Canadians used to take pride in their higher savings rate, compared to the Americans. Not anymore.
It seems we have learned nothing from the American debt crisis; and here in Ontario, we have forgotten the housing collapse of the early 1980’s, when house prices dropped as much as 40 % and did not recover their old values until after the turn of the century. Speculation was rife; people kept moving up, sometimes changing homes every one or two years; speculators were “flipping” homes, and ordinary people were buying forward several months and expecting their old home to appreciate before putting it up for sale. It worked for a while, but then the market turned, and some people who had committed to a new home and waiting to sell their own at higher prices had to sell much lower and ending up with a new house but a much larger mortgage. Some seniors, selling their old, large home and hoping to move into a new, smaller home, mortgage free, ended up with a smaller home with a large mortgage. Quit claims were rampant.
Now, here we go again. Every day one can hear on the radio or see on TV finance companies advertise easy money: “you can qualify for a loan even if you have no job, or are self employed; have a paid for car not too old; or some equity in your home, even if you are a bankrupt”! This kind of advertising, preying on the poor or desperate, or just foolish, should be made illegal. It’s this kind of behaviour that got our American neighbours in serious trouble, and we are now going down the same road.
Your article references Denmark (also true of Norway and Sweden) where household carry twice the debt to income burden. This is true, but leaves out a couple of factors: mortgages are generously tax deductible, and it is advantageous in a high tax regime to carry a large mortgage; especially amongst higher income earners. Also, in comparison, the Scandinavian countries have much more generous income support policies for people losing their jobs or become unable to work because of illness, etc. Employment insurance benefits, as much as 90 % of wages, can last up to five years. This makes mortgage debt less risky. However, there also, they have been encouraged by the steady appreciation of house values over time.
Even the marketing of “reverse mortgages” to the elderly –while perhaps legitimate and useful in some circumstances –should be regulated better. These people, who prey on the elderly, or the unfortunate, are nothing but financial parasites and should be “exterminated”.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, January 28, 2010
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, April 30, 2009
- Excerpted with permission from Sheeple: Caucus Confidential in Stephen Harper’s Ottawa by Garth Turner. Published by Key Porter Books. ©Garth Turne
I walked into the Prime Minister’s office. It was 6:15 p. m. and snow whipped against the outside stone walls of Centre Block. Downstairs the reception was thinning and the foodplates decimated. Upstairs, the door closed behind me, and Harper approached. We shook hands. There were a few small words about the campaign in my riding and we stood during them, while Chief Whip Jay Hill watched. The Prime Minister then motioned me to sit down, which we did on either side of a small wooden end table with a brass lamp on it.
My bottom was barely in the chair when Harper let it fly. I am very disappointed with you, he said. It got worse quickly, and the tone was unmistakable. Stephen Harper was condescending, belittling and menacing. Here was a man with whom I had exchanged perhaps 200 words in the last year, talking to a newly elected MP, a member of his own caucus, who had just succeeded in taking a riding from the Liberals after more than a decade — a riding that was a beachhead into the constituency-rich GTA–and he spoke to me as if I were a petulant, useless, idiot child.
His voice was without a single shred of respect. No acknowledging I’d been in this office before, or in the Cabinet room down the hall, or had run to be leader of a legacy party. It was as if conservativism had started with the election of Stephen Harper as leader and led directly to this moment. Prior to that, he may have believed politicians bobbed like rudderless vessels on a sea of public opinion, blown helplessly by the winds of media know-italls. And he alone was out to change that.
The Prime Minister was at me now about my comments on former Liberal Jim Emerson, and I explained my opposition to floor-crossing MPs and my position that despite the new minister’s worth and experience, the ethical action would be to re-submit to the people. How, I asked, could you have been critical of what Belinda Stronach did, and now turn around and cause this to happen?
Harper glared. He pointed out to me that he had not voted for legislation in the last Parliament that would have banned floor-crossing (although half his caucus did). He said there had been nothing in the election campaign platform that prevented an MP from abandoning a party, or the voters, to pursue his or her own agenda. That, he said, leaning forward and staring hard at me, was not his position, and I was absolutely wrong in talking to anyone about it. Pointedly, he did not mention Belinda’s name. I thought the better part of valour at the moment was to follow suit. But it also struck me:Here was a man hiding behind semantics, convinced his position was unassailable because words defended him. He may have hinted broadly that Belinda was a weak person of questionable intellect that led her to make the wrong decision in leaving his side. But he never actually said the process was incorrect. In an argument of logic, he won. So when I said, “I still find this position unprincipled,” he needed only to look at me with disdain.
He was done with that. We moved on to me. It was not going well.
Harper said he felt he could not trust me. “To put it charitably, you were independent during the campaign.” The penny was dropping now. The dots between anonymous on-the-phone Doug Finley, worries about my blog and the leader’s ear were filling in rapidly. He turned to look squarely at me and said, “I don’t need a media star in my caucus.”
Media star. The choice of words was interesting. I had come to my candidacy as a businessman, employer and entrepreneur, running three companies. I thought the man would have known that, realized I had not been an on-camera personality for a few years, or a daily newspaper columnist
for decades. But perhaps some sins could never be expunged.
The Prime Minister paused. “I was going to offer you something, a role, something I had that is delicate, something important,” he said. “But now I’m not going to anymore. Instead we will just see what happens, what you do, over the next few weeks.”
The Prime Minister looked over at me, waiting for my face to react. Was he seeking disappointment, anger or regret? Remorse, maybe? A desperate cry for forgiveness? Stephen Harper had just dangled some valued, unnamed position or title, then snatched it away.
But I was not here to ask for anything. He had nothing I wanted. The only goal pursued had been to become a Member of Parliament, and my behaviour, principles or beliefs could not be changed with a job offer.
I started to rise out of my chair. “Well,” I said, “I guess that’s it then …”
But Harper wasn’t done yet. “Sit down.”
“You’re a journalist,” he said, “and we all know journalists make bad politicians. Politicians know how to stick to a message. That’s how they are successful. Journalists think they always have to tell the truth.”
The phone rang. “This is the Prime Minister’s office,” a woman announced. “I have the Prime Minister’s chief of staff on the line. Please hold.”
“This is Ian Brodie. I have Jay Hill, the government whip, here with me.”
It was mid-morning, and I had promised many media outlets I’d tell them shortly whether or not interviews would happen. After the events of the previous evening nothing was exactly clear. Pathetically, I imagined Brodie was about to extend an olive branch.
“I’m a blunt person,” Brodie said. “I heard your comments on Canada AM, and this freelance commenting of yours has to end. The public undermining has to end. There was nothing in our platform that was against floor-crossing. If you want to f–k with us, we will certainly f–k with you. Do you want to sit as an independent? Then we can arrange that. Count on it.”
The tone was shocking, the words driven by an obvious anger. I tried a compromise, and offered to turn down any further media interviews. Jay Hill spoke. “That is unacceptable,” he said. “You are damaging your colleagues and the Prime Minister. You will do no more media.” Then he asked me, simply, why I was saying the appointment of David Emerson was wrong.
“Because that’s what I believe,” I said. Hill laughed.
“Let me make this clear.” Brodie’s voice dropped a bit and he slowed. “I am telling you, you will not give any more media interviews. I am telling you, you will stop writing the blog. And I’m telling you that you’ll issue a press release today praising the Prime Minister’s appointment of Emerson. Are you clear?”
Yes, I said. Clear.
It was clear that a political staffer, unelected and unaccountable, answering directly to the Prime Minister, had just tried to gag a Member of Parliament, threatened to throw him out of the party he’d been elected by the people to represent and ordered him to make a false statement.
Oh my God. Here we go.
My bottom was barely in the chair when Harper let it fly. I am very disappointed with you, he said. It got worse quickly, and the tone was unmistakable. Stephen Harper was condescending, belittling and menacing. Here was a man with whom I had exchanged perhaps 200 words in the last year, talking to a newly elected MP, a member of his own caucus, who had just succeeded in taking a riding from the Liberals after more than a decade — a riding that was a beachhead into the constituency-rich GTA–and he spoke to me as if I were a petulant, useless, idiot child.
His voice was without a single shred of respect. No acknowledging I’d been in this office before, or in the Cabinet room down the hall, or had run to be leader of a legacy party. It was as if conservativism had started with the election of Stephen Harper as leader and led directly to this moment. Prior to that, he may have believed politicians bobbed like rudderless vessels on a sea of public opinion, blown helplessly by the winds of media know-italls. And he alone was out to change that.
The Prime Minister was at me now about my comments on former Liberal Jim Emerson, and I explained my opposition to floor-crossing MPs and my position that despite the new minister’s worth and experience, the ethical action would be to re-submit to the people. How, I asked, could you have been critical of what Belinda Stronach did, and now turn around and cause this to happen?
Harper glared. He pointed out to me that he had not voted for legislation in the last Parliament that would have banned floor-crossing (although half his caucus did). He said there had been nothing in the election campaign platform that prevented an MP from abandoning a party, or the voters, to pursue his or her own agenda. That, he said, leaning forward and staring hard at me, was not his position, and I was absolutely wrong in talking to anyone about it. Pointedly, he did not mention Belinda’s name. I thought the better part of valour at the moment was to follow suit. But it also struck me:Here was a man hiding behind semantics, convinced his position was unassailable because words defended him. He may have hinted broadly that Belinda was a weak person of questionable intellect that led her to make the wrong decision in leaving his side. But he never actually said the process was incorrect. In an argument of logic, he won. So when I said, “I still find this position unprincipled,” he needed only to look at me with disdain.
He was done with that. We moved on to me. It was not going well.
Harper said he felt he could not trust me. “To put it charitably, you were independent during the campaign.” The penny was dropping now. The dots between anonymous on-the-phone Doug Finley, worries about my blog and the leader’s ear were filling in rapidly. He turned to look squarely at me and said, “I don’t need a media star in my caucus.”
Media star. The choice of words was interesting. I had come to my candidacy as a businessman, employer and entrepreneur, running three companies. I thought the man would have known that, realized I had not been an on-camera personality for a few years, or a daily newspaper columnist
for decades. But perhaps some sins could never be expunged.
The Prime Minister paused. “I was going to offer you something, a role, something I had that is delicate, something important,” he said. “But now I’m not going to anymore. Instead we will just see what happens, what you do, over the next few weeks.”
The Prime Minister looked over at me, waiting for my face to react. Was he seeking disappointment, anger or regret? Remorse, maybe? A desperate cry for forgiveness? Stephen Harper had just dangled some valued, unnamed position or title, then snatched it away.
But I was not here to ask for anything. He had nothing I wanted. The only goal pursued had been to become a Member of Parliament, and my behaviour, principles or beliefs could not be changed with a job offer.
I started to rise out of my chair. “Well,” I said, “I guess that’s it then …”
But Harper wasn’t done yet. “Sit down.”
“You’re a journalist,” he said, “and we all know journalists make bad politicians. Politicians know how to stick to a message. That’s how they are successful. Journalists think they always have to tell the truth.”
The phone rang. “This is the Prime Minister’s office,” a woman announced. “I have the Prime Minister’s chief of staff on the line. Please hold.”
“This is Ian Brodie. I have Jay Hill, the government whip, here with me.”
It was mid-morning, and I had promised many media outlets I’d tell them shortly whether or not interviews would happen. After the events of the previous evening nothing was exactly clear. Pathetically, I imagined Brodie was about to extend an olive branch.
“I’m a blunt person,” Brodie said. “I heard your comments on Canada AM, and this freelance commenting of yours has to end. The public undermining has to end. There was nothing in our platform that was against floor-crossing. If you want to f–k with us, we will certainly f–k with you. Do you want to sit as an independent? Then we can arrange that. Count on it.”
The tone was shocking, the words driven by an obvious anger. I tried a compromise, and offered to turn down any further media interviews. Jay Hill spoke. “That is unacceptable,” he said. “You are damaging your colleagues and the Prime Minister. You will do no more media.” Then he asked me, simply, why I was saying the appointment of David Emerson was wrong.
“Because that’s what I believe,” I said. Hill laughed.
“Let me make this clear.” Brodie’s voice dropped a bit and he slowed. “I am telling you, you will not give any more media interviews. I am telling you, you will stop writing the blog. And I’m telling you that you’ll issue a press release today praising the Prime Minister’s appointment of Emerson. Are you clear?”
Yes, I said. Clear.
It was clear that a political staffer, unelected and unaccountable, answering directly to the Prime Minister, had just tried to gag a Member of Parliament, threatened to throw him out of the party he’d been elected by the people to represent and ordered him to make a false statement.
Oh my God. Here we go.
Friday, April 17, 2009
NEW DELHI’S END GAME? -Adnan Khan, Maclean’s Apr. 27
I am surprised that Maclean’s would abet and countenance such abject, one-sided and biased presentation as the one given here by Mr. Khan. He intimates that “India’s goal is Pakistan’s disintegration” or at least, “to keep Pakistan weak.” This, he does, neatly, by quoting a Mr. John Pike as an alleged authority (“a leading online source for security and intelligence information”). Not only is India blamed for Pakistan’s woes, but they are also implicated in fomenting conflict in Sri Lanka!
It seems to me that Pakistan is quite capable of self-immolation and requires little help therewith from India. His arguments might carry more weight had it not come from a Pakistani-descendant scribe quoting internet-based “authorities.”
It seems to me that Pakistan is quite capable of self-immolation and requires little help therewith from India. His arguments might carry more weight had it not come from a Pakistani-descendant scribe quoting internet-based “authorities.”
Thursday, April 16, 2009
“Mother ‘trapped’ in Saudi Arabia” –Star April 16, 2009
I find it very hard to feel sorry for this woman who on her own volition went to Saudi Arabia to get married and now, after seven years and two children, has second thoughts after her marriage did not turned out to be the Cinderella story she envisioned. She has returned here twice, so she isn’t imprisoned there, but now she wants to leave again, with the children who are Saudi nationals. And, of course, she is looking for the Canadian government to help her leave.
Her “plight” must really resonate with the many really abused Canadian women in shelters here. Give me a break!
Her “plight” must really resonate with the many really abused Canadian women in shelters here. Give me a break!
“How the rich and powerful win again” –Bob Hepburn, Star April 16th
“How the rich and powerful win again” –Bob Hepburn, Star April 16th
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Hepburn, et al, about not revoking Conrad Black’s Order of Canada.
As Mr. Hepburn notes, “there is a bad smell” to this, and I can see a few reasons for it (check one):
Conrad Black is a (ultra) Conservative ( C & c)
He has friends in high places –whose reputation he is protecting and whom is protecting him –he could raise a “stink” here).
He is a friend of the Asper’s (friends in high places cont.; see National Post).
He is an enemy of Jean Chrétien –thus the adage “your enemy is my friend” applies here.
ALL OF THE ABOVE
All that’s now left to do is returning his citizenship and welcoming the prodigal son “home.”
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Hepburn, et al, about not revoking Conrad Black’s Order of Canada.
As Mr. Hepburn notes, “there is a bad smell” to this, and I can see a few reasons for it (check one):
Conrad Black is a (ultra) Conservative ( C & c)
He has friends in high places –whose reputation he is protecting and whom is protecting him –he could raise a “stink” here).
He is a friend of the Asper’s (friends in high places cont.; see National Post).
He is an enemy of Jean Chrétien –thus the adage “your enemy is my friend” applies here.
ALL OF THE ABOVE
All that’s now left to do is returning his citizenship and welcoming the prodigal son “home.”
Thursday, March 26, 2009
ITEM:
Is this the end of the free market, as we know it? In testimony before Congress this morning, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will propose a sweeping expansion of government regulation over the financial system, ending the Bush era of decontrol. The Washington Post reports the Obama administration's plan would "extend federal regulation for the first time to all trading in financial derivatives and to companies including large hedge funds and major insurers such as American International Group." It also would impose uniform standards on all financial firms, including banks, to curb their risk-taking. Obama won't seek to reshape the government's structure at first, but instead will focus on setting standards, many of which will require legislation.
First, let me state that I am an Obama-fan; the man has an incredible intellect, self-control and poise. He plays the audiences like a fine violin.
If anything, he has been underestimated. I have this strange feeling that what we see is only the tip of the iceberg, and risking ridicule, I posit the following:
The Obama administration has long-term plans for a major overhaul, nay revolution, of the American society. Obama is an idealist, but he is also a realist. The recession has given him the opening and opportunity to make radical systemic changes in the economy, and to introduce difficult but overdue programs such as public medical insurance. The American private health insurance system is broken. In addition to being discriminatory and unfair to the many who cannot afford insurance; it is also major impediment to labour mobility, something even more important in a major recession like now.
The laissez faire approach to the economy and corporations is ending, especially as concerns the banking and investment community. Government involvement and control will become a permanent fixture.
To this end, I suspect that Obama’s anger and ire over the AIG bonus payments were carefully orchestrated to stoke the public ire; and gather support and to lay the grounds for greater government intrusion in the markets, and public welfare in general.
It takes great tribulations to shock public lethargy enough produce major structural changes in a society. War, of course, is some such trauma producing lasting effects and upheavals; severe economic distress, such as the Great Depression are others; and arguably, the present tribulations, can force major changes in the social fabric. Samuel Johnson once said “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” Obama is all ready into his “fortnight”, and believe me, his mind is wonderfully concentrated.
Is this the end of the free market, as we know it? In testimony before Congress this morning, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will propose a sweeping expansion of government regulation over the financial system, ending the Bush era of decontrol. The Washington Post reports the Obama administration's plan would "extend federal regulation for the first time to all trading in financial derivatives and to companies including large hedge funds and major insurers such as American International Group." It also would impose uniform standards on all financial firms, including banks, to curb their risk-taking. Obama won't seek to reshape the government's structure at first, but instead will focus on setting standards, many of which will require legislation.
First, let me state that I am an Obama-fan; the man has an incredible intellect, self-control and poise. He plays the audiences like a fine violin.
If anything, he has been underestimated. I have this strange feeling that what we see is only the tip of the iceberg, and risking ridicule, I posit the following:
The Obama administration has long-term plans for a major overhaul, nay revolution, of the American society. Obama is an idealist, but he is also a realist. The recession has given him the opening and opportunity to make radical systemic changes in the economy, and to introduce difficult but overdue programs such as public medical insurance. The American private health insurance system is broken. In addition to being discriminatory and unfair to the many who cannot afford insurance; it is also major impediment to labour mobility, something even more important in a major recession like now.
The laissez faire approach to the economy and corporations is ending, especially as concerns the banking and investment community. Government involvement and control will become a permanent fixture.
To this end, I suspect that Obama’s anger and ire over the AIG bonus payments were carefully orchestrated to stoke the public ire; and gather support and to lay the grounds for greater government intrusion in the markets, and public welfare in general.
It takes great tribulations to shock public lethargy enough produce major structural changes in a society. War, of course, is some such trauma producing lasting effects and upheavals; severe economic distress, such as the Great Depression are others; and arguably, the present tribulations, can force major changes in the social fabric. Samuel Johnson once said “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” Obama is all ready into his “fortnight”, and believe me, his mind is wonderfully concentrated.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
STIMULUS: AN ECONOMIC IMPERATIVE
Both Americans and Canadians have been spending too much and saving too little. Consumption has become the economic & social imperative, as witnessed after September 11th, when the New York City’s mayor encouraged people to “go shopping”.
The example of mortgage deductibility and its inducement to take on debt is valid, and here Canada has a better tax policy. Even so, before we get too busy patting our own backs, we should remember that we had our own real estate assets-price inflation mess in the late eighties, and it came crashing down in the early nineties, bottoming out at about a forty percent decline. It took well-night ten years before house prices recovered to the eighties price levels. A major reason for this hyper-activity was the $ 500,000.00 capital gains deductibility (later reduced to $ 100,000.00 by the Liberal government; eventually cancelled all together) introduced by the then Conservative government. Many individuals became house-speculators and real estate “investors”. One fellow I knew, an ordinary hourly worker, had seven homes that he rented out. Some real estate agents did little else but buy and sell homes on their own behalf, and ordinary people bought homes and “flipped” them after a suitable capital gain. Many speculated in this way with their own homes, buying a new house with a long closing date, and then selling their own house after it had gained suitably in value. Builders were behind; there was a shortage of skilled workers, and six months or more was normal for a closing date. Buying first and selling your own home became the norm, and house buyers could pocket a substantial tax-free capital gain in between transactions. I knew of people doing so more than once a year –the family living like gypsies with the objective of eventually become mortgage free or living in a palatial home.
However, the chickens came home to roost and the bees returned to the hives in early nineteen-nineties, and many people got severely stung. I recall one older couple who had bought a smaller home in which to retire and were planning to pay off their mortgage. The builder gave them a six month completion date, and they held on to their old, large home waiting for it to appreciate. Well, the housing market collapsed in 1990-91, and they eventually had to sell their old home at a much lower price. The wife told me, with some irony, that they now had a smaller house with a larger mortgage! The difference in the US situation now, is that, in addition tax deductibility, the homebuyers were encouraged to buy more than they could afford, with little or no equity, and an artificially low mortgage payment for the first few years. This was initially a well meaning policy initiated by the Clinton administration, but it got out of hand with the laissez- faire regulations policy of the Bush administration, and there you are.
The old saying “buyer beware” is still valid –the government cannot protect everyone from their own greed and stupidity. A re-alignment between want and need is in order, and one would hope that one result of this economic mess is that people will come to their senses and realize that shopping and getting is not all this life is about.
Unfortunately, monetary policy is not a “sufficient remedy”, when there is huge demand destruction like we now are experiencing. Printing money is like pushing up a rope, and will only lead to massive inflation at a later stage. Lower interest rates are also useless when they are all ready close to zero; lenders won’t lend and potential buyers have no business growth and very little equity. Liquefy the banks, and lean on them to lend is, unfortunately, a necessity, though lending to unqualified buyers is what got them into trouble in the first place. It’s a veritable Hobson’s choice, and the banks are caught between a rock and a hard place. Ultimately, more stringent regulations and overview, especially of derivatives and other fancy investment vehicles to be dreamt up in the future, is a minimum. Meanwhile, fiscal actions such as infrastructure repairs and transportation development is the best options, and offers the most “bang for the buck”, since the working people will benefit from the wages earned on such projects, and spend most on it Such expenditures on capital projects will, hopefully, last longer than the deficit incurred by such activity. The much studied Windsor-Quebec corridor high-speed train service is one that comes readily to mind. It would kill two birds with one stone: economic stimulant and pollution retardant.
The example of mortgage deductibility and its inducement to take on debt is valid, and here Canada has a better tax policy. Even so, before we get too busy patting our own backs, we should remember that we had our own real estate assets-price inflation mess in the late eighties, and it came crashing down in the early nineties, bottoming out at about a forty percent decline. It took well-night ten years before house prices recovered to the eighties price levels. A major reason for this hyper-activity was the $ 500,000.00 capital gains deductibility (later reduced to $ 100,000.00 by the Liberal government; eventually cancelled all together) introduced by the then Conservative government. Many individuals became house-speculators and real estate “investors”. One fellow I knew, an ordinary hourly worker, had seven homes that he rented out. Some real estate agents did little else but buy and sell homes on their own behalf, and ordinary people bought homes and “flipped” them after a suitable capital gain. Many speculated in this way with their own homes, buying a new house with a long closing date, and then selling their own house after it had gained suitably in value. Builders were behind; there was a shortage of skilled workers, and six months or more was normal for a closing date. Buying first and selling your own home became the norm, and house buyers could pocket a substantial tax-free capital gain in between transactions. I knew of people doing so more than once a year –the family living like gypsies with the objective of eventually become mortgage free or living in a palatial home.
However, the chickens came home to roost and the bees returned to the hives in early nineteen-nineties, and many people got severely stung. I recall one older couple who had bought a smaller home in which to retire and were planning to pay off their mortgage. The builder gave them a six month completion date, and they held on to their old, large home waiting for it to appreciate. Well, the housing market collapsed in 1990-91, and they eventually had to sell their old home at a much lower price. The wife told me, with some irony, that they now had a smaller house with a larger mortgage! The difference in the US situation now, is that, in addition tax deductibility, the homebuyers were encouraged to buy more than they could afford, with little or no equity, and an artificially low mortgage payment for the first few years. This was initially a well meaning policy initiated by the Clinton administration, but it got out of hand with the laissez- faire regulations policy of the Bush administration, and there you are.
The old saying “buyer beware” is still valid –the government cannot protect everyone from their own greed and stupidity. A re-alignment between want and need is in order, and one would hope that one result of this economic mess is that people will come to their senses and realize that shopping and getting is not all this life is about.
Unfortunately, monetary policy is not a “sufficient remedy”, when there is huge demand destruction like we now are experiencing. Printing money is like pushing up a rope, and will only lead to massive inflation at a later stage. Lower interest rates are also useless when they are all ready close to zero; lenders won’t lend and potential buyers have no business growth and very little equity. Liquefy the banks, and lean on them to lend is, unfortunately, a necessity, though lending to unqualified buyers is what got them into trouble in the first place. It’s a veritable Hobson’s choice, and the banks are caught between a rock and a hard place. Ultimately, more stringent regulations and overview, especially of derivatives and other fancy investment vehicles to be dreamt up in the future, is a minimum. Meanwhile, fiscal actions such as infrastructure repairs and transportation development is the best options, and offers the most “bang for the buck”, since the working people will benefit from the wages earned on such projects, and spend most on it Such expenditures on capital projects will, hopefully, last longer than the deficit incurred by such activity. The much studied Windsor-Quebec corridor high-speed train service is one that comes readily to mind. It would kill two birds with one stone: economic stimulant and pollution retardant.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Jewish groups slam boycott aimed at Israeli universities – Star Feb23/09
Sid Ryan and his gang are getting more than tiresome; they are acting alike a bunch of bigots.
Fresh from Comparing Jews to Nazis, he is now spearheading a motion to boycott Israeli Universities. Blaming the victim now extends to Israel and its reaction to the murderous jihadists lobbing rockets at their civilian population –adults and children – indiscriminately.
If Palestinians have achieved one thing in their anti-Israel campaign of murder and mayhem, it is to achieve an acceptance of neo-anti-Semitic vitriol among people so inclined in other parts of the world, including Canada. The fact that Israel now can defend its people is seen as justification for bigoted and anti-Semitic behaviour by wing-nuts like Mr Ryan and others of the same ilk. Using his union as a vehicle for such drivel makes it even more disgusting.
Fresh from Comparing Jews to Nazis, he is now spearheading a motion to boycott Israeli Universities. Blaming the victim now extends to Israel and its reaction to the murderous jihadists lobbing rockets at their civilian population –adults and children – indiscriminately.
If Palestinians have achieved one thing in their anti-Israel campaign of murder and mayhem, it is to achieve an acceptance of neo-anti-Semitic vitriol among people so inclined in other parts of the world, including Canada. The fact that Israel now can defend its people is seen as justification for bigoted and anti-Semitic behaviour by wing-nuts like Mr Ryan and others of the same ilk. Using his union as a vehicle for such drivel makes it even more disgusting.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Norwegian diplomacy or hypocrisy ?
Hypocrisy!by David A. Harris
Executive Director
American Jewish Committee
January 26, 2009
Dear Ms. Trine Lilleng,
You were an unknown Norwegian diplomat till this month.
No longer.
As first secretary in the Norwegian Embassy in Saudi Arabia, you recently sent out an email on your office account in which you declared: "The grandchildren of Holocaust survivors from World War II are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them by Nazi Germany."
Accompanying your text were photos, with an emphasis on children, seeking to juxtapose the Holocaust with the recent Israeli military operation in Gaza.
Clearly, you are miscast in your role as a diplomat, all the more so of a nation that has sought to play a mediating role in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In fact, you're desperately in need of some education.
Let's begin with your current posting. You've been in Riyadh since 2007.
If you're so anguished by human rights violations, perhaps you could have begun by devoting some of your attention - and email blasts - to what surrounds you.
Or were your eyes diplomatically shut?
Have you failed to notice the many legal executions, including beheadings, going on in your assigned country?
Have you ignored the often abysmal treatment of foreign workers, many from Asia, who also happen to be disproportionately counted among the victims of Saudi capital punishment?
Have you neglected the gender apartheid that surrounds you? Did you ever look out of your car to notice that Saudi women are proscribed from driving, and that's hardly the worst of it?
Have you checked the skyline of Riyadh or Jeddah lately to count the number of church spires or other non-Muslim houses of worship?
Have you bothered to inquire about the fate of homosexuals?
Okay, you were AWOL on those issues. Maybe you just didn't want to offend your hosts by speaking the truth, or maybe you're suffering from that diplomatic disease known as "localitis" or "clientitis."
But surely a woman like you, with such capacity for empathy for those in far-away places, and especially for children in danger, couldn't remain silent about other human rights transgressions, could she?
After all, could an individual so deeply moved by the plight of Palestinians in Gaza remain silent about what aNew York Times columnist earlier this month described as "hell on earth" - Zimbabwe? Could a person so anguished by the fate of Palestinian children stay mum about a country where a girl's life expectancy at birth is 34, much less than half that of her Norwegian counterpart, and where the health care sector has vaporized, all thanks to the one-man rule of Robert Mugabe?
Could such a dedicated humanist possibly avert her eyes from the deadliest conflict since the Second World War, which has killed over five million people, many of them children, in the Congo in the past decade - not to mention the documented and widespread use of torture, rape, and arbitrary detention?
An observer of such acute sensitivity could hardly hold her tongue while Afghan girls attempting to go to school have been doused with acid by those who wish to deny young women access to education, reminiscent of the five years of Taliban rule, could she?
In neighboring Pakistan, where you served in the Norwegian embassy for three years, the beleaguered human rights community must have been fortunate to have such an impassioned voice for all that's wrong in this failing state. Or was that voice, perhaps, on mute?
The children of Sderot, the Israeli town near the Gaza border, have been in desperate need of just such a spokesperson as you for the past eight years.
After all, their town has been in the crosshairs of literally thousands of missiles and mortars fired from Gaza. Those Israeli children live with all the signs of trauma, knowing that, with only 15 seconds warning, they could be hit at any time in their schools, their parks, or their beds. Yet, during my visit there last week, for some reason, those children and their parents had yet to hear you speak out for them. What a pity!
And the children of Iran could use your help as well. According to human rights groups, Iran has no compunction about executing children or those who were children when their crimes were allegedly committed.
Oh, and by the way, your compassionate help would also undoubtedly be welcomed by others under the gun in Iran, including women's rights activists, union organizers, student protesters, independent journalists, reformist politicians, and religious minorities. And let's not forget, once again, the children of Israel, who, according to the Iranian president, don't have a right to live.
But wait! A Google search about you reveals nothing, not a single word, regarding your views on Zimbabwe, Congo, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sderot, or Iran. Or, for that matter, Burma, Darfur, Syria. Shall I go on?
Only Israel, faced with those who wish to destroy it, manages to prompt your impassioned correspondence and righteous indignation. Why?
No less, your stunning lack of education extends beyond the contemporary world to 20th century history, specifically the Holocaust.
Your invocation of the Holocaust to describe what's taken place in Gaza is, frankly, nothing short of obscene.
Your claim that the grandchildren of the survivors are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them goes beyond any norm of decency, much less honesty.
Approve or disapprove of the Israeli military operation, but there is no basis whatsoever for such a comparison.
When Israel entered Gaza in a war of self-defense in 1967, the population was 360,000. After Israel withdrew totally from Gaza in 2005, it was estimated at 1.4 million.
Would that the Jewish population under Nazi rule had quadrupled!
When Israel entered Gaza in 1967, life expectancy for women was 46. When it left Gaza, it was 73.
Shall we even bother to discuss life expectancy for Jews under Nazi occupation?
The Second World War in Europe lasted from September 1, 1939 to May 8, 1945 - 68 months in all. That means an average monthly extermination rate of nearly 90,000 Jews.
Compare that to the total number of victims in Gaza over three weeks - roughly guesstimated at more or less 1,000 - and recall that the majority were armed fighters committed to Israel's destruction, who used civilians, including children, as human shields, mosques as arms depots, and hospitals as sanctuaries.
Believe me, Ms. Lilleng, if the "grandchildren of the Holocaust survivors" had wanted to do exactly what the Nazis did to their grandparents, they would have unleashed their full air, land, and sea power. They would have thrown the Israel Defense Forces' ethical guidelines to the wind, kicked out the UN and Red Cross personnel on the ground, stopped humanitarian transports of food, fuel, and medicine, prevented media reporting, and left absolutely nothing - and no one - standing.
Unless, of course, they needed slave labor, in which case they would have carted off the able-bodied to work in Auschwitz replicas until they dropped. Or material for ghoulish medical experimentation, in which case, in the spirit of Mengele, they would have kept Palestinian twins alive temporarily.
But Israel didn't do any of these things. It's a peace-seeking democracy dedicated to the rule of law - unlike so many of the countries whose horrific sins you blithely choose to overlook.
What are we to make of your selective moral outrage and rank hypocrisy?
You ought to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why Israel, and only Israel, makes your blood boil and leads you to speak out, even at the risk of grossly distorting both reality and history.
The answer, Ms. Lilleng, should be painfully obvious.
Executive Director
American Jewish Committee
January 26, 2009
Dear Ms. Trine Lilleng,
You were an unknown Norwegian diplomat till this month.
No longer.
As first secretary in the Norwegian Embassy in Saudi Arabia, you recently sent out an email on your office account in which you declared: "The grandchildren of Holocaust survivors from World War II are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them by Nazi Germany."
Accompanying your text were photos, with an emphasis on children, seeking to juxtapose the Holocaust with the recent Israeli military operation in Gaza.
Clearly, you are miscast in your role as a diplomat, all the more so of a nation that has sought to play a mediating role in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In fact, you're desperately in need of some education.
Let's begin with your current posting. You've been in Riyadh since 2007.
If you're so anguished by human rights violations, perhaps you could have begun by devoting some of your attention - and email blasts - to what surrounds you.
Or were your eyes diplomatically shut?
Have you failed to notice the many legal executions, including beheadings, going on in your assigned country?
Have you ignored the often abysmal treatment of foreign workers, many from Asia, who also happen to be disproportionately counted among the victims of Saudi capital punishment?
Have you neglected the gender apartheid that surrounds you? Did you ever look out of your car to notice that Saudi women are proscribed from driving, and that's hardly the worst of it?
Have you checked the skyline of Riyadh or Jeddah lately to count the number of church spires or other non-Muslim houses of worship?
Have you bothered to inquire about the fate of homosexuals?
Okay, you were AWOL on those issues. Maybe you just didn't want to offend your hosts by speaking the truth, or maybe you're suffering from that diplomatic disease known as "localitis" or "clientitis."
But surely a woman like you, with such capacity for empathy for those in far-away places, and especially for children in danger, couldn't remain silent about other human rights transgressions, could she?
After all, could an individual so deeply moved by the plight of Palestinians in Gaza remain silent about what aNew York Times columnist earlier this month described as "hell on earth" - Zimbabwe? Could a person so anguished by the fate of Palestinian children stay mum about a country where a girl's life expectancy at birth is 34, much less than half that of her Norwegian counterpart, and where the health care sector has vaporized, all thanks to the one-man rule of Robert Mugabe?
Could such a dedicated humanist possibly avert her eyes from the deadliest conflict since the Second World War, which has killed over five million people, many of them children, in the Congo in the past decade - not to mention the documented and widespread use of torture, rape, and arbitrary detention?
An observer of such acute sensitivity could hardly hold her tongue while Afghan girls attempting to go to school have been doused with acid by those who wish to deny young women access to education, reminiscent of the five years of Taliban rule, could she?
In neighboring Pakistan, where you served in the Norwegian embassy for three years, the beleaguered human rights community must have been fortunate to have such an impassioned voice for all that's wrong in this failing state. Or was that voice, perhaps, on mute?
The children of Sderot, the Israeli town near the Gaza border, have been in desperate need of just such a spokesperson as you for the past eight years.
After all, their town has been in the crosshairs of literally thousands of missiles and mortars fired from Gaza. Those Israeli children live with all the signs of trauma, knowing that, with only 15 seconds warning, they could be hit at any time in their schools, their parks, or their beds. Yet, during my visit there last week, for some reason, those children and their parents had yet to hear you speak out for them. What a pity!
And the children of Iran could use your help as well. According to human rights groups, Iran has no compunction about executing children or those who were children when their crimes were allegedly committed.
Oh, and by the way, your compassionate help would also undoubtedly be welcomed by others under the gun in Iran, including women's rights activists, union organizers, student protesters, independent journalists, reformist politicians, and religious minorities. And let's not forget, once again, the children of Israel, who, according to the Iranian president, don't have a right to live.
But wait! A Google search about you reveals nothing, not a single word, regarding your views on Zimbabwe, Congo, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sderot, or Iran. Or, for that matter, Burma, Darfur, Syria. Shall I go on?
Only Israel, faced with those who wish to destroy it, manages to prompt your impassioned correspondence and righteous indignation. Why?
No less, your stunning lack of education extends beyond the contemporary world to 20th century history, specifically the Holocaust.
Your invocation of the Holocaust to describe what's taken place in Gaza is, frankly, nothing short of obscene.
Your claim that the grandchildren of the survivors are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them goes beyond any norm of decency, much less honesty.
Approve or disapprove of the Israeli military operation, but there is no basis whatsoever for such a comparison.
When Israel entered Gaza in a war of self-defense in 1967, the population was 360,000. After Israel withdrew totally from Gaza in 2005, it was estimated at 1.4 million.
Would that the Jewish population under Nazi rule had quadrupled!
When Israel entered Gaza in 1967, life expectancy for women was 46. When it left Gaza, it was 73.
Shall we even bother to discuss life expectancy for Jews under Nazi occupation?
The Second World War in Europe lasted from September 1, 1939 to May 8, 1945 - 68 months in all. That means an average monthly extermination rate of nearly 90,000 Jews.
Compare that to the total number of victims in Gaza over three weeks - roughly guesstimated at more or less 1,000 - and recall that the majority were armed fighters committed to Israel's destruction, who used civilians, including children, as human shields, mosques as arms depots, and hospitals as sanctuaries.
Believe me, Ms. Lilleng, if the "grandchildren of the Holocaust survivors" had wanted to do exactly what the Nazis did to their grandparents, they would have unleashed their full air, land, and sea power. They would have thrown the Israel Defense Forces' ethical guidelines to the wind, kicked out the UN and Red Cross personnel on the ground, stopped humanitarian transports of food, fuel, and medicine, prevented media reporting, and left absolutely nothing - and no one - standing.
Unless, of course, they needed slave labor, in which case they would have carted off the able-bodied to work in Auschwitz replicas until they dropped. Or material for ghoulish medical experimentation, in which case, in the spirit of Mengele, they would have kept Palestinian twins alive temporarily.
But Israel didn't do any of these things. It's a peace-seeking democracy dedicated to the rule of law - unlike so many of the countries whose horrific sins you blithely choose to overlook.
What are we to make of your selective moral outrage and rank hypocrisy?
You ought to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why Israel, and only Israel, makes your blood boil and leads you to speak out, even at the risk of grossly distorting both reality and history.
The answer, Ms. Lilleng, should be painfully obvious.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Letters, The Star, Feb.19th
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
TheStar.com | Opinion | Nothing like refighting old wars
Nothing like refighting old wars
Feb 19, 2009 04:30 AM
Re:Cancelling event seen as surrender,
Feb. 18
File this under "what in the world were they thinking?" The re-enactment of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was a half-baked and stupid idea in the first place, akin to waving a red flag before a bull.
We have enough strife between the French and English factions of this country without actively looking for trouble.
Sigmund Roseth, Mississauga
TheStar.com | Opinion | Nothing like refighting old wars
Nothing like refighting old wars
Feb 19, 2009 04:30 AM
Re:Cancelling event seen as surrender,
Feb. 18
File this under "what in the world were they thinking?" The re-enactment of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was a half-baked and stupid idea in the first place, akin to waving a red flag before a bull.
We have enough strife between the French and English factions of this country without actively looking for trouble.
Sigmund Roseth, Mississauga
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
The Liberal coronation...
On Nov.28th I wrote in a letter to the editor of the Star:
I predict that something like this will happen: The opposition parties, tired of playing political poker with the Harper & co. will pull the plug anyhow, as they should. They will likely have Dion move up his resignation date and then appoint Michael Ignatieff as temporary leader of the coalition, until an election can be held –after the Liberal convention and the resolution of the current economic crisis. After all, though not ideal, Ignatieff is all ready the Deputy Opposition Leader.
December 8th, I wrote in my blog ( http://sroseth.blogspot.com):
I see another scenario possible: that Rae quits the race. If the two go at it, only the Conservative will be winners. This is his time to stand up for Canada, and put politics and his own ego behind him. If he takes it to a vote, he will waste time, effort and money for nothing. If I read him right, and if he is as honourable and intelligent as I think him to be, I think he will take the high road and fold earlier, rather than later. We'll soon know.
The Liberal Party is now at a crossroads: If they play it right, they might be the governing party sooner than later. Here is how it might unfold:
Ignatieff bides his time, holding the “coalition Damocles Sword” over Harpers head; he can bring about much of the Liberal agenda without the risks inherent in governing the country in his time of economic uncertainty. If Harper falls on his sword –which he likely will-Ignatieff will be the knight in shining armor, riding the vanguard of the Liberals coming too save the day.
On a personal level, Ignatieff needs to soften his demanour – more humor and less gravitas. Of course, he will likely have Bob Rae as his sidekick, and Rae has the joviality Ignatieff lacks. The two should be a fine team.
I wager that Harper will rue his rash and precipitous actions of late. Now he will face a man with superior intellect and likely a better strategic thinker and tactician than him. As the saying goes: he was hoisted by his own petards.
I predict that something like this will happen: The opposition parties, tired of playing political poker with the Harper & co. will pull the plug anyhow, as they should. They will likely have Dion move up his resignation date and then appoint Michael Ignatieff as temporary leader of the coalition, until an election can be held –after the Liberal convention and the resolution of the current economic crisis. After all, though not ideal, Ignatieff is all ready the Deputy Opposition Leader.
December 8th, I wrote in my blog ( http://sroseth.blogspot.com):
I see another scenario possible: that Rae quits the race. If the two go at it, only the Conservative will be winners. This is his time to stand up for Canada, and put politics and his own ego behind him. If he takes it to a vote, he will waste time, effort and money for nothing. If I read him right, and if he is as honourable and intelligent as I think him to be, I think he will take the high road and fold earlier, rather than later. We'll soon know.
The Liberal Party is now at a crossroads: If they play it right, they might be the governing party sooner than later. Here is how it might unfold:
Ignatieff bides his time, holding the “coalition Damocles Sword” over Harpers head; he can bring about much of the Liberal agenda without the risks inherent in governing the country in his time of economic uncertainty. If Harper falls on his sword –which he likely will-Ignatieff will be the knight in shining armor, riding the vanguard of the Liberals coming too save the day.
On a personal level, Ignatieff needs to soften his demanour – more humor and less gravitas. Of course, he will likely have Bob Rae as his sidekick, and Rae has the joviality Ignatieff lacks. The two should be a fine team.
I wager that Harper will rue his rash and precipitous actions of late. Now he will face a man with superior intellect and likely a better strategic thinker and tactician than him. As the saying goes: he was hoisted by his own petards.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Spending our way out of recession
Money, lots of it, will have to be spent in order to kick-start the economy back to life. Monetary policy - manipulating the money supply through interest rate policy -is of little use when the rate apporches zero, and the demand is weak or non-existant. The Keneysian methods of direct intervention in the economy by job-creation schemes will work better, though it is not instantanious, and will take time to percolate thorugh the economy.
Whatever method is used to generate jobs and economic activity, the extraordinary monetary expenditures required to make a difference is going to create inflationary pressures down the road. Yet, not every job-creation scheme is equally efficacious and beneficial. In the fifties – in both Canada and the US – huge sums were expended on road building and other infrastructure projects (such as the US Interstate and the Trans Canada Highway system; the Welland Canal and ports as well as expressways and subways in the cities). Capital projects such as these provided long term benefits to the domestic economy and national and international trade. However, the upkeep of our roads, highways and bridges has fallen behind, and our whole road network has suffered.
Concomitantly, we need innovations and development of more ecology-friendly transportation methods, including train travel in the more densely populated areas. A high-speed, dedicated track, train in the Windsor - Quebec corridor would be a good start. Job creation money spent in such way is effective, because of the multiplier effect: the jobs created are precisely those in the area of the most vulnerable –amongst the unskilled and semi-skilled workers. They also spend a higher percentage of their wages, and what they do save is also subject to the multiplier effect through the banking system, where a dollar saved is about twelve dollars loaned by the bank for other economic activity. It’s a win-win situation, since infrastructure (capital) investment, in contrast to current consumption, has long lasting benefits of smoother and more efficient communications in all areas of the economy. When the inevitable inflation returns, at least we can see what our money bought.
Whatever method is used to generate jobs and economic activity, the extraordinary monetary expenditures required to make a difference is going to create inflationary pressures down the road. Yet, not every job-creation scheme is equally efficacious and beneficial. In the fifties – in both Canada and the US – huge sums were expended on road building and other infrastructure projects (such as the US Interstate and the Trans Canada Highway system; the Welland Canal and ports as well as expressways and subways in the cities). Capital projects such as these provided long term benefits to the domestic economy and national and international trade. However, the upkeep of our roads, highways and bridges has fallen behind, and our whole road network has suffered.
Concomitantly, we need innovations and development of more ecology-friendly transportation methods, including train travel in the more densely populated areas. A high-speed, dedicated track, train in the Windsor - Quebec corridor would be a good start. Job creation money spent in such way is effective, because of the multiplier effect: the jobs created are precisely those in the area of the most vulnerable –amongst the unskilled and semi-skilled workers. They also spend a higher percentage of their wages, and what they do save is also subject to the multiplier effect through the banking system, where a dollar saved is about twelve dollars loaned by the bank for other economic activity. It’s a win-win situation, since infrastructure (capital) investment, in contrast to current consumption, has long lasting benefits of smoother and more efficient communications in all areas of the economy. When the inevitable inflation returns, at least we can see what our money bought.
Friday, December 5, 2008
HARPER REDUX: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081205.COSALUTIN05/TPStory/specialComment/columnists
"I don't think Stephen Harper's problem is that he's an ideologue. It's that he's one of those people who only feels truly alive when voicing hostility and contempt for his "enemies." Without that, he starts gasping for air. It's his nature. Go find a better explanation for that self-destructive turnaround."
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Re. INTERVIEW with Roland Fryer. – Maclean’s Dec.15/08.
Excellent article. I think the ideas posited in Hernstein & Murray’s Bell Curve have now been largely disproved, and Matt Ridely’s Nature via Nurture argument makes more sense. It is also more hopeful for the coloured minorities. Obama showed great personal self-confidence and strength in calling himself a “mutt”, though it is incorrectly ascribed to humans (it means mongrel and is usually used in a derogatory way, mainly regarding dogs ). A better word would be mulatto, the proper description of mixed races. But he got our attention!
In the end, we are all part of the human “race”. Mr. Fryer, like Obama’ does not cower behind euphemisms when describing his mixed heritage.
In fact, it might be an advantage. I don’t wish to trivialize this point, but I am a lover of cats and dogs, and I have noticed that the “mutts” far often are smarter and usually stronger than the single breeds. The same could be true for humans.
In the end, we are all part of the human “race”. Mr. Fryer, like Obama’ does not cower behind euphemisms when describing his mixed heritage.
In fact, it might be an advantage. I don’t wish to trivialize this point, but I am a lover of cats and dogs, and I have noticed that the “mutts” far often are smarter and usually stronger than the single breeds. The same could be true for humans.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
McGuinty eyes race - Star, Nov.15th
Re.Steps in the right direction - Nov. 15
Finally, some sensible ideas on youth crime from a politician. Making racial statistics taboo might have seemed like a non-discriminating policy at the time, but all it really does is blindfold police and authorities, making it harder to zero in on the real issues and problem areas. Only when these problems are freely acknowledged by the authorities, as well as the affected parties, can something be effectively done, both through policing efforts and preventive social programs. It won't make it easy, but it will be a step in the right direction.
Sigmund Roseth, Mississauga
Finally, some sensible ideas on youth crime from a politician. Making racial statistics taboo might have seemed like a non-discriminating policy at the time, but all it really does is blindfold police and authorities, making it harder to zero in on the real issues and problem areas. Only when these problems are freely acknowledged by the authorities, as well as the affected parties, can something be effectively done, both through policing efforts and preventive social programs. It won't make it easy, but it will be a step in the right direction.
Sigmund Roseth, Mississauga
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)