Chuck Strahl has fired the head of the Canadian Wheat Board.
That's phase 1.
Now let's work on getting a look at the books.
I'm sure that will be interesting reading.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Mr. Coderre - check your job description
In yesterday's committee hearings on Bill C-257, a bill to ban the use of replacement workers during strikes, Liberal M.P. Denis Coderre made the assertion that "it is [his] job to ensure that we have as few strikes as possible."
I beg to differ. The job of a member of parliament is not to prevent strikes. Its to represent your constituents. That would be all of your constituents, Mr. Coderre. Not just the unions that backed you.
While we are on the topic of Bill 257 (another attempt to restrict the free exchange of goods & services courtesy of the Bloc), I stand firmly opposed to it. The conservatives were, of course, the only ones who were opposed it. We need to get this thing defeated at third reading. The Liberals, Bloc & NDP have never been about people working out their own agreements. They are addicted to legislative coersion and would never even consider that people might be capable of this without the "help" of a government.
I beg to differ. The job of a member of parliament is not to prevent strikes. Its to represent your constituents. That would be all of your constituents, Mr. Coderre. Not just the unions that backed you.
While we are on the topic of Bill 257 (another attempt to restrict the free exchange of goods & services courtesy of the Bloc), I stand firmly opposed to it. The conservatives were, of course, the only ones who were opposed it. We need to get this thing defeated at third reading. The Liberals, Bloc & NDP have never been about people working out their own agreements. They are addicted to legislative coersion and would never even consider that people might be capable of this without the "help" of a government.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
The basics never go out of style
I have always maintained that the most valuable engineering tools are a pencil and a blank piece of paper.
Apparently, I am not in the minority on this one. A survey of engineering professionals finds that most rely on hand calculations every day. Electronic rsources are moving up the list in terms of frequency of use, but nothing replaces the ability to do your own math.
Apparently, I am not in the minority on this one. A survey of engineering professionals finds that most rely on hand calculations every day. Electronic rsources are moving up the list in terms of frequency of use, but nothing replaces the ability to do your own math.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
The Nations in Canada
It is always good to agree on the definition of specific terms of an agreement before signing it. In fact, its vital.
One of the things that scientists do at the start of any calculation is define the terms they are going to use during the calculation. The more specific the definition, the more sure you generally are of the end result, and that your conculsions will not be misinterpreted.
As we look at the discussion of what nation or nations may exist within Canada we should probably start by defining our terms.
So, how do we go abut finding definitions of various words? The standard answer is a dictionary. My dictionary (Funk & Wagnall’s Standard College Dictionary – Canadian Edition, © 1982) gives the following:
nation
• noun 1) A body of persons associated with a particular territory, usually organized under a government, and possessing a distinctive cultural and social way of life. 2) A body of persons having a common origin and language. 3) A tribe or federation, especially of American Indians; also the territory it occupies.
Just for fun, let’s add the Webster’s dictionary definition to the mix:
na·tion
1 a (1) : NATIONALITY 5a (2) : a politically organized nationality (3) : a non-Jewish nationality b : a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government c : a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status2 archaic : GROUP, AGGREGATION3 : a tribe or federation of tribes (as of American Indians)
Following through on 1a above, we find:
Nationality 5 a : a people having a common origin, tradition, and language and capable of forming or actually constituting a nation-state b : an ethnic group constituting one element of a larger unit (as a nation )
Let’s also look up the definition of the French term “nation”, to be sure we are all talking about the same thing. From my Micro Robert Dictionnaire:
nation
• n.f. 1) Groupe humain assez vaste, qui se charactérise par conscience de son unite et la volonté de vivre en commun 2) Communauté politique établie sur un teritoire défini, et personnifiée par une autorité souvraine
Looking at the definitions above and other dictionaries in both French & English, it is interesting to see that two themes emerge. The concept of a nation as a political entity – the default mode in the English definitions, and the concept of a nation as a group of people with common language, culture & origin – the default mode in French definitions. Both are applicable in both languages though.
So, using the dictionary terms, what are the nation(s) that one finds within Canada?
The one that fits both the English and French definitions is clearly the entirety of Canada as one nation. Are there subsets, that could themselves be considered “nations”, as per the dictionaries?
Is Québec a nation? Probably not, by strict interpretation of these definitions.
Are there other nations within Canada? Clearly, yes – if we look from the common definition of a cultural group rather than a political one. The “pur laine” of Québec world meet that definition. The Acadians would clearly fall into that definition of “nation” as well. Similarly, there would be many First Nations groups who meet these definitions much more readily than the Province of Québec as a whole. Even English Canada would clearly constitute a nation by those terms.
One could even make an argument for the Leafs Nation, but that may be stretching it a bit.
The many ethnic communities that one finds throughout Canada probably don’t meet the “size” criteria that seems to be a part of making that “community” to “nation” step, but are they any less significant?
Why the fuss about wanting to recognize “the Québec nation”?
For the Bloc/PQ the fight has always been about an independent country for the “pur laine” of Québec. “… ce que nous sommes…” to quote Jacques Parizeau. If they have to take a few members of “the ethnic vote” with them in order to achieve that, well that’s the price of admission. “The ethnic vote” of Québec can be made sufficiently uncomfortable in an independent Québec that their numbers will not rise to the point of being inconvenient is the unstated thought in the back of the PQ/Bloc believers. In the Bloc’s mind “the ethnic vote” (i.e. all non-“pur laine”) don’t really count as part of Québec anyway.
There are many nations (in the cultural group sense of the word) that make up Canada. Why acknowledge just one? Surely they all deserve the same respect, rules, and significance. Or is it simply that Canada has degenerated to the point where all nations (again, in the cultural group sense of the word) are equal, but some nations are more equal than others? That clearly is the Bloc/PQ position.
Wake up Canada. The nation is Canada. There are many subsets that make up the whole, but the whole is what its all about. No one subset deserves recognition that others do not get. That’s a basic premise of western democracy and law. Let’s be sure to define our terms explicitly before we go recognizing nations within nations.
One of the things that scientists do at the start of any calculation is define the terms they are going to use during the calculation. The more specific the definition, the more sure you generally are of the end result, and that your conculsions will not be misinterpreted.
As we look at the discussion of what nation or nations may exist within Canada we should probably start by defining our terms.
So, how do we go abut finding definitions of various words? The standard answer is a dictionary. My dictionary (Funk & Wagnall’s Standard College Dictionary – Canadian Edition, © 1982) gives the following:
nation
• noun 1) A body of persons associated with a particular territory, usually organized under a government, and possessing a distinctive cultural and social way of life. 2) A body of persons having a common origin and language. 3) A tribe or federation, especially of American Indians; also the territory it occupies.
Just for fun, let’s add the Webster’s dictionary definition to the mix:
na·tion
1 a (1) : NATIONALITY 5a (2) : a politically organized nationality (3) : a non-Jewish nationality
Following through on 1a above, we find:
Nationality 5 a : a people having a common origin, tradition, and language and capable of forming or actually constituting a nation-state b : an ethnic group constituting one element of a larger unit (as a nation )
Let’s also look up the definition of the French term “nation”, to be sure we are all talking about the same thing. From my Micro Robert Dictionnaire:
nation
• n.f. 1) Groupe humain assez vaste, qui se charactérise par conscience de son unite et la volonté de vivre en commun 2) Communauté politique établie sur un teritoire défini, et personnifiée par une autorité souvraine
Looking at the definitions above and other dictionaries in both French & English, it is interesting to see that two themes emerge. The concept of a nation as a political entity – the default mode in the English definitions, and the concept of a nation as a group of people with common language, culture & origin – the default mode in French definitions. Both are applicable in both languages though.
So, using the dictionary terms, what are the nation(s) that one finds within Canada?
The one that fits both the English and French definitions is clearly the entirety of Canada as one nation. Are there subsets, that could themselves be considered “nations”, as per the dictionaries?
Is Québec a nation? Probably not, by strict interpretation of these definitions.
Are there other nations within Canada? Clearly, yes – if we look from the common definition of a cultural group rather than a political one. The “pur laine” of Québec world meet that definition. The Acadians would clearly fall into that definition of “nation” as well. Similarly, there would be many First Nations groups who meet these definitions much more readily than the Province of Québec as a whole. Even English Canada would clearly constitute a nation by those terms.
One could even make an argument for the Leafs Nation, but that may be stretching it a bit.
The many ethnic communities that one finds throughout Canada probably don’t meet the “size” criteria that seems to be a part of making that “community” to “nation” step, but are they any less significant?
Why the fuss about wanting to recognize “the Québec nation”?
For the Bloc/PQ the fight has always been about an independent country for the “pur laine” of Québec. “… ce que nous sommes…” to quote Jacques Parizeau. If they have to take a few members of “the ethnic vote” with them in order to achieve that, well that’s the price of admission. “The ethnic vote” of Québec can be made sufficiently uncomfortable in an independent Québec that their numbers will not rise to the point of being inconvenient is the unstated thought in the back of the PQ/Bloc believers. In the Bloc’s mind “the ethnic vote” (i.e. all non-“pur laine”) don’t really count as part of Québec anyway.
There are many nations (in the cultural group sense of the word) that make up Canada. Why acknowledge just one? Surely they all deserve the same respect, rules, and significance. Or is it simply that Canada has degenerated to the point where all nations (again, in the cultural group sense of the word) are equal, but some nations are more equal than others? That clearly is the Bloc/PQ position.
Wake up Canada. The nation is Canada. There are many subsets that make up the whole, but the whole is what its all about. No one subset deserves recognition that others do not get. That’s a basic premise of western democracy and law. Let’s be sure to define our terms explicitly before we go recognizing nations within nations.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Time to Cast Some Light on the Canadian Wheat Board
The Canadian Wheat Board needs an overhaul for so many different reasons, its hard to know where to start.
Consider:
1) If its the "Canadian" Wheat Board, why does it only apply to western Canada? Those from Liberal ridings can still sell their wheat to whoever they please.
2) It amazing how few Canadians are aware that this monstrosity is responsible for farmers being jailed for the crime of selling their wheat.
3) Whay have the Liberals quickly tried to shut down every attempt to shind some light on its finances.
Paul Jackson raises these questions and others in today's Calgary Sun.
Let's spread the word to the rest of Canada about this Liberal relic.
I agree with Paul's assessment that it will probably make the sponsorship scandal pale in comparison.
Consider:
1) If its the "Canadian" Wheat Board, why does it only apply to western Canada? Those from Liberal ridings can still sell their wheat to whoever they please.
2) It amazing how few Canadians are aware that this monstrosity is responsible for farmers being jailed for the crime of selling their wheat.
3) Whay have the Liberals quickly tried to shut down every attempt to shind some light on its finances.
Paul Jackson raises these questions and others in today's Calgary Sun.
Let's spread the word to the rest of Canada about this Liberal relic.
I agree with Paul's assessment that it will probably make the sponsorship scandal pale in comparison.
Peaceful Trespassing?
Looking at CBC.ca's headline "Protesters arrested at peaceful demonstration" you would think that those arrested were somehow the innocent victims of a police state.
The fact thay they were trespassing on private property is, of course, buried well down in the story.
A quick Google search on those arrested shows that this is their typical m.o. and they they are anything but new to this game.
The fact thay they were trespassing on private property is, of course, buried well down in the story.
A quick Google search on those arrested shows that this is their typical m.o. and they they are anything but new to this game.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
CBC is in Denial
The CBC is an integral part of the denial machine
Anyone with even a rudimentary level of critical thinking skills who saw The Fifth Estate's program "The Denial Machine" would be able to see clearly where the bulk of the denial is coming from. Unfortunately, everyone at the Communist Broadcasting Corporation clearly lacks those skills.
If you didn't see it, you did yourself a favour. The thesis of the show was to pretend that there is no debate or question amongst "the scientific community" as to whether global warming is a real and major phenomenon. It tried to paint any opposition to the conclusions of globals castatrophe as the paid servants of "big oil."
Consider the following ironies:
1) There is legitimate scientific opposition to the prevailing doomsday predictions of the global warming crowd, yet the CBC denies its existance.
2) It claims any opposition that exists is just a paid shill for "Big Oil", yet refuses to examine the science on either side of the debate.
3) Climate science is a very young discipline. It relies heavily on computer models of very complex systems that have no track record of accuracy. In order to be able to make these computer models, scientists have had to make assumptions. Do any state their assumptions up front and what the implications of those asssumptions are? Have they released their source code for peer review?
4) There is a lot of competition for government research money. Consider that these doomsday scenarios come from those who stand to gain government funding only if there is a catastrophe ahead that their chosen field of study will help understand. Whould you spend billions on climate study if your scientists told you that that the climate was going to stay the same for the next few thousand years?
5) Consider the accuracy of current climate models. Is it reasonable to believe that these models can accurately predict the climate a hundred years from now? Can they accurately predict if its going to rain next Tuesday?
I would suggest that there is considerable basic scientific work still to be done before we move back into caves.
For further details: Terrence Corcoran further eviscerates the CBC's propaganda in this morning's National Post.
Anyone with even a rudimentary level of critical thinking skills who saw The Fifth Estate's program "The Denial Machine" would be able to see clearly where the bulk of the denial is coming from. Unfortunately, everyone at the Communist Broadcasting Corporation clearly lacks those skills.
If you didn't see it, you did yourself a favour. The thesis of the show was to pretend that there is no debate or question amongst "the scientific community" as to whether global warming is a real and major phenomenon. It tried to paint any opposition to the conclusions of globals castatrophe as the paid servants of "big oil."
Consider the following ironies:
1) There is legitimate scientific opposition to the prevailing doomsday predictions of the global warming crowd, yet the CBC denies its existance.
2) It claims any opposition that exists is just a paid shill for "Big Oil", yet refuses to examine the science on either side of the debate.
3) Climate science is a very young discipline. It relies heavily on computer models of very complex systems that have no track record of accuracy. In order to be able to make these computer models, scientists have had to make assumptions. Do any state their assumptions up front and what the implications of those asssumptions are? Have they released their source code for peer review?
4) There is a lot of competition for government research money. Consider that these doomsday scenarios come from those who stand to gain government funding only if there is a catastrophe ahead that their chosen field of study will help understand. Whould you spend billions on climate study if your scientists told you that that the climate was going to stay the same for the next few thousand years?
5) Consider the accuracy of current climate models. Is it reasonable to believe that these models can accurately predict the climate a hundred years from now? Can they accurately predict if its going to rain next Tuesday?
I would suggest that there is considerable basic scientific work still to be done before we move back into caves.
For further details: Terrence Corcoran further eviscerates the CBC's propaganda in this morning's National Post.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Be Sure To Comply....
For those of you unfamiliar with the Federal Register, its where the US Government publishes changes or clarifications to US law. The Canadian counterpart is the Canada Gazette.
This morning's version of the Federal Register contained the following notice:
[Federal Register: October 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 62344]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24oc06-103]
============================================
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 5586]
Bureau of Political Military Affairs; Arms Export Control Act;
Determinations
Pursuant to section 654(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
as amended, notice is hereby given that:
(1) On August 18, 2006, the President made a determination pursuant
to section 36 of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended; and
(2) The President has concluded that publication of such
determination would be harmful to the national security of the United
States.
Michael W. Coulter,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E6-17796 Filed 10-23-06; 8:45 am]
In summary:
We've made a legal determination.
We aren't going to tell you about it.
Failure to comply with it will get you in serious trouble!
Ever wonder why governments sometimes are accused of being less than forthcoming?
This morning's version of the Federal Register contained the following notice:
[Federal Register: October 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 62344]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24oc06-103]
============================================
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 5586]
Bureau of Political Military Affairs; Arms Export Control Act;
Determinations
Pursuant to section 654(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
as amended, notice is hereby given that:
(1) On August 18, 2006, the President made a determination pursuant
to section 36 of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended; and
(2) The President has concluded that publication of such
determination would be harmful to the national security of the United
States.
Michael W. Coulter,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E6-17796 Filed 10-23-06; 8:45 am]
In summary:
We've made a legal determination.
We aren't going to tell you about it.
Failure to comply with it will get you in serious trouble!
Ever wonder why governments sometimes are accused of being less than forthcoming?
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
The Green Party
There is an excellent essay over at www.conservativejoe.com regarding the Green Party and the implications of their agenda. Its welll worth a read. http://www.conservativejoe.com/chosen/green.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
