Friday, October 19, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Imagine if it was a serious crime...
If murder only merits a 2 1/2 year sentence, then I guess the current trend of 24 hours for armed gang members is pretty much in line.
Perhaps electing Judges isn't a bad idea after all....
Perhaps electing Judges isn't a bad idea after all....
Thursday, October 04, 2007
A Canadian Space Policy
Marc Garneau has called for a national space policy.
Its actually a pretty good idea.
Canada has always been a world leader in satellite technology, but has never had the capacity to put those satellites into spce. Its high time we developed the ability to do so.
There are so many reasons to develop this capability, both economic and strategic.
Let's follow up on this one.
Its actually a pretty good idea.
Canada has always been a world leader in satellite technology, but has never had the capacity to put those satellites into spce. Its high time we developed the ability to do so.
There are so many reasons to develop this capability, both economic and strategic.
Let's follow up on this one.
Friday, September 21, 2007
There's an idea
For the few of us left who like empirical evidence, Mark Steyn points out an interesting observation about how to improve standards of living in Africa.
And then there’s Somalia, where, as Professor Peter Leeson of George Mason University points out, functioning government collapsed in 1991. And yet in the 16 years since, by almost every measurable indicator, life has improved: extreme poverty down 20%, infant mortality down 24%, access to health facilities up 25%, measles fatalities down 30%, maternal mortality down over 30%. I hate to sound like a fainthearted moderate squish, but even we small-government conservatives don’t usually have anything quite so drastic as the Somali model in mind. Still, strictly on the empirical evidence, the no-government solution is working out a lot better than the previous three decades of Afro-socialism.
Now THAT is an inconvenient truth for latte set.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Economic Myths Shattered Weekly
Dr. Walter Williams is by far my favourite economist to read.
This week's article is a veritable cornucopia of addressing common economic myths embraced by the left.
I strongly encourage you to have a look.
This week's article is a veritable cornucopia of addressing common economic myths embraced by the left.
I strongly encourage you to have a look.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Dealing with an issue - a comparison
Let's face reality - expecting a party's political platform to agree with one's preferences 100% just isn't going to happen. So, how do you go about choosing what party to support during an election?
I would suggest looking at how they go about adressing problems. While their conclusions may not be exactly what you want, you can get a pretty good idea of the thought process, and can readily see who is at least looking closest to the right direction.
So, let's apply this to today's highlight.
The problem to be addressed: a kid was stabbed outside a school in Scarborough.
Here's how the party leaders address the problem:
Dalton McGuinty: "Let's ban handguns in Ontario." Someone is going to have to point out to "the Education Premier" that handguns aren't typically used to stab people. Sarcasm aside, we see a party that avoids the issue and shifts responsibility for a specific crime to an inanimate object that isn't even used in the crime under discussion. Dalton's response to the proposal that schools have metal detectors and security guards is equally revealing. "Such a move, he said, would amount to the Americanization of schools in Ontario. I see that as an absolute last resort.” America, bad. Let's remember where this crime took place - Ontario. At last check, that wasn't under US jurisdiction. Its also interesting that the Premier chooses to diss his jurisdiction's largest trading partner in a discussion that has nothing to to with the USA. It is equally instructive that a proposal that would physically ensure that weapons are not on school grounds is dismissed outright for no reason other than it has been tried in a few schools in the USA. The USA does get the odd thing right after all. They feed a good chunk of the world and bail out other countries on a regular basis, with zero expectation of reciprocity. You could do much worse than the US as a neighbour. In summary, the Liberal approach is to avoid anything reality based and slag our largest customer, even though they are uninvolved in the topic at hand. Look the other way and pay no attention to a reality based solution. I would suggest that we could probably do better that that approach.
Howard Hampton: "Schools need to have enough supervisors. They need to have strategies to deal with kids, particularly teenagers who are high risk. That's not happening, despite the fact that Dalton McGuinty promised to fix the school funding formula.” So, if we are to follow the NDP line of thought, the solution to a kid getting stabbed is to throw more money at school boards. Again, we see avoiding the issue and a failure to deal directly with it.
John Tory: "... introduce a range of issues to combat youth violence, ranging from after-school and mentoring programs to tighter conditions for receiving bail." Well, this isn't my 100% preferred approach either, but its definitely a better than the other two. Mentoring programs - well, that at least merits some discussion. It has potential to get kids going in the right direction. After school programs - I suppose if the kids are in a controlled environment, its much less likely they will be on either end of a crime. OK, again there could be improvements, but its not completely unrealistic. Tighter conditions for receiving bail - Well, since the majority of major crimes in the GTA were committed by those either out on bail or with a criminal record again the thought of keeping those most likely to be committing the crime off the streets a bit longer does seem at least reasonable and logical.
Three contrasting approaches to a problem. The Tories are the only ones willing to try to address the issue and have proposed some things that are concrete and reality based.
Closest to my approach is clearly the Tories on this one.
I would suggest looking at how they go about adressing problems. While their conclusions may not be exactly what you want, you can get a pretty good idea of the thought process, and can readily see who is at least looking closest to the right direction.
So, let's apply this to today's highlight.
The problem to be addressed: a kid was stabbed outside a school in Scarborough.
Here's how the party leaders address the problem:
Dalton McGuinty: "Let's ban handguns in Ontario." Someone is going to have to point out to "the Education Premier" that handguns aren't typically used to stab people. Sarcasm aside, we see a party that avoids the issue and shifts responsibility for a specific crime to an inanimate object that isn't even used in the crime under discussion. Dalton's response to the proposal that schools have metal detectors and security guards is equally revealing. "Such a move, he said, would amount to the Americanization of schools in Ontario. I see that as an absolute last resort.” America, bad. Let's remember where this crime took place - Ontario. At last check, that wasn't under US jurisdiction. Its also interesting that the Premier chooses to diss his jurisdiction's largest trading partner in a discussion that has nothing to to with the USA. It is equally instructive that a proposal that would physically ensure that weapons are not on school grounds is dismissed outright for no reason other than it has been tried in a few schools in the USA. The USA does get the odd thing right after all. They feed a good chunk of the world and bail out other countries on a regular basis, with zero expectation of reciprocity. You could do much worse than the US as a neighbour. In summary, the Liberal approach is to avoid anything reality based and slag our largest customer, even though they are uninvolved in the topic at hand. Look the other way and pay no attention to a reality based solution. I would suggest that we could probably do better that that approach.
Howard Hampton: "Schools need to have enough supervisors. They need to have strategies to deal with kids, particularly teenagers who are high risk. That's not happening, despite the fact that Dalton McGuinty promised to fix the school funding formula.” So, if we are to follow the NDP line of thought, the solution to a kid getting stabbed is to throw more money at school boards. Again, we see avoiding the issue and a failure to deal directly with it.
John Tory: "... introduce a range of issues to combat youth violence, ranging from after-school and mentoring programs to tighter conditions for receiving bail." Well, this isn't my 100% preferred approach either, but its definitely a better than the other two. Mentoring programs - well, that at least merits some discussion. It has potential to get kids going in the right direction. After school programs - I suppose if the kids are in a controlled environment, its much less likely they will be on either end of a crime. OK, again there could be improvements, but its not completely unrealistic. Tighter conditions for receiving bail - Well, since the majority of major crimes in the GTA were committed by those either out on bail or with a criminal record again the thought of keeping those most likely to be committing the crime off the streets a bit longer does seem at least reasonable and logical.
Three contrasting approaches to a problem. The Tories are the only ones willing to try to address the issue and have proposed some things that are concrete and reality based.
Closest to my approach is clearly the Tories on this one.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Socialized Medicine Can Be Hazardous To Your Health
A major European study of cancer survival rates has shown what many in the health care industry have known and witnessed for years - socialized medicine is hazardous to your health.
The study in Lancet Oncology found the highest cancer survival rates in the USA, where care can be accessed on a much more timely basis in a (relatively) free market system. The UK, with its vaunted "free" system, scores near the bottom of the group.
Why is this you ask? Don Watkins of ARI sums it up nicely.
I saw no mention of Canada in the parts I read, but you can be sure that we tend to the British end of the spectrum.
Shona Holmes had to flee a country where doctors can be jailed for the crime of practicing medicine in a timely fashion in order to get treatment that saved her vision and probably her life. The country that was unwilling to treat her cancer to be treated before it caused irreparable harm? Canada.
The study in Lancet Oncology found the highest cancer survival rates in the USA, where care can be accessed on a much more timely basis in a (relatively) free market system. The UK, with its vaunted "free" system, scores near the bottom of the group.
Why is this you ask? Don Watkins of ARI sums it up nicely.
I saw no mention of Canada in the parts I read, but you can be sure that we tend to the British end of the spectrum.
Shona Holmes had to flee a country where doctors can be jailed for the crime of practicing medicine in a timely fashion in order to get treatment that saved her vision and probably her life. The country that was unwilling to treat her cancer to be treated before it caused irreparable harm? Canada.
Friday, August 03, 2007
Vople & bridge safety: concern, or buck passing
Joe Volpe, (L, Eglinton-Lawrence) went to get some media face time yesterday to push the federal government to increase funding for infrastructure upgrades. One assumes to prevent a disaster similar to the one in Minnesota.
He readily admitted that the Liberals did not make adequate infrastructure investments, but by calling for the Conservatives to do so, one gets the impression that he is simply covering Liberal backsides in case there is a collapse of a bridge under federal responsibility. In essence, "We told you so. Just ignore the fact the Liberals didn't do anything on the file while they were in power."
Since roads are generally a provincial responsibility, did you ever wonder how many bridges that is?
The Federal Bridge Corporation Limited is responsible for all of 9 structures.
And yes, the minister has had every one of them inspected over the past year.
If Joe bothered to read the news rather than focus on covering Liberal butts, he might be aware of that.
He readily admitted that the Liberals did not make adequate infrastructure investments, but by calling for the Conservatives to do so, one gets the impression that he is simply covering Liberal backsides in case there is a collapse of a bridge under federal responsibility. In essence, "We told you so. Just ignore the fact the Liberals didn't do anything on the file while they were in power."
Since roads are generally a provincial responsibility, did you ever wonder how many bridges that is?
The Federal Bridge Corporation Limited is responsible for all of 9 structures.
And yes, the minister has had every one of them inspected over the past year.
If Joe bothered to read the news rather than focus on covering Liberal butts, he might be aware of that.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Continuing Ontario's Slide
We see in today's news that Canada has gone from having 3 "have" provinces just 15 years ago to one or one and a half now, according to Global Insight Canada.
The 3 "haves" 15 years ago were BC, Alberta and Ontario.
BC fell out of that category in the late 1990's, according to the article.
Anyone remember who ruled BC from 1991 until 2001? Here's a hint.
Clearly Dippers can be hazardous to your economic health.
Alberta never fell from the "have" coulmn, even during the oil bust years.
Any correlation to the governing party there?
Now we see Ontario heading down the road of the have nots.
Will Dalton add accomplishment that to his website?
Of course not. But then again, truth is not something we have come to expect from Dalton.
It does indicate one thing though. He really wasn't up to the job.
The 3 "haves" 15 years ago were BC, Alberta and Ontario.
BC fell out of that category in the late 1990's, according to the article.
Anyone remember who ruled BC from 1991 until 2001? Here's a hint.
Clearly Dippers can be hazardous to your economic health.
Alberta never fell from the "have" coulmn, even during the oil bust years.
Any correlation to the governing party there?
Now we see Ontario heading down the road of the have nots.
Will Dalton add accomplishment that to his website?
Of course not. But then again, truth is not something we have come to expect from Dalton.
It does indicate one thing though. He really wasn't up to the job.
Monday, July 23, 2007
What will it take to put a stop to this?
"What will it take to put a stop to this?"
So goes that wail of a relative of a an 11 year old boy killed by gunfire between rival gangs in Toronto over the weekend.
First things first. The guilty party here is the gunman. A person "known to police".
But, that doesn't answer the question, does it.
I would suggest the following in answer to the question.
1) Rudimentary parenting skills.
What's an 11 year old boy doing outside in that neighborhood at 1:00 am? I don't care whose birthday it is. A parent or guardian's first responsibility is the safety of their kids. A kid in his bed at that time of night is much safer than at a mammoth block party.
2) Rudimentary parenting skills.
OK, the kid's up later than usual for a special occasion. I'm not a fan, but it happens. Your neighborhood backyard birthday party has now been crashed by over 50 "unwelcome and unwanted" party crashers, several of which are know to be connected to local gangs. Do you a) Call the cops, b) Gather up the kids and bring them inside to relative safety? or c) Leave an 11 year old kid in the middle of the crowd, on their own?
Its time parents took more direct responsibility for the safety of their kids.
Do I think that Ephraim's death was his parent's fault? No.
Would rudimentary parenting skills have prevented his death? Absolutely.
So goes that wail of a relative of a an 11 year old boy killed by gunfire between rival gangs in Toronto over the weekend.
First things first. The guilty party here is the gunman. A person "known to police".
But, that doesn't answer the question, does it.
I would suggest the following in answer to the question.
1) Rudimentary parenting skills.
What's an 11 year old boy doing outside in that neighborhood at 1:00 am? I don't care whose birthday it is. A parent or guardian's first responsibility is the safety of their kids. A kid in his bed at that time of night is much safer than at a mammoth block party.
2) Rudimentary parenting skills.
OK, the kid's up later than usual for a special occasion. I'm not a fan, but it happens. Your neighborhood backyard birthday party has now been crashed by over 50 "unwelcome and unwanted" party crashers, several of which are know to be connected to local gangs. Do you a) Call the cops, b) Gather up the kids and bring them inside to relative safety? or c) Leave an 11 year old kid in the middle of the crowd, on their own?
Its time parents took more direct responsibility for the safety of their kids.
Do I think that Ephraim's death was his parent's fault? No.
Would rudimentary parenting skills have prevented his death? Absolutely.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Deconstructing RFK, Jr. & Enironmentalism.
On Wednesday's Your World with Neil Cavuto, FNC's Cavuto hosted both ABC's John Stossel and environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The money quote from RFK Jr. pretty much sums up what we have come to expect from the environmentalists that get air time on the MSM.
Here is the quote:
Let's look at this piece by piece.
This is clearly the statement of someone who has never actually practised science. Climatology is a very young science with new research and developments being done at an ever increasing rate. There is, in fact, considerable controversy and varying conclusions being made a wide range of scientists. Anyone even remotely conversant with the scientific method knows that scientific reports are published so that the thought process and conclusions of the author(s) can be evaluated by a wide range of scientists and so that others can begin the process of poking holes in the reasoning. Publishing also allows others to try to duplicate the experiments and thus confirm or refute the original research. It takes a great deal more than one report to begin the process of accurate scientific knowledge.
If everything that was to be known about the climate was known, then we could accurately predict the weather well into the future. At this point, we can't even predict if its going to rain next Tuesday with any significant accuracy.
Firstly, consensus does not prove anything in science. Functioning models that can accurately recreate measured data and accurately predict are the basis for proving things in science.
Secondly, an ever increasing number of the scientists listed in the IPPC report are publicly disavowing supporting the report's conclusions. So do you really trust a document that doesn't even allow the people to read it and make their own assertion that it is correct, rather than just declaring their agreement?
Thirdly, the IPPC report is a political document, not a scientific one. Its conclusions were drafted before the technical portion of the document. It was drafted by bureaucrats from the most political and self serving organization on the planet, the UN. Hardly a bastion of objective opinion or clear, rational scientific thought.
Even rudimentary mathematics shows this statement to be ludicrous, if you accept the first portion of his premise. Again, it is simply a call for more government intervention in our daily lives, and a curtailment of individual liberty. Interestingly, its not a prescription Mr. Kennedy chooses to follow for himself.
In summary - MSM environmentalists (Al Gore and RFK Jr. being classic examples) have no interest in objective scientific truth. Their interest is political power and control over others.
The money quote from RFK Jr. pretty much sums up what we have come to expect from the environmentalists that get air time on the MSM.
Here is the quote:
"First of all, the, everything we need to do, the science on global warming is settled, 2500 scientists and the IPPC report, the top meteorologists and climate scientists from around the world have announced the global consensus that global warming exists, that we are causing it, and that its impacts are going to be catastrophic. You don't need that science, though. All you need to do is walk outside. I just came back from the Arctic. The Arctic is melting. It is catastrophic. The good news is that everything that we need to do to solve global warming are things we ought to be doing anyway for the sake of America's prosperity, for our national security, for our economic independence."
Let's look at this piece by piece.
"... the science on global warming is settled..."
This is clearly the statement of someone who has never actually practised science. Climatology is a very young science with new research and developments being done at an ever increasing rate. There is, in fact, considerable controversy and varying conclusions being made a wide range of scientists. Anyone even remotely conversant with the scientific method knows that scientific reports are published so that the thought process and conclusions of the author(s) can be evaluated by a wide range of scientists and so that others can begin the process of poking holes in the reasoning. Publishing also allows others to try to duplicate the experiments and thus confirm or refute the original research. It takes a great deal more than one report to begin the process of accurate scientific knowledge.
If everything that was to be known about the climate was known, then we could accurately predict the weather well into the future. At this point, we can't even predict if its going to rain next Tuesday with any significant accuracy.
".... 2500 scientists and the IPPC report, the top meteorologists and climate
scientists from around the world have announced the global consensus that global
warming exists, that we are causing it, and that its impacts are going to be
catastrophic."
Firstly, consensus does not prove anything in science. Functioning models that can accurately recreate measured data and accurately predict are the basis for proving things in science.
Secondly, an ever increasing number of the scientists listed in the IPPC report are publicly disavowing supporting the report's conclusions. So do you really trust a document that doesn't even allow the people to read it and make their own assertion that it is correct, rather than just declaring their agreement?
Thirdly, the IPPC report is a political document, not a scientific one. Its conclusions were drafted before the technical portion of the document. It was drafted by bureaucrats from the most political and self serving organization on the planet, the UN. Hardly a bastion of objective opinion or clear, rational scientific thought.
"You don't need that science, though."
Translated: Don't bother looking for facts, proof, or even attempt to understand what you are observing. I have an agenda to push.
Its July. Apparently, in Mr. Kennedy's vast scientific background, he was never exposed to the phenomenon of snow melting during the summer."All you need to do is walk outside. I just came back from the Arctic. The
Arctic is melting."
"It is catastrophic. "
The climate of the planet has been changing for millions of years. What makes you think this is catastrophic? Global warming, if true, could be a great boon to some. At worst, its a mid level civil enginering problem. The only reason to declare a catastrophe is to acquire additional government (and UN) powers and money.
"The good news is that everything that we need to do to solve global
warming are things we ought to be doing anyway for the sake of America's
prosperity, for our national security, for our economic independence."
Even rudimentary mathematics shows this statement to be ludicrous, if you accept the first portion of his premise. Again, it is simply a call for more government intervention in our daily lives, and a curtailment of individual liberty. Interestingly, its not a prescription Mr. Kennedy chooses to follow for himself.
In summary - MSM environmentalists (Al Gore and RFK Jr. being classic examples) have no interest in objective scientific truth. Their interest is political power and control over others.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
A Government to Fear
Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant has decided he has the soultion for his province's problem with street racers. Crush any car that could be used for street racing. (ref: cbc.ca)
Yes, the Ontario Provincial Government has now decided that it is perfectly acceptable for it to sieze and destroy your property, even though it was legally acquired and you have broken no law. No compensation is to be provided either.
There are so many reasons to fear a government with this attitude.
Suppose they next decide that your SUV is spewing too much carbon dioxide for their liking - confiscate it & crush it. Suppose he decides your house is too big, or painted the wrong colour. Again, the same principle would allow him to confiscate it, and anything else you thought you owned.
Aahh! There's the problem. In Canada you are not allowed actually own anything outright. You only have things because the government allows you to, and they can take it away without due process any time they want. A citizen of Canada does not have the right to private property. The ability for a private citizen to actually own something would require property rights recognized in the constitution.
Now who was it that specifically excluded property rights from Canada's constitution? That would be Pierre Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada.
Remember that as the items you thought you owned are being hauled away, even though you have committed no crime.
Yes, the Ontario Provincial Government has now decided that it is perfectly acceptable for it to sieze and destroy your property, even though it was legally acquired and you have broken no law. No compensation is to be provided either.
There are so many reasons to fear a government with this attitude.
Suppose they next decide that your SUV is spewing too much carbon dioxide for their liking - confiscate it & crush it. Suppose he decides your house is too big, or painted the wrong colour. Again, the same principle would allow him to confiscate it, and anything else you thought you owned.
Aahh! There's the problem. In Canada you are not allowed actually own anything outright. You only have things because the government allows you to, and they can take it away without due process any time they want. A citizen of Canada does not have the right to private property. The ability for a private citizen to actually own something would require property rights recognized in the constitution.
Now who was it that specifically excluded property rights from Canada's constitution? That would be Pierre Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada.
Remember that as the items you thought you owned are being hauled away, even though you have committed no crime.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Canadian MSM continues to ignore the destruction of Venezuela
Kleptocrat Hugo Chavez has moved ahead with his takeover of his country's oil industry, and there is no mention of it in the Canadian MSM.
Venezuela is a major producer of oil (for now), and this is surely the sort of thing that investors and those generally interested in the news should be aware of.
I suppose if an idol of the left steals (That's what "nationalization" is folks - theft.) then it isn't considered something Canadian should know about. Apparently its more important to know what the Black family was wearing yesterday at the courthouse. Those salient details I can get from our MSM.
Venezuela is a major producer of oil (for now), and this is surely the sort of thing that investors and those generally interested in the news should be aware of.
I suppose if an idol of the left steals (That's what "nationalization" is folks - theft.) then it isn't considered something Canadian should know about. Apparently its more important to know what the Black family was wearing yesterday at the courthouse. Those salient details I can get from our MSM.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Bye, Bye Belinda
So, Belinda is saying goodbye to politics. (link)
Is anyone surprised by this?
Let's check the track record:
University degree - checked out before completion.
Marriage # 1 - nope.
Marriage # 2 - nope.
Corporate Executive Career - didn't stick around as the "VP of special projects" for daddy's company.
Conservative party - left for a sweeter short term offer
Liberal party - another short term fling
About the only thing that Belinda has stuck with in her life is being a professional dilettante.
Is anyone surprised by this?
Let's check the track record:
University degree - checked out before completion.
Marriage # 1 - nope.
Marriage # 2 - nope.
Corporate Executive Career - didn't stick around as the "VP of special projects" for daddy's company.
Conservative party - left for a sweeter short term offer
Liberal party - another short term fling
About the only thing that Belinda has stuck with in her life is being a professional dilettante.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Provoking Britain isn't usually a good idea
Iran seems to be geographically challenged in its seizure of 15 British military personnel. The "evidence" Iran presented to justify its actions places the seizure in Iraqi waters. Oops.
When this little detail was pointed out to them, they went away and came back with a new location - in Iranian waters this time. No explanation as to what prompted the sudden change in coordinates. It certainly wasn't a typo.
Iran should know that the Brits don't mess around with things like this.
When this little detail was pointed out to them, they went away and came back with a new location - in Iranian waters this time. No explanation as to what prompted the sudden change in coordinates. It certainly wasn't a typo.
Iran should know that the Brits don't mess around with things like this.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Do Canadians value pain and suffering?
Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman (L - Toronto Centre-Rosedale) has refused to even consider alternate means for Ontarians to get their health ailments addressed in a timely manner. He states:
"This Ministry of Health gives you and all Ontarians the complete assurance, I will never support the outsourcing of those knee surgeries to any private, for-profit-motivated organization," Mr. Smitherman said. "Our government fundamentally believes that the public health-care system, the not-for-profit public health-care system is the best expression of Canadian values [emphasis added]."..
A couple of questions Mr. Smitherman:
1) Canadians hold a wide range of different values. Some value a free market approach to these things, while other prefer a more socialist approach. Is your stance in fact Canadian values or Liberal Party values? I would argue its the latter.
2) The time from diagnosis to surgery being performed can be less than two weeks for my dog, but over two years for myself for similar ailments. Please explain why I should not have other options available to me?
3) Is forcing people to suffer in pain when their ailments could be addressed sooner a Canadian value, or a Liberal party value?
4) Is forcing a medical condition to worsen for a year before addressing it a Canadian value, or a Liberal Party value?
Its time to stop equating Liberal Party values with Canadian values. They are not the same.
"This Ministry of Health gives you and all Ontarians the complete assurance, I will never support the outsourcing of those knee surgeries to any private, for-profit-motivated organization," Mr. Smitherman said. "Our government fundamentally believes that the public health-care system, the not-for-profit public health-care system is the best expression of Canadian values [emphasis added]."..
A couple of questions Mr. Smitherman:
1) Canadians hold a wide range of different values. Some value a free market approach to these things, while other prefer a more socialist approach. Is your stance in fact Canadian values or Liberal Party values? I would argue its the latter.
2) The time from diagnosis to surgery being performed can be less than two weeks for my dog, but over two years for myself for similar ailments. Please explain why I should not have other options available to me?
3) Is forcing people to suffer in pain when their ailments could be addressed sooner a Canadian value, or a Liberal party value?
4) Is forcing a medical condition to worsen for a year before addressing it a Canadian value, or a Liberal Party value?
Its time to stop equating Liberal Party values with Canadian values. They are not the same.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Science or hype?
An Angus Reid survey released today says that only 12% of Canadians think that global warming is based on "junk science".
Oddly enough, 12% is also roughly the level of scientific literacy in this country.
Oddly enough, 12% is also roughly the level of scientific literacy in this country.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
ITAR & Dual Citizenship
The Globe & Mail gives us today's dose of how those awful Americans are oppressing the world - this time through ITAR restrictions on military contracts.
The article states:
Despite Charter provisions that prevent discrimination based on nationality, the citizen of Canada and Syria -- along with 23 other dual-national colleagues -- was told he will never be able to work on U.S. military contracts at his workplace in Mirabel, Que.
Mr. Nahas was the latest Canadian to fall afoul of Pentagon rules that prevent people from certain countries from coming into contact with U.S. military data.
"I feel like a second-class citizen. It's discrimination, pure and simple," said Mr. Nahas, a technician who assembles helicopters.
I don't particularly agree with Mr. Nahas's assessment of the situation.
The issue is not that he is a second class citizen at all.
The issue is that he is also a first class citizen - of Syria.
I don't know Mr. Nahas and I have no reason to believe that Mr. Nahas is anything but an honest and upstanding citizen of Canada. His status in Canada is not in question, doubt or jeopardy.
If Mr. Nahas would like to renounce his Syrian citizenship, he would be allowed to perform work on the above mentioned contract. But alas, that option is never discussed when addressing the dual citizenship issue. If one chooses to hold two citizenships, then one should expect to have to play by the rules that apply to each - at the same time. You don't get to "cherry pick" from both sets. If you lose on one, its game over.
The terms of the contract were quite clear going into it. If you want to build US military aircraft, certain nations (and by extension their citizens) need not apply as it will be deemed an unacceptable security risk. Bell knew this going in. The other option is of course, to not bid on US defence work at all and lose the income that Bell Helicopter will get from the contract. If you want to do work for another country's military, you better be ready to play by its rules. That has always been the case and will be for the foreseeable future.
The US has decided that it does not want to share the designs and blueprints for its military helicopters with Syria. Few would have an issue with that decision and fewer still would have an issue with their right to make that decision. US ITAR law is written, for very good reasons, such that a transfer of information to a person is considered a transfer to all countries in which he holds citizenship. Why? Simply because that person any at any time and move to any country in which they hold citizenship and bring that information with them. If one holds a citizenship with a country, there is obviously some sort of tie or allegiance to it.
I am not saying we should do away with dual citizenships.
Sometimes these things have wonderful advantages. Other times that have disadvantages.
Be prepared to accept one with the other.
The article states:
Despite Charter provisions that prevent discrimination based on nationality, the citizen of Canada and Syria -- along with 23 other dual-national colleagues -- was told he will never be able to work on U.S. military contracts at his workplace in Mirabel, Que.
Mr. Nahas was the latest Canadian to fall afoul of Pentagon rules that prevent people from certain countries from coming into contact with U.S. military data.
"I feel like a second-class citizen. It's discrimination, pure and simple," said Mr. Nahas, a technician who assembles helicopters.
I don't particularly agree with Mr. Nahas's assessment of the situation.
The issue is not that he is a second class citizen at all.
The issue is that he is also a first class citizen - of Syria.
I don't know Mr. Nahas and I have no reason to believe that Mr. Nahas is anything but an honest and upstanding citizen of Canada. His status in Canada is not in question, doubt or jeopardy.
If Mr. Nahas would like to renounce his Syrian citizenship, he would be allowed to perform work on the above mentioned contract. But alas, that option is never discussed when addressing the dual citizenship issue. If one chooses to hold two citizenships, then one should expect to have to play by the rules that apply to each - at the same time. You don't get to "cherry pick" from both sets. If you lose on one, its game over.
The terms of the contract were quite clear going into it. If you want to build US military aircraft, certain nations (and by extension their citizens) need not apply as it will be deemed an unacceptable security risk. Bell knew this going in. The other option is of course, to not bid on US defence work at all and lose the income that Bell Helicopter will get from the contract. If you want to do work for another country's military, you better be ready to play by its rules. That has always been the case and will be for the foreseeable future.
The US has decided that it does not want to share the designs and blueprints for its military helicopters with Syria. Few would have an issue with that decision and fewer still would have an issue with their right to make that decision. US ITAR law is written, for very good reasons, such that a transfer of information to a person is considered a transfer to all countries in which he holds citizenship. Why? Simply because that person any at any time and move to any country in which they hold citizenship and bring that information with them. If one holds a citizenship with a country, there is obviously some sort of tie or allegiance to it.
I am not saying we should do away with dual citizenships.
Sometimes these things have wonderful advantages. Other times that have disadvantages.
Be prepared to accept one with the other.
A Fascinating Comparison of GDP's
This is a fascinating map. It equates the GDP of various countries with that of a US State that has a similar GDP.
There are so many thoughts that come to mind.....
How has a relatively young country like the US managed to leave more established (i.e. older)nations in its economic dust?
What are the major factors contributing to the economic success of the US?
etc. etc.
h/t Carl Stormer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
