the stress caused by a fluctuating dollar value.
Andrew Coyne’s column is at once funny and serious. I am impressed with his polymathic ability to deal with complex and obtuse subjects, like the economy and monetary policy, as he does in your current issue. He manages to delineate the rather obscure subject of money in a simple and straight-forward way. Guess he comes by it honestly; his father was James Coyne, Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1957 to 1961.The C$ was worth as much as $1.14 in 1961, due mainly to heavy foreign investment in Canada, mainly by the US. This brought pressure on the Government from exporters to do something (Coyne’s “Do Something lobby”). Printing money would debase the currency, but would also be highly inflationary, so the Government chose to fix the dollar. Fixing the dollar’s value is called a peg. This was done by John Diefenbaker`s Government in 1961, to the chagrin and eventually demise of Andrew Coyne`s father, Bank of Canada governor James Coyne, who resigned that year. The dollar was initially pegged at 92 cents US (and given the facetious appellation Diefenbuck), but in the seventies, the peg became too expensive for the government to maintain (i.e. The Bank of Canada had to buy US dollars or treasury notes to relieve the pressure on the dollar), and we went to a more flexible, floating exchange rate (a managed rate, or `dirty float`).
There are always two sides to every coyne (pardon the pun). With a strong dollar, importers gain, and consumers are happy. Exporters are sad. At least in the short run. But, as Mr. Coyne points out; importers can buy productive inputs at a lower price abroad, and their lower costs will trickle down (at least theoretically) through the economy, and both consumers and producers will gain –in the long run. The reverse is true for a weak Canadian dollar. It is the frequent fluctuation in value that causes most stress, because it does not give the economy enough time to adjust. It also leaves room for speculators to play their arbitrage game, and further destabilise the currency.
Andrew Coyne is correct in saying that maintaining a fixed rate would negate the need for a C$. It would also emasculate the Bank of Canada and destroy Canadian independent (or rather, semi-independent) monetary policy. The best the Bank can do is to ``lean against the wind``; to smooth the vagaries of economic life, and minimize the stress caused by a fluctuating dollar value.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The new National loses reality ... Star Oct.28/09
After all the hype; the “new National “was a disappointment. It seemed contrived and artificial. Mansbridge looked uncomfortable standing behind his glass desk and Wendy Mesley did not deliver what she promised.
It seems the CBC is trying to emulate CNN. If so, they have failed. I want my old National back, or I will watch CTV News in the future.
It seems the CBC is trying to emulate CNN. If so, they have failed. I want my old National back, or I will watch CTV News in the future.
FIXING THE REFUGEE MESS –STAR EDITORIAL OCT.28/09
You are totally correct in saying that the refugee system is broken and needs fixing. In fact, I have heard that tune now for decades, but it is only getting worse.
I have nothing against immigrants, I was one myself once, and I can understand our obligation to protect true refugees. The fact is, however, that a large portion of refuge claims are spurious claims from economic migrants, and only clogs up the system for real refugees.
I have personal experiences in this regard. In the eighties, one “refugee” family from Panama was working for me while awaiting a decision on their claim. They were “refugees” from Noriega’s regime, or so they claimed, except by then Noriega was a guest of the US government in a Florida jail. They had a subsidized town home and got economic support from the government, even a $ 100.00 cheque for each of their four children at Christmas. Another employee, a native Canadian, complained that she earned the same money, also had children, and lived in the same town home complex, but paid her own rent. The “refugee” claimant asked me to sign a form as guarantor for her mother to come and visit from Panama. I asked her why, if she was a “refugee”, her mother could come to visit. I don’t remember exactly the answer she gave me, but shortly thereafter she quit.
You, again, bring up the matter of Grise, the woman who, after having been hiding from the immigration authorities for years, got caught and sent home. In between, she managed to "go back to visit her sick grandmother," but after finally being deported; like Little Red Riding Hood, the wolf got her. I find it incredible, beyond belief, that Mexican drug gangs would target her out of “revenge”. Revenge for what? Was she involved in the Mexican drug trade?
Just asking.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just aint't so.
-Mark Twain.
I have nothing against immigrants, I was one myself once, and I can understand our obligation to protect true refugees. The fact is, however, that a large portion of refuge claims are spurious claims from economic migrants, and only clogs up the system for real refugees.
I have personal experiences in this regard. In the eighties, one “refugee” family from Panama was working for me while awaiting a decision on their claim. They were “refugees” from Noriega’s regime, or so they claimed, except by then Noriega was a guest of the US government in a Florida jail. They had a subsidized town home and got economic support from the government, even a $ 100.00 cheque for each of their four children at Christmas. Another employee, a native Canadian, complained that she earned the same money, also had children, and lived in the same town home complex, but paid her own rent. The “refugee” claimant asked me to sign a form as guarantor for her mother to come and visit from Panama. I asked her why, if she was a “refugee”, her mother could come to visit. I don’t remember exactly the answer she gave me, but shortly thereafter she quit.
You, again, bring up the matter of Grise, the woman who, after having been hiding from the immigration authorities for years, got caught and sent home. In between, she managed to "go back to visit her sick grandmother," but after finally being deported; like Little Red Riding Hood, the wolf got her. I find it incredible, beyond belief, that Mexican drug gangs would target her out of “revenge”. Revenge for what? Was she involved in the Mexican drug trade?
Just asking.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just aint't so.
-Mark Twain.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
“Deported to her death” –Star Oct 23/09
There is probably more to this story than state in the article. While, paraphrasing John Donne, “anyone’s death diminishes me”; this woman, Grise, was here illegally and in hiding from Canadian authorities, claiming danger if she was returned to Mexico. Yet, having been raped and impregnated there in the past, she voluntarily went back home to Mexico into the “lion’s den”, ostensibly to visit a sick grandmother. She is then killed in the same place, likely by drug gangs. Are you telling me that this “innocent” woman were just a passerby –twice? This story is too farfetched even for the most credulous. More likely, she was part of the drug operations, and paid the price for running away.
There is probably more to this story than state in the article. While, paraphrasing John Donne, “anyone’s death diminishes me”; this woman, Grise, was here illegally and in hiding from Canadian authorities, claiming danger if she was returned to Mexico. Yet, having been raped and impregnated there in the past, she voluntarily went back home to Mexico into the “lion’s den”, ostensibly to visit a sick grandmother. She is then killed in the same place, likely by drug gangs. Are you telling me that this “innocent” woman were just a passerby –twice? This story is too farfetched even for the most credulous. More likely, she was part of the drug operations, and paid the price for running away.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands , at the Four Seasons, New York ,
Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands , at the Four Seasons, New York , introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem .
Dear friends,Thank you very much for inviting me.I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe . This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe .First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe . Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem .The Europe you know is changing.You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by�Muslim mass-migration.All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe . These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe , street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe . With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam , Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin . The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system..Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels , because he was drinking during the Ramadan.Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel . I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.A�total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe . San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France . One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey .Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.
�The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel . First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia . Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.The war against Israel is not a war against Israel . It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel , Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel , they can get everything.So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands , 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a danger greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome , Athens and Jerusalem .Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe 's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.
Dear friends,Thank you very much for inviting me.I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe . This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe .First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe . Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem .The Europe you know is changing.You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by�Muslim mass-migration.All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe . These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe , street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe . With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam , Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin . The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system..Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels , because he was drinking during the Ramadan.Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel . I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.A�total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe . San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France . One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey .Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.
�The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel . First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia . Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.The war against Israel is not a war against Israel . It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel , Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel , they can get everything.So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands , 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a danger greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome , Athens and Jerusalem .Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe 's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
“Why Roman Polanski belongs in prison” –Maclean’s editorial, vs “Reflex lock-Polanski up rants are shocking” –Barbara Amiel.
Your editorial is logical, fair and thoughtful. “ If you do the crime, you do the time”, even if you walk on water.
Not so much Barbara Amiel. I am not surprised that she would defend the bourgeoisie, regardless of faults, but her logic and reasoning does not stand up to scrutiny. She worries about the terror he would have of being sent back to an American prison –which I can readily understand considering her husband horrific experience in the Florida prison he now inhabit. Why, next they might take away his computer and e-mail privileges!
“The definition of childhood depends on the culture” she says. Yes, it does. Childhood brides are common in some third world countries, but last time I looked, America is not a third world country and they have laws against older men having sex with thirteen-year olds, even if consensual, and this was certainly not. Polanski confessed as much.
One can sympathise with his sad experience of having his wife, Sharon Tate, killed by a bunch of crazies, and his mother’s demise at the hands of the Nazis; but that does not give him a licence to rape. If anything, it should have made him more empathetic and caring, and not inclined to drug and rape a thirteen year old defenceless child, and then running away from the law.
In Ms Amiel’s world, one would only jail the stupid, poor and powerless. The elites would dance to a different tune. Her apologetics are about par with Whoopi Goldberg’s. Except that Amiel’s English is more refined –though Whoopi is better looking.
Not so much Barbara Amiel. I am not surprised that she would defend the bourgeoisie, regardless of faults, but her logic and reasoning does not stand up to scrutiny. She worries about the terror he would have of being sent back to an American prison –which I can readily understand considering her husband horrific experience in the Florida prison he now inhabit. Why, next they might take away his computer and e-mail privileges!
“The definition of childhood depends on the culture” she says. Yes, it does. Childhood brides are common in some third world countries, but last time I looked, America is not a third world country and they have laws against older men having sex with thirteen-year olds, even if consensual, and this was certainly not. Polanski confessed as much.
One can sympathise with his sad experience of having his wife, Sharon Tate, killed by a bunch of crazies, and his mother’s demise at the hands of the Nazis; but that does not give him a licence to rape. If anything, it should have made him more empathetic and caring, and not inclined to drug and rape a thirteen year old defenceless child, and then running away from the law.
In Ms Amiel’s world, one would only jail the stupid, poor and powerless. The elites would dance to a different tune. Her apologetics are about par with Whoopi Goldberg’s. Except that Amiel’s English is more refined –though Whoopi is better looking.
“Thinking about the old Ignatieff” –Mark Steyn
I must be getting more conservative (small “c” please) in my senior years, because I find myself agreeing with Mark Steyn on several issues, and I support his battle with the “Human Rights Commission”. Perhaps it is from reading Tarek Fatah’s “Chasing a Mirage”, or it could be from reading Ezra Levant’s “Shakedown”, with his paean to Steyn’s struggles.
Whichever, I think Steyn has got it right regarding Iggy’s trials and tribulations in the Coliseum or Canadian politics. Ignatief is an erudite and thoughtful person; his writings are intelligent and profound. Not so his stammering political pronouncements. Pace his erudition, Michael Ignatieff is to political mud wrestling as a fish is to dry land –trashing around trying to find his breath.
In today’s political environment, politics and intelligence is an oxymoron, and the politicians bend and sway with the winds of the latest opinion surveys. Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying “the government you elect is the government you deserve”. No politician ever went wrong underestimating the average intelligence of the electorate. As your letter writer Mary Davies of Mississauga so accurately and succinctly put it “A good democracy requires both good citizens and good governments”. Unfortunately, we don’t seem to have either.
Whichever, I think Steyn has got it right regarding Iggy’s trials and tribulations in the Coliseum or Canadian politics. Ignatief is an erudite and thoughtful person; his writings are intelligent and profound. Not so his stammering political pronouncements. Pace his erudition, Michael Ignatieff is to political mud wrestling as a fish is to dry land –trashing around trying to find his breath.
In today’s political environment, politics and intelligence is an oxymoron, and the politicians bend and sway with the winds of the latest opinion surveys. Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying “the government you elect is the government you deserve”. No politician ever went wrong underestimating the average intelligence of the electorate. As your letter writer Mary Davies of Mississauga so accurately and succinctly put it “A good democracy requires both good citizens and good governments”. Unfortunately, we don’t seem to have either.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Police dip into victims’ cash –Star, Sept 29th
Kudos to Star for digging up this information on the abuse by police force members of the taxpayer’s - funded Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund. Our police are well paid, with benefits that far surpass a majority of workers, many in equally hazardous jobs. To call a policeman injured on duty a “victim” of crime is beyond the pale and stretches credulity to the limit. The police are paid to face work-related risks, and to “serve and protect”. I didn’t think this included lining up at the public trough, while real victims are waiting in line behind them.
In some ways, I cannot blame them for taking what is there for the taking. It should be the task of government to write the law in such a way that this abuse will not happen.
This is not something the public would be aware of –perhaps not even most MP’s. Thus you are performing a much needed public service with your muckraking; whether it is the police or some other organization abusing public money and trust.
In some ways, I cannot blame them for taking what is there for the taking. It should be the task of government to write the law in such a way that this abuse will not happen.
This is not something the public would be aware of –perhaps not even most MP’s. Thus you are performing a much needed public service with your muckraking; whether it is the police or some other organization abusing public money and trust.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Ottawa lets Nortel slip from our grasp –Star Friday, September-18-09
I suspected the Conservatives were reluctant to get involved since Nortel had most of its work force outside the country, and thus did not represent many voters. Ericsson has in fact more workers domestically than does Nortel. The earlier investments the government (or we) has invested in the firm is history, or sunk costs as the accountants would say; and won’t be recovered by handing Nortel to RIM. In our global economy, corporate ownership is fluid and ephemeral. Canada has lost many of its old corporate names to foreigners – Stelco and Falconbridge just two of several.
Nortel has had several corporate name changes in its long history in Canada. It started out as part of Bell Telephone, incorporated as Northern Electric in 1895 and later became part of Western Electric and AT&T in the US. In the sixties, Bell Canada & Northern Electric was separated from US Bell and Western Electric by government decree, and in 1972 it became Northern Telecom getting involved in the electronic switching market as well as manufacturing telephones and combined research with Bell Canada.
Thus, Nortel‘s origin was what we used to call a “branch plant” of US industry, making the nationalist argument rather weak. It never was a “national treasure”, and in the recent past, their CEO’s have all been Americans. Thus, I find it hard to believe that Nortel’s sale to Ericsson would in any way be “injurious to national security; any more than was the sale of Stelco et.al.
There are always at least two sides to every story. There is Nortel’s, and then there is RIM’s.
In this case I think we should, to paraphrase an old metaphor; just “let the sleeping dog lie”.
Nortel has had several corporate name changes in its long history in Canada. It started out as part of Bell Telephone, incorporated as Northern Electric in 1895 and later became part of Western Electric and AT&T in the US. In the sixties, Bell Canada & Northern Electric was separated from US Bell and Western Electric by government decree, and in 1972 it became Northern Telecom getting involved in the electronic switching market as well as manufacturing telephones and combined research with Bell Canada.
Thus, Nortel‘s origin was what we used to call a “branch plant” of US industry, making the nationalist argument rather weak. It never was a “national treasure”, and in the recent past, their CEO’s have all been Americans. Thus, I find it hard to believe that Nortel’s sale to Ericsson would in any way be “injurious to national security; any more than was the sale of Stelco et.al.
There are always at least two sides to every story. There is Nortel’s, and then there is RIM’s.
In this case I think we should, to paraphrase an old metaphor; just “let the sleeping dog lie”.
“Different leader, same scenario for demise”. –Chantal Hebert, Sept 18th.
It’s indeed Dion redux. Ignatieff is an English-speaking version of the former. They are both brilliant academics in their fields, but it just proves, again, that intellect and education alone will not a politician make; no matter how sincere and dedicated they are. You need bravura as well as brains, and in our age of instant TV news clips and the YouTube, you need a certain amount of élan and verve; eloquence and joviality. They had just such a candidate in Bob Rae, but they chose the bland and jejune over vivacity and eloquence. The Liberals ought to have learned that lesson with Dion, but no, they went after another academic.
As they say in baseball: three strikes and you’re out!” They’d better hope that Harper self-destruct, because I don’t think that Ignatieff is up to the task.
As they say in baseball: three strikes and you’re out!” They’d better hope that Harper self-destruct, because I don’t think that Ignatieff is up to the task.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
THE READING MOTHER
THE READING MOTHER
Strickland Gillilan
I HAD A MOTHER who read to me
Sagas of pirates who scoured the sea,
Cutlasses clenched in their yellow teeth,
"Blackbirds" stowed in the hold beneath
I had a Mother who read me lays
Of ancient and gallant and golden days;
Stories of Marmion and Ivanhoe,
Which every boy has a right to know.
I had a Mother who read me tales
Of Celert the hound of the hills of Wales,
True to his trust till his tragic death,
Faithfulness blent with his final breath.
I had a Mother who read me the things
That wholesome life to the boy heart brings-
Stories that stir with an upward touch,
Oh, that each mother of boys were such.
You may have tangible wealth untold;
Caskets of jewels and coffers of gold.
Richer than I you can never be --
I had a Mother who read to me.
Strickland Gillilan
I HAD A MOTHER who read to me
Sagas of pirates who scoured the sea,
Cutlasses clenched in their yellow teeth,
"Blackbirds" stowed in the hold beneath
I had a Mother who read me lays
Of ancient and gallant and golden days;
Stories of Marmion and Ivanhoe,
Which every boy has a right to know.
I had a Mother who read me tales
Of Celert the hound of the hills of Wales,
True to his trust till his tragic death,
Faithfulness blent with his final breath.
I had a Mother who read me the things
That wholesome life to the boy heart brings-
Stories that stir with an upward touch,
Oh, that each mother of boys were such.
You may have tangible wealth untold;
Caskets of jewels and coffers of gold.
Richer than I you can never be --
I had a Mother who read to me.
The battle of the Plains of Abraham
A battle to remember –Star editorial Sept 10th.
There is a difference in re-enacting the battle of the Plains of Abraham and a historical documentary about the same battle. It did happened, and it is history.
Re-enactment is akin to the Orange parade held annually to commemorate William, Prince of Orange’s humiliation of the Irish. It’s like waving a red flag before the bull, and serves no good purpose.
A factual rendition of the Plains of Abraham battle in a documentary is another matter. You don’t have to watch it if you don't like it. While it is true that the Americans are planning to “celebrate” the battle of Gettysburg, there is a difference: Theirs was a civil war, not a foreign nation against another. It ultimately led to uniting the states; and it did not perpetuate their difference by giving the South their own language and religion. Even so, there is still a social/emotional difference between the North and the South; even after all these years.
We should be mindful of Quebecker’s sensitivities and not unnecessarily "kick sand in their eyes”. Desmond Morris has put a positive spin on the conflict. The willingness of the British to grant the defeated their own language, religion and civil law is a positive that should be stressed; but not by enacting the defeat of Quebeckers –now our countrymen, in their own home.
There is a difference in re-enacting the battle of the Plains of Abraham and a historical documentary about the same battle. It did happened, and it is history.
Re-enactment is akin to the Orange parade held annually to commemorate William, Prince of Orange’s humiliation of the Irish. It’s like waving a red flag before the bull, and serves no good purpose.
A factual rendition of the Plains of Abraham battle in a documentary is another matter. You don’t have to watch it if you don't like it. While it is true that the Americans are planning to “celebrate” the battle of Gettysburg, there is a difference: Theirs was a civil war, not a foreign nation against another. It ultimately led to uniting the states; and it did not perpetuate their difference by giving the South their own language and religion. Even so, there is still a social/emotional difference between the North and the South; even after all these years.
We should be mindful of Quebecker’s sensitivities and not unnecessarily "kick sand in their eyes”. Desmond Morris has put a positive spin on the conflict. The willingness of the British to grant the defeated their own language, religion and civil law is a positive that should be stressed; but not by enacting the defeat of Quebeckers –now our countrymen, in their own home.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Friday, September 4, 2009
Genuinely loved for his many faults –Andrew Coyne, Sept.14th.
In Maclean's extensive coverage of Ted Kennedy (commemorative issue), they describe him as “American icon”. I hate to be an iconoclast, but I really do not think of him as such.
This is the man who rode the cottontails of his brothers and the Kennedy name; had all the advantages of fame and fortune without having to do much. Andrew Coyne says of why Ted Kennedy ran for president: “because it was his turn”. For someone born with a silver spoon in his mouth, nothing less would suffice.
Yet, he worked hard to destroy himself and those with him. Mary Jo Kopechne did not deserve to die in the muddy Chappaquiddick River. Kennedy was likely drunk, and craven enough to run home to mamma and wait until dawn to call the police, while Mary Jo was drowning in the river.
He got off lightly. Someone else would likely be serving hard time for homicide; or at last criminal negligence causing death. Ted Kennedy got off easy, because who he was. Ditto his clear culpability in the William Kennedy Smith case, not to mention his drinking and whoring on a spectacular scale. Falstaff does well in comparison.
Andrew Coyne writes “...the true measure of life is how many show up at your funeral.” I beg to differ. People show up at funerals for a variety of reason, not the least the “fame (or infamy) and fortune” of the deceased; whether deserved or not. People show up at all kinds of things, to be part of the crowd, to see and be seen; perhaps catch a ray of the proverbial sunshine.
Yes, Ted Kennedy no doubt did some good work in the senate. But, that work did not qualify him for redemption, and most of his personal adversity was self-induced.
From those who much has been given, much is expected. Ted Kennedy just did the minimum.
This is the man who rode the cottontails of his brothers and the Kennedy name; had all the advantages of fame and fortune without having to do much. Andrew Coyne says of why Ted Kennedy ran for president: “because it was his turn”. For someone born with a silver spoon in his mouth, nothing less would suffice.
Yet, he worked hard to destroy himself and those with him. Mary Jo Kopechne did not deserve to die in the muddy Chappaquiddick River. Kennedy was likely drunk, and craven enough to run home to mamma and wait until dawn to call the police, while Mary Jo was drowning in the river.
He got off lightly. Someone else would likely be serving hard time for homicide; or at last criminal negligence causing death. Ted Kennedy got off easy, because who he was. Ditto his clear culpability in the William Kennedy Smith case, not to mention his drinking and whoring on a spectacular scale. Falstaff does well in comparison.
Andrew Coyne writes “...the true measure of life is how many show up at your funeral.” I beg to differ. People show up at funerals for a variety of reason, not the least the “fame (or infamy) and fortune” of the deceased; whether deserved or not. People show up at all kinds of things, to be part of the crowd, to see and be seen; perhaps catch a ray of the proverbial sunshine.
Yes, Ted Kennedy no doubt did some good work in the senate. But, that work did not qualify him for redemption, and most of his personal adversity was self-induced.
From those who much has been given, much is expected. Ted Kennedy just did the minimum.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
SOMETHING ROTTEN IN QUEENS PARK
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
TheStar.com Opinion Where did civil service ethics go?
Sep 03, 2009 04:30 AM
Something rotten at Queen's Park,
Editorial, Sept. 1
Yes, indeed, it stinks. It does not seem to matter which party is in charge, civil servants will find a way to feed at the public trough. Perhaps the time has come to appoint a special auditor for such government agencies – an expert in forensic accounting.
It's all so disheartening. Yet, there is a silver lining: we live in a country where even top civil servants and politicians are subject to scrutiny by a free press and opposition parties. That gives us some succour.
Sigmund Roseth, Mississauga
TheStar.com Opinion Where did civil service ethics go?
Sep 03, 2009 04:30 AM
Something rotten at Queen's Park,
Editorial, Sept. 1
Yes, indeed, it stinks. It does not seem to matter which party is in charge, civil servants will find a way to feed at the public trough. Perhaps the time has come to appoint a special auditor for such government agencies – an expert in forensic accounting.
It's all so disheartening. Yet, there is a silver lining: we live in a country where even top civil servants and politicians are subject to scrutiny by a free press and opposition parties. That gives us some succour.
Sigmund Roseth, Mississauga
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
“Bryant’s deadly duel”
We ought to be careful in pre-judging this situation. Michael Bryant is entitled to due process, regardless of his high profile.
I am not sure how I would have reacted, had a crazed, drunk and possibly drugged person on a bike grabbed hold of my open convertible and refusing to let go.
Yes, I know; Bryant should have known better, and he should have stopped the car. But, perhaps he panicked.
I am sure all will come out in the court. In the meanwhile, Bryant has all ready received much of his punishment, and let us await the court’s decision before we hang him.
I am not sure how I would have reacted, had a crazed, drunk and possibly drugged person on a bike grabbed hold of my open convertible and refusing to let go.
Yes, I know; Bryant should have known better, and he should have stopped the car. But, perhaps he panicked.
I am sure all will come out in the court. In the meanwhile, Bryant has all ready received much of his punishment, and let us await the court’s decision before we hang him.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
“Something rotten at Queen’s Park” –Star Editorial, Sept.1st
Yes, indeed –it stinks. It’s e-Med redux. It does not seem to matter which party is in charge –civil servants will find a way to feed at the public trough. In the last two instances, women were at the head of the organization, but it seems they are just as venal as the men-folk.
Perhaps the time has come to appoint a special auditor for such government agencies. He should be an expert in forensic accounting!
It’s all so disheartening. Yet, there is a silver lining: we live in a country where even top civil servants and politicians are subject to scrutiny by a free press and opposition parties. That gives us some succour.
Perhaps the time has come to appoint a special auditor for such government agencies. He should be an expert in forensic accounting!
It’s all so disheartening. Yet, there is a silver lining: we live in a country where even top civil servants and politicians are subject to scrutiny by a free press and opposition parties. That gives us some succour.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Medicare arguments - redux
I was living in Regina, Saskatchewan in 1960 - 61 during the “doctor strike” there. The NDP’s Saskatchewan plan was based on the Scandinavian and British ones. The doctors lost, and the rest, as they say, is history. But the naysayers were loud and determined to stop it, as were the Saskatchewan Medical Association. I recall a hilarious cartoon in the Regina Leader Post, depicting an African” witch doctor” applying for a position at the hospital there.
However, it was not long after the strike was over that the doctors noticed that their incomes actually increased, and they had no fee collection problems any longer, and the complaints ended both from doctors and patients.
When the Canada Medicare was introduced by Lester Pearson’s government, there was less opposition because of Saskatchewan’s pioneering experiment. In this area we did leapfrog the Americans, not imitate them, as we do in most other areas.
Some abuse of the system is inevitable, both by doctors and by patients. I recall growing up in a small village in Western Norway, where the doctor held court each Wednesday, in a local office. In those days, housewives did not work, and village life got rather boring at times. Thus, the highlight of their week was Wednesday’s doctor visit, and a standing joke was that one Wednesday, Mary, one of the regulars, was missing from the doctor’s waiting room. When one of the ladies asked where Mary was, she was told that she could not come because she was sick (!). There was more than a little truth in that one. Yet, who is to judge if you need to see the doctor. Not the doctor; once you are there, you have all ready usurped his allotted patient time.
However, it was not long after the strike was over that the doctors noticed that their incomes actually increased, and they had no fee collection problems any longer, and the complaints ended both from doctors and patients.
When the Canada Medicare was introduced by Lester Pearson’s government, there was less opposition because of Saskatchewan’s pioneering experiment. In this area we did leapfrog the Americans, not imitate them, as we do in most other areas.
Some abuse of the system is inevitable, both by doctors and by patients. I recall growing up in a small village in Western Norway, where the doctor held court each Wednesday, in a local office. In those days, housewives did not work, and village life got rather boring at times. Thus, the highlight of their week was Wednesday’s doctor visit, and a standing joke was that one Wednesday, Mary, one of the regulars, was missing from the doctor’s waiting room. When one of the ladies asked where Mary was, she was told that she could not come because she was sick (!). There was more than a little truth in that one. Yet, who is to judge if you need to see the doctor. Not the doctor; once you are there, you have all ready usurped his allotted patient time.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Accountant gets 5 years for bilking winemaker –Star, Aug 25/09
Christine Papakyrioku has a problem. Not just that she is going to jail, but that she is addicted to gambling. Her addiction made her steal more than 7.4 million from her employer where she was employed in a position of some trust; namely as an accountant. Addiction, as we all now know, is a serious affliction that must invoke pity and empathy from everyone. It’s not really her fault, since her employer “failed to examine her accounting practices closely” so as to prevent her from stealing millions. Her venality is really venial –she just could not help herself.
It is also the provinces fault, and Niagara Falls Casinos, for not preventing her from acting on her base impulses and reprobate desires –so she is suing them. Clearly, she is a VICTIM.
In today’s society, it is not “cool” to take responsibility for your actions and to say you are sorry. Surely, we are all victims of something or other, and the fault lies elsewhere, outside our control. Guilt and contrition are obsolete terms, and culprits should be handled with extreme unction, lest they suffer permanent emotional scars.
My question is this: with all these victims loose in our society, who is to be the victimizers?
It is also the provinces fault, and Niagara Falls Casinos, for not preventing her from acting on her base impulses and reprobate desires –so she is suing them. Clearly, she is a VICTIM.
In today’s society, it is not “cool” to take responsibility for your actions and to say you are sorry. Surely, we are all victims of something or other, and the fault lies elsewhere, outside our control. Guilt and contrition are obsolete terms, and culprits should be handled with extreme unction, lest they suffer permanent emotional scars.
My question is this: with all these victims loose in our society, who is to be the victimizers?
Monday, August 24, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Nortel, and our techno-nationalist delusions -Andrew Coyne, Maclean’s Aug 31st
Andrew Coyne has changed my mind about Nortel’s sale to Ericsson. I suspected the Conservatives were reluctant to get involved since Nortel had most of its work force outside the country, and thus did not represent many voters. It turns out that Ericsson has in fact more workers domestically. Coyne also makes a good point about past government investment as sunk costs that won’t be recovered by handing Nortel to RIM. In our global economy, corporate ownership is fluid and ephemeral. Canada has lost many of its old corporate names to foreigners – Stelco and Falconbridge just two of several. Nortel has had several corporate name changes in its long history in Canada. It started out as part of Bell Telephone, incorporated as Northern Electric in 1895 and later became part of Western Electric and AT&T in the US. In the sixties, Bell Canada & Northern Electric was separated from US Bell and Western Electric by government decree, and in 1972 it became Northern Telecom getting involved in the electronic switching market as well as manufacturing telephones and combined research with Bell Canada.
Thus, Nortel‘s origin was what we used to call a “branch plant” of US industry, making the nationalist argument rather weak. It never was a “national treasure”, and in the recent past, their CEO’s have all been Americans.
There are always at least two sides to every story. Thank you, Andrew Coyne, for pointing out this side.
Thus, Nortel‘s origin was what we used to call a “branch plant” of US industry, making the nationalist argument rather weak. It never was a “national treasure”, and in the recent past, their CEO’s have all been Americans.
There are always at least two sides to every story. Thank you, Andrew Coyne, for pointing out this side.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
RIGHTS ANS WRONGS
Toronto has many fine attractions, but the annual Gay Parade is not one of them. Here we even have our mayor riding around in the parade, mingling with raunchy half-naked men and women jiving to raunchy music and making obscene gestures. But, of course, it brings in money for the city, and money trumps decorum any day. It’s Sodom and Gomorrah combined into a, big public frenzy.
I thought of initiating a Heterosexual Parade, but realized that unless I got some naked Hollywood beauties on the floats, no one would come; and if I did, it might become an issue for the Ontario Human Rights Commission for not including everyone.
We live in a “rights” society, where you have a right to be different, even if it goes against nature. With our modern technology, propagating need not be limited to man and woman; why, some day we might find that you just get a baby in a bottle at the local baby dispensary.
But we still have our rights – right to be so obese that we need to occupy two seats on an airplane, and use gender-neutral address if we have a gender identity crisis while boarding the flight.
We are all “victims” of one thing or another, and need to be coddled and protected from our own vices. What I still don’t understand is that with all these righteous victims, who is left to do the victimizing?
I thought of initiating a Heterosexual Parade, but realized that unless I got some naked Hollywood beauties on the floats, no one would come; and if I did, it might become an issue for the Ontario Human Rights Commission for not including everyone.
We live in a “rights” society, where you have a right to be different, even if it goes against nature. With our modern technology, propagating need not be limited to man and woman; why, some day we might find that you just get a baby in a bottle at the local baby dispensary.
But we still have our rights – right to be so obese that we need to occupy two seats on an airplane, and use gender-neutral address if we have a gender identity crisis while boarding the flight.
We are all “victims” of one thing or another, and need to be coddled and protected from our own vices. What I still don’t understand is that with all these righteous victims, who is left to do the victimizing?
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Our changing world of work and play
In olden days, artisans lived and worked in a seamless life of work and private existence, as did the peasants and yeomen of the land. Modern, industrial life has separated work from home life; work being a means to an end, a necessary evil.A few lucky individuals can do what they love to do and also make money from it — artists; hi-tech entrepreneurs, and the creative individuals come to mind. However, most people spend half their waking hours “earning a living” with little or no enjoyment derived from the activity.
In Europe, where I grew up, there was usually a road to semi-professionalism for those not inclined to go the academic route. It was apprenticeship; shop craft, usually a five-year internship with little pay and much menial work for the master. Afterwards, you had status, and usually steady work as a tradesman. However, technology has changed much of that privilege too. Printers, draughtsmen and many other trades have gone by the wayside, diminished in importance and remunerations;eliminated or sidelined by technology.
Even post-secondary education is no guarantee of an interesting and well-paying job, but it does give you more options.
In many ways, we have come full circle with the days of yore. Manual, repetitive factory type work is declining and more and more; education, skills and “meritocracy” determines ones status and earning capacity in life.
The day might well come again, when there will be two classes of citizens: patricians and plebeians; those who toil, and those who manage. Meritocracy care only if you can perform; and to do so, beyond the most menial tasks, you need brains and motivation –in that order. The egalitarian society might have been just a chimerical dream, and we will awaken to the brutal truth of the market economy.
In Europe, where I grew up, there was usually a road to semi-professionalism for those not inclined to go the academic route. It was apprenticeship; shop craft, usually a five-year internship with little pay and much menial work for the master. Afterwards, you had status, and usually steady work as a tradesman. However, technology has changed much of that privilege too. Printers, draughtsmen and many other trades have gone by the wayside, diminished in importance and remunerations;eliminated or sidelined by technology.
Even post-secondary education is no guarantee of an interesting and well-paying job, but it does give you more options.
In many ways, we have come full circle with the days of yore. Manual, repetitive factory type work is declining and more and more; education, skills and “meritocracy” determines ones status and earning capacity in life.
The day might well come again, when there will be two classes of citizens: patricians and plebeians; those who toil, and those who manage. Meritocracy care only if you can perform; and to do so, beyond the most menial tasks, you need brains and motivation –in that order. The egalitarian society might have been just a chimerical dream, and we will awaken to the brutal truth of the market economy.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
“We can’t talk about immigration” –Mark Steyn, Maclean’s Aug.17th
Yes, we can! But, it does little good, because like the weather, no one can do anything about it. Lately, it seems I agree with Steyn half the time. That’s not bad for an old contumacious curmudgeon like me.
Steyn need not go to Germany and Sweden to find examples of “reunification” abuses and welfare dependency among immigrants. We Canadians have also made it so, by making it too easy to claim refugee status, or to enter as a dependent under the reunification program. What you get, are older parents who come here to enjoy our free medical system and other entitlements (I know whereof I speak: I personally know “new Canadians” who put their mother in a government supported seniors home, even though they were rich).
As to the many professional, independent immigrants who are doing menial jobs here; part of the reason is that they have been “oversold” on Canadian opportunities, possibly by local immigration officials, and also by their own relatives or friends all ready here, who send them glowing accounts of their success here, with nice photos of their new houses, though devoid of furniture, they, like some people, look nice on the outside. Some more realistic picture should be presented to potential immigrants, and some basics in Canadian laws, mores and expectations should be inculcated before their landed certificate is issued. Another issue is that sometimes their educational standards are not always comparable to ours. This was perhaps more so in the past, but I know, for example, that China’s educational system was at least 10 years behind ours until fairly recently; and during Mao’s time, almost non-existent. You got accepted by the university based on how good a Communist your parents were, and if you came from the right proletarian background (for example, surgeons at the hospitals were required to read a chapter of Mao’s Little Red Book before commencing an operation!). I would want to know that before someone began surgery on me, they were truly skilled and qualified.
Then there is the issue of latent or subtle discrimination. Today’s “visible minority” immigrants are more “visible” than the earlier European immigrants, and their cultural and religious backgrounds are more “foreign” to the native population. They take longer to integrate –perhaps as much a two or three generations, and they cling to the “old country ways” longer than the immigrants of yore. This is, however, one area where Canada does better than Europe, because we are attuned to immigration –we are an immigrant country. Europe, in particular the two countries mentioned by Steyn; Germany and Sweden, have a much a more homogeneous society than do we. This causes them to, in spite of the “official” welcoming stance, be more wary of newcomers, especially if they persist in setting themselves apart and creating ethnic ghettoes.
Immigrants do not help themselves either by supporting such nuts as Mullah Krekar in Norway, where they have tried to deport him for some time; but he is still there. There is even a Facebook page dedicated to sending Krekar home! [http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=37022756828].
Canadians are concerned about our rather loose immigration policy, and even more so, the ability for wannabe immigrants to claim “refugee” status once they manage to get here by hook or by crook. It is unfair to the Canadian public and it is unfair to new Canadians who have come here the legal way. By all means, bring in qualified, skilled immigrants that we need, but to let in people willy-nilly is asking for trouble down the road –in fact, it’s all ready here. Being more critical in our immigration policy does not mean that we should revert to the discriminatory policies of old, where, in the case of Jews, “one is too many”, or like the Chinese Exclusion Act.
I do think that there is a valid economic argument for immigration, in addition to the skills we need for the economy; we are also a nation with a low birth rate, below the level of replacement. Thus, if we want to grow economically and also to have enough young people who can pay our old age pension, we need immigrants. But, not just any immigrant –we don’t need people who become a burden on our society –we need productive, intelligent people who can build on what we have achieved so far, and even make it better –regardless of colour, creed or nationality.
Yes, we can! But, it does little good, because like the weather, no one can do anything about it. Lately, it seems I agree with Steyn half the time. That’s not bad for an old contumacious curmudgeon like me.
Steyn need not go to Germany and Sweden to find examples of “reunification” abuses and welfare dependency among immigrants. We Canadians have also made it so, by making it too easy to claim refugee status, or to enter as a dependent under the reunification program. What you get, are older parents who come here to enjoy our free medical system and other entitlements (I know whereof I speak: I personally know “new Canadians” who put their mother in a government supported seniors home, even though they were rich).
As to the many professional, independent immigrants who are doing menial jobs here; part of the reason is that they have been “oversold” on Canadian opportunities, possibly by local immigration officials, and also by their own relatives or friends all ready here, who send them glowing accounts of their success here, with nice photos of their new houses, though devoid of furniture, they, like some people, look nice on the outside. Some more realistic picture should be presented to potential immigrants, and some basics in Canadian laws, mores and expectations should be inculcated before their landed certificate is issued. Another issue is that sometimes their educational standards are not always comparable to ours. This was perhaps more so in the past, but I know, for example, that China’s educational system was at least 10 years behind ours until fairly recently; and during Mao’s time, almost non-existent. You got accepted by the university based on how good a Communist your parents were, and if you came from the right proletarian background (for example, surgeons at the hospitals were required to read a chapter of Mao’s Little Red Book before commencing an operation!). I would want to know that before someone began surgery on me, they were truly skilled and qualified.
Then there is the issue of latent or subtle discrimination. Today’s “visible minority” immigrants are more “visible” than the earlier European immigrants, and their cultural and religious backgrounds are more “foreign” to the native population. They take longer to integrate –perhaps as much a two or three generations, and they cling to the “old country ways” longer than the immigrants of yore. This is, however, one area where Canada does better than Europe, because we are attuned to immigration –we are an immigrant country. Europe, in particular the two countries mentioned by Steyn; Germany and Sweden, have a much a more homogeneous society than do we. This causes them to, in spite of the “official” welcoming stance, be more wary of newcomers, especially if they persist in setting themselves apart and creating ethnic ghettoes.
Immigrants do not help themselves either by supporting such nuts as Mullah Krekar in Norway, where they have tried to deport him for some time; but he is still there. There is even a Facebook page dedicated to sending Krekar home! [http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=37022756828].
Canadians are concerned about our rather loose immigration policy, and even more so, the ability for wannabe immigrants to claim “refugee” status once they manage to get here by hook or by crook. It is unfair to the Canadian public and it is unfair to new Canadians who have come here the legal way. By all means, bring in qualified, skilled immigrants that we need, but to let in people willy-nilly is asking for trouble down the road –in fact, it’s all ready here. Being more critical in our immigration policy does not mean that we should revert to the discriminatory policies of old, where, in the case of Jews, “one is too many”, or like the Chinese Exclusion Act.
I do think that there is a valid economic argument for immigration, in addition to the skills we need for the economy; we are also a nation with a low birth rate, below the level of replacement. Thus, if we want to grow economically and also to have enough young people who can pay our old age pension, we need immigrants. But, not just any immigrant –we don’t need people who become a burden on our society –we need productive, intelligent people who can build on what we have achieved so far, and even make it better –regardless of colour, creed or nationality.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Sunday, August 2, 2009
TORONTO GARBAGE
Mayor David Miller made a lot of noise about discontinuing the “sick days” provision in the union contract; but ultimately, he managed to alienate both the taxpaying public and the union members. Surprise! He should have consulted with Bob Rae, who could have enlightened him about the disutility of trying to do the right thing for union members. After all of Millers’s posturing, he ended up caving in to almost all union demands –Mayor Miller knows on which side his bread is buttered.
The union movement is a many-sided organization and reflect, to a large extent, its membership and societal makeup. Not to put too fine a point on it, but an union of dustmen is going to have differing interests from a union of, say, university teachers.
I spent my first few working yeas as an union member (CNR), and the rest on the other side, including negotiating labour agreements in the private sector(transportation).I have seen “the good, the bad, and the ugly”. The standard advice given to new employees was to work hard and not get into trouble with management during the probationary period, until they were in the union. Unions provide, in the phraseology of John Kenneth Galbright, a “countervailing force” to the excesses of industrialists and even governments. Unfortunately, because it is legalistic, rule-oriented, and often highly politicized, the union leadership is often in tow to the noisiest and more radical elements within their membership, with the “silent majority” just on for the ride. The power-politics of unions reflects and mimics, to a large extent, the politics of society at large or organizational politics in general. Self-interest is paramount in most human organization and societies.
Finally, there is the issue of entitlements: it is difficult to take away something one has had for a long time and come to assume a permanent arrangement and their “God given rights”, such as “sick days”. It should never have been given in the first place; but it is always easier for politicians to give in than take out ( that’s one argument for not having unions in most public works: political considerations interfere with the practical, economic perspective when negotiating with a large group that also votes ).
And as to a poor example or precedent: it is hard to “kick against the pricks” when you, the negotiators, have just given yourself a pay raise; or when the heads of automobile manufacturers who have just been given public funds (corporate welfare) give themselves huge bonuses! In the wise words of Forrest Gump: “stupid is who stupid does.”
The union movement is a many-sided organization and reflect, to a large extent, its membership and societal makeup. Not to put too fine a point on it, but an union of dustmen is going to have differing interests from a union of, say, university teachers.
I spent my first few working yeas as an union member (CNR), and the rest on the other side, including negotiating labour agreements in the private sector(transportation).I have seen “the good, the bad, and the ugly”. The standard advice given to new employees was to work hard and not get into trouble with management during the probationary period, until they were in the union. Unions provide, in the phraseology of John Kenneth Galbright, a “countervailing force” to the excesses of industrialists and even governments. Unfortunately, because it is legalistic, rule-oriented, and often highly politicized, the union leadership is often in tow to the noisiest and more radical elements within their membership, with the “silent majority” just on for the ride. The power-politics of unions reflects and mimics, to a large extent, the politics of society at large or organizational politics in general. Self-interest is paramount in most human organization and societies.
Finally, there is the issue of entitlements: it is difficult to take away something one has had for a long time and come to assume a permanent arrangement and their “God given rights”, such as “sick days”. It should never have been given in the first place; but it is always easier for politicians to give in than take out ( that’s one argument for not having unions in most public works: political considerations interfere with the practical, economic perspective when negotiating with a large group that also votes ).
And as to a poor example or precedent: it is hard to “kick against the pricks” when you, the negotiators, have just given yourself a pay raise; or when the heads of automobile manufacturers who have just been given public funds (corporate welfare) give themselves huge bonuses! In the wise words of Forrest Gump: “stupid is who stupid does.”
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
OBAMAGATE(S)
"Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. has agreed to take President Obama up on his offer to have a beer with Sgt James Crowley, who arrested him earlier this week, at the White House. "I am hopeful that my experience will lead to greater sensitivity to issues of racial profiling in the criminal justice system. It is time for all of us to move on, and to assess what we can learn from this experience," Gates wrote in an email to the Boston Globe. Obama said in a surprise appearance on Friday that Gates and Crowley were both "decent people" and should have "a beer here in the White House." He then called both men to invite them personally. Obama earlier caught heat from police and others when he said Crowley "acted stupidly" when arresting Gates in his own home. He dialed back on those comments Friday after igniting a fiery national debate about race, saying he should have calibrated those words differently."
"There was discussion about he and I and Professor Gates (sic) having a beer here in the White House. We don't know if that's scheduled yet." -- PRESIDENT OBAMA
I do think Obama, though well-meaning, made a grave error here. As President of the United States, he should be above the "fray" -- in this case a local problem between a citizen and the police. He picked the wrong issue and picked on the wrong person. The fact that Professor Gates had political connections to Obama did not make Obama’s interference look any better. Policing is difficult at the best of times; the police do not need the Chief Executive second-guessing their work. If there was any wrong-doing, that's what the courts are for. "Having a beer at the White House" is a “stupid” solution to a “stupid” issue. Obama should stop preening for the public and attend to the huge job for which he was hired. He should not try to "micromanage" the country, and he should avoid casual, extemporaneous comments on sensitive issues. If he does not, he is going to get his nose bloodied more than once.
Having said that, I am still a Canadian Obama fan.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
A CRACKDOWN ON QUEUE-JUMPERS – Maclean’s Aug.3rd
As a one-time immigrant myself, I must agree with Jason Kenney’s attempts to limit the continuing abuse of our over-generous, liberal refugee system. Of the many and varied arguments for stemming the flood of illegal immigrants –costs to our country, lack of screening for undesirables, etc. –the major reason I hear from immigrants here is that they think the system is unfair. They often have to wait for years to bring relatives here, and they resent the fact that phoney refugee claimants can jump the queue, while they had to wait their turn, following the rules and going the proper route. It is highly unfair to everyone, and there should be legislation remedying this inequity. Requiring visas for specific problem areas, while justified, is a short-term measure akin to putting a band-aid on a festering sore.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY: A POLEMIC
While I have no love for Muhammad or Islam; I don't think Christians should be too "holier than thou" either. We have some far- out fundamentalist Christian "redneck" types in the US and even Canada (an extreme, but not singular example is that of Timothy McVeigh, the domestic terrorist and practicing Irish Catholic who killed 168 people in Oklahoma City in 1995), and if we go back a few hundred years, Christian Europe did their share of killing in the name of their own "Mohammed", except they called him Jesus. They burned to death thousands of unbelievers, apostates, Jews and Moors (Arabs), and called it Inquisition instead of Jihad or Fatawa. The Radical Muslims today are just behind the times by a couple of hundred years or so. The last Witches-burning in North America was in Massachusetts in 1692-63.
The Salem witch trials were a series of prosecutions of people accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts, between February 1962 and May 1693. Over 150 people were arrested and imprisoned. The courts convicted twenty-nine people of the capital felony of witchcraft. Nineteen of the accused, fourteen womenand five men, were hanged. One man, Giles Corey, refused to enter a plea and was crushed to deathunder heavy stones in an attempt to force him to plead. At least five more of the accused died in prison.
The Jerry Falwells of today are perhaps not that far removed from Salem. "Witch-hunts" are still alive and well among some Christian fundamentalists. Just turn over some rocks, and there you are!
Monday, July 20, 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
"TORONTO STINKS" - MACLEAN'S Magazine Juy 27
I thought the article was informative and fair to Mayor David Miller, but I hear on my radio news today that he is rather upset with you and intimating unfairness in your reporting.
I understand Mayor Miller is in an un-enviable position: He is a left-leaning NDP’er and owe his job to the support of city unions. He is, however, the Mayor of the entire city.
Mr. Miller should have had a chat with Bob Rae –or maybe he did –since Mr. Rae felt the brunt of union ire when he tried to save jobs by having the workers share work, and thus save jobs of fellow workers. “Rae-days” became a pejorative amongst union members.
Mayor Miller understands that he has reached the end of his rope: the citizens are not going to accept further tax rises, and as you point out, the sentiment is against the union and its “featherbedding” practices, in an environment of a major recession and huge layoffs in private industry. To quote Samuel Johnson, "… when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." This is a good time to consider either making the city employees an essential service, or privatize garbage removals. It works just fine in Etobicoke, and in Mississauga where I reside. By dividing contracts along the old borough lines, it would be carved up into manageable sizes for private firms, and also allow for competition and better cost control for the city.
There may ultimately be more votes in the anti-union camp, and this is his opportunity to claw back the excessive benefits obtained by aggressive unions and passive, compliant politicians. If he fails this test, he will surely suffer at the polls in the next election; but much worse, the city will lose its place in the sun and there will be many cloudy days to come.
I understand Mayor Miller is in an un-enviable position: He is a left-leaning NDP’er and owe his job to the support of city unions. He is, however, the Mayor of the entire city.
Mr. Miller should have had a chat with Bob Rae –or maybe he did –since Mr. Rae felt the brunt of union ire when he tried to save jobs by having the workers share work, and thus save jobs of fellow workers. “Rae-days” became a pejorative amongst union members.
Mayor Miller understands that he has reached the end of his rope: the citizens are not going to accept further tax rises, and as you point out, the sentiment is against the union and its “featherbedding” practices, in an environment of a major recession and huge layoffs in private industry. To quote Samuel Johnson, "… when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." This is a good time to consider either making the city employees an essential service, or privatize garbage removals. It works just fine in Etobicoke, and in Mississauga where I reside. By dividing contracts along the old borough lines, it would be carved up into manageable sizes for private firms, and also allow for competition and better cost control for the city.
There may ultimately be more votes in the anti-union camp, and this is his opportunity to claw back the excessive benefits obtained by aggressive unions and passive, compliant politicians. If he fails this test, he will surely suffer at the polls in the next election; but much worse, the city will lose its place in the sun and there will be many cloudy days to come.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
RE. GOOD NEWS : P'tit gars, big honour - Maclean's July 27th.
I must take issue with you comment about Jean Chretien's Order of Merit and your comparison to Conrad Black's Peerage . There is really no comparison: Chretien's award is a honour bestowed upon "individuals of exceptional distinction" in any arena, as you say, "following the footsteps of Mackenzie King and Lester Pearson."
Conrad Black got a Peerage, which did not allow him to keep his Canadian citizenship, and it obliged him to take a seat in the British upper chamber --House of Lords -- in England. Having to make a choice, he went off in a huff and renounced his Canadian citizenship for a foreign one, then went off to England to strut his stuff among the British elite, with his paramour Barbra Amiel. Yes, I know; Max Aitken ( Lord Beaverbrook) became a Peer in 1917 after leaving Canada and some questionable business affairs in the cement business. He also got involved with the British press -- apparently a sure road to British Peerage. In Britain, he cemented some great relationships, not the least with Winston Churchill during WWll. When Ken Thompson ( Lord Thompson of Fleet) became a Lord, he forfeited his Canadian citizenship and settled in Britain, also a purveyor of Fleet street news.
There is no "precedent" to follow here; no need for Chrétien to "choose between the honour and his Canadian citizenship". Your allusion to Black's predicament is, what they call in hockey, a "cheap shot ," unworthy of your esteemed publication.
Conrad Black got a Peerage, which did not allow him to keep his Canadian citizenship, and it obliged him to take a seat in the British upper chamber --House of Lords -- in England. Having to make a choice, he went off in a huff and renounced his Canadian citizenship for a foreign one, then went off to England to strut his stuff among the British elite, with his paramour Barbra Amiel. Yes, I know; Max Aitken ( Lord Beaverbrook) became a Peer in 1917 after leaving Canada and some questionable business affairs in the cement business. He also got involved with the British press -- apparently a sure road to British Peerage. In Britain, he cemented some great relationships, not the least with Winston Churchill during WWll. When Ken Thompson ( Lord Thompson of Fleet) became a Lord, he forfeited his Canadian citizenship and settled in Britain, also a purveyor of Fleet street news.
There is no "precedent" to follow here; no need for Chrétien to "choose between the honour and his Canadian citizenship". Your allusion to Black's predicament is, what they call in hockey, a "cheap shot ," unworthy of your esteemed publication.
RE. GOOD NEWS : P'tit gars, big honour - Maclean's July 27th.
I must take issue with you comment about Jean Chretien's Order of Merit and your comparison to Conrad Black's Peerage . There is really no comparison: Chretien's award is a honour bestowed upon "individuals of exceptional distinction" in any arena, as you say, "following the footsteps of Mackenzie King and Lester Pearson."
Conrad Black got a Peerage, which did not allow him to keep his Canadian citizenship, and it obliged him to take a seat in the British upper chamber --House of Lords -- in England. Having to make a choice, he went off in a huff and renounced his Canadian citizenship for a foreign one, then went off to England to strut his stuff among the British elite, with his paramour Barbra Amiel. Yes, I know; Max Aitken ( Lord Beaverbrook) became a Peer in 1917 after leaving Canada and some questionable business affairs in the cement business. He also got involved with the British press -- apparently a sure road to British Peerage. In Britain, he cemented some great relationships, not the least with Winston Churchill during WWll. When Ken Thompson ( Lord Thompson of Fleet) became a Lord, he forfeited his Canadian citizenship and settled in Britain, also a purveyor of Fleet street news.
There is no "precedent" to follow here; no need for Chr�tien to "choose between the honour and his Canadian citizenship". Your allusion to Black's predicament is, what they call in hockey, a "cheap shot ," unworthy of your esteemed publication.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
“Unnecessary at any speed”…Andrew Coyne, Maclean’s July 20th issue.
Aside from a clever paraphrasing of Ralph Nader’s 1965 book Unsafe at Any Speed, Andrew Coyne has made me reassess some of my cherished assumptions about high-speed rail travel.
The Calgary-Edmonton link does not make sense – at 300 km through a relatively thinly populated area, it will never garner the passengers needed to break even. People will use their cars, especially since they will need them to get around Calgary and Edmonton, with its limited public transport. Renting a car at either end will negate the advantage both economically and environmentally. For those who cannot drive, there is the bus; just a three hour ride.
I do still think, however, that the Toronto-Montreal (not Windsor-Quebec) corridor does make sense for the following reasons:
1. Both Toronto and Montreal have good public transit and a large population. There are a few fair size cities en route (Oshawa, Belleville, Kingston and Cornwall), and a secondary Cornwall – Ottawa spur could also be viable.
2. A modern, electrified, dedicated train is fast, efficient, high-capacity, low environmental impact and more comfortable (and faster) than a bus.
3. While needing some subsidy, so does our highways –the 401 is in need of upgrading. Another alternative is air travel, with the concomitant drawbacks of crowded airports, high cost of getting downtown from the airports, and of course, higher negative environmental impact. Airports are also, to a degree, subsidised.
Running high-speed passenger trains over the present freight lines do not make sense. Substantial upgrading at crossings will be needed, as well as fencing along the line. Even so, the potential speed of the train on the present rails is quite low, thus limiting the advantage and attraction of train travel. A dedicated, limited access rail is required for a proper high-speed train, even if not a super-train like a maglev. An efficient inter-city passenger train will attract both business travellers who fly, and the general public who now drive or take the bus.
The degree of diversion from air, car and bus will depend on the cost of the ticket compared to other modes of transport. That, of course, will depend upon the subsidies available, and is in that way a bit of a catch-22.
The real punch line here is Mr. Coyne’s last paragraph: … “take the subsidy out of driving –charge a toll….” Right on, Andrew!
There is another argument made in favour of efficient, high-speed ground transportation, including good highways, and it is an economic one: The trans-Canada railways and highways all contributed to more and better interchange of people and goods, thus benefiting the overall economy. There was, of course, a political imperative to this transportation nexus –had we not the transcontinental railway we might be even more economically dependent on our southern neighbour.
However, there is a counter argument also for this –one is put forward by Fared Zakaria in his book The Post-American World (Norton 2008). He points out that France has the fastest and most efficient rail network in Europe –one “that gleam compared to America’s creaky system –yet it is the US economy that has edged ahead of France for the last three decades. A vibrant private sector can deliver extraordinary growth even when traveling on bad roads.”
Wouldn’t it be nice –if we could have both a vibrant private sector and efficient transportation? At this point, we are trailing in both.
The Calgary-Edmonton link does not make sense – at 300 km through a relatively thinly populated area, it will never garner the passengers needed to break even. People will use their cars, especially since they will need them to get around Calgary and Edmonton, with its limited public transport. Renting a car at either end will negate the advantage both economically and environmentally. For those who cannot drive, there is the bus; just a three hour ride.
I do still think, however, that the Toronto-Montreal (not Windsor-Quebec) corridor does make sense for the following reasons:
1. Both Toronto and Montreal have good public transit and a large population. There are a few fair size cities en route (Oshawa, Belleville, Kingston and Cornwall), and a secondary Cornwall – Ottawa spur could also be viable.
2. A modern, electrified, dedicated train is fast, efficient, high-capacity, low environmental impact and more comfortable (and faster) than a bus.
3. While needing some subsidy, so does our highways –the 401 is in need of upgrading. Another alternative is air travel, with the concomitant drawbacks of crowded airports, high cost of getting downtown from the airports, and of course, higher negative environmental impact. Airports are also, to a degree, subsidised.
Running high-speed passenger trains over the present freight lines do not make sense. Substantial upgrading at crossings will be needed, as well as fencing along the line. Even so, the potential speed of the train on the present rails is quite low, thus limiting the advantage and attraction of train travel. A dedicated, limited access rail is required for a proper high-speed train, even if not a super-train like a maglev. An efficient inter-city passenger train will attract both business travellers who fly, and the general public who now drive or take the bus.
The degree of diversion from air, car and bus will depend on the cost of the ticket compared to other modes of transport. That, of course, will depend upon the subsidies available, and is in that way a bit of a catch-22.
The real punch line here is Mr. Coyne’s last paragraph: … “take the subsidy out of driving –charge a toll….” Right on, Andrew!
There is another argument made in favour of efficient, high-speed ground transportation, including good highways, and it is an economic one: The trans-Canada railways and highways all contributed to more and better interchange of people and goods, thus benefiting the overall economy. There was, of course, a political imperative to this transportation nexus –had we not the transcontinental railway we might be even more economically dependent on our southern neighbour.
However, there is a counter argument also for this –one is put forward by Fared Zakaria in his book The Post-American World (Norton 2008). He points out that France has the fastest and most efficient rail network in Europe –one “that gleam compared to America’s creaky system –yet it is the US economy that has edged ahead of France for the last three decades. A vibrant private sector can deliver extraordinary growth even when traveling on bad roads.”
Wouldn’t it be nice –if we could have both a vibrant private sector and efficient transportation? At this point, we are trailing in both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)