The Rich-Poor Gap

According to this article in the Globe and Mail, immigrants are the main victims of the widening rich-poor gap. But according to common sense, couldn’t they also be the main cause?

Immigrants coming from other countries tend to make less money than people from Canada, which has one of the highest standards of living, worldwide. Not to mention that they have to go about finding a job in a new country, sometimes when they don’t even know one of the languages.

Also in the story, it mentions how companies are demanding people with higher levels of education, which is making the average wages of the middle class flatline. How dare employers seek people who have some kind of confirmation of their knowledge? I’m not saying that they’re neccassarily better employees, but I know I’d rather see some kind of affirmation when a young gun walks into my office, if I’m in charge of hiring for a company.

Mind blowing, isn’t it?

Gay Rights Do Not Equal Cohabitation Rights in England

See, this is the problem with same-sex rights, and marriage and all that.  You have physical, governmental, and tax benefits being passed to people on the basis of who touches who with what body parts.  It just doesn’t make any sense.

When this debate first started, I pointed this out to people.  Now, we have the exact case I was thinking of coming before courts in England.  Two sisters, who have lived together for years and years, want to claim same-sex partner rights.

Do they love each other?  Yes.

Are they loyal to each other?  They are blood.  Of course.

Do they share assets?  Yes.

Gee.  They look like a lesbian couple to me.

Oh wait.  They don’t engage in cunnilingus.  They’re out.

This is what I mean.  It is stupid.  Your preferred sex partner or act should not be the basis for governmental rights.  There is something else that should be the criteria.  Most who oppose same-sex marriage and the rights associated with marriage agree that the basis for this should at least be a lifelong agreement that has the potential for progeny.  That these benefits are for the purpose of supporting children.  Yes, technology has changed and improved to the point where good old fashioned coitus isn’t the only way to conceive a child, but it sure is by far the most common.  If you happen to be unfortunate enough that you are infertile, well, most couples I know who are infertile actually do want kids, and would probably adopt or something.  Those that don’t (and there are very very few truly infertile couples who are intent on never raising children)  are no basis for legislation.

It is getting to the point now in society where sex is completely disconnected from marriage.  This is sad, but inevitable in a society which has disconnected sex from procreation.  But here’s the thing: couples who aren’t going to have kids don’t need special benefits!  The benefits are there for people to care for and raise children.  The original impetus behind these benefits and rights are because the government wanted to encourage people to reproduce, and give them the best chance to raise children successfully (ie. as productive, healthy citizens).  At the time, procreation was tied much more tightly to marriage - in thinking about the mores of the people in those days, the fact that someone could have children and not be married, and not receive these benefits was incentive for people to make sure they were married before having kids!  It seems to me it was assumed that the extended family of the parents of that child would have enough interest to influence the parents not to have sex in the first place, or make sure they have united to create the optimal space for raise a child.

Now that those two facts are the case in society (procreation disconnected from marriage, sex disconnected from procreation), the benefits should be strictly limited only to those who are having kids.  And if they are not, then society should not be giving them benefits.  I wonder how much money government would save if they were cut off that way.  I wonder how few debates we would have about marriage then.

My opinion is that the homosexual lobby would never have pursued same sex marriage rights had there not been actual cash and services benefits at stake on the issue.  From the writings I have seen, most homosexuals hate marriage, and have no use for it.  How many marriages have been conducted in Canada for gay couples - that are actually citizens of Canada?  If I recall the news report from last winter, it was a pretty small number.

Election Financing: “Uh-oh…”

This is more embarrassing than waking up to an NDP sign on your lawn. And I’m sure that Harper’s team have the Liberal stories all ready to spill once that confidence motion comes on May 5!

Oh, and just regarding the actual laws surrounding this whole issue, Andrew had it covered last week.

Christian Horizons: Funny, They Don’t Mind the First-Rate Services…

I think that a lot of libertarians (of all bends) out there can really get behind the idea that the government should not be dictating to employers under what terms they must employ their workers. After all, without such restrictions, many of the unions on life-support today would’ve gone the way of the dodo back when disco was first popular, and we wouldn’t have the delicate dance that is many internal human resources documents today. Individuals and employers would come up with a mutual understanding of job duties, compensation and prohibitions, making society more proactive and conscious when dealing with employment. It would also have kept current employment trends away, such as those which set up semi-long, restrictive trial periods that employers use currently as a line of defence against picking up bad recruits before prohibitive employment laws set in.

So when it comes to the case of Waterloo region’s Christian Horizons, the first thing that we should keep in mind is that the government came to them first, not the other way around. If the government didn’t like the way that the outwardly Christian organization did business, or specifically how it hired it’s employees, it shouldn’t have agreed to whatever contracts were set up with CH — after all, with a name like Christian Horizons, it’s not like they were hiding a secret agenda or anything! Now we can debate on whether the government has any business funding any philosophically or ethically-biased group (it’s certainly hard not to, and even liberal atheism has certainly gotten its share through causes like the Court Challenges Programme), but we have to start here with the understanding that the government of the day entered into a deal with CH knowing, or responsible for knowing full well that the organization was guided by divine principles; in the private sector, if you partner up with another company and then expect a change, not only do you become a laughing stalk but chances are you’ll also see your business deteriorate soon afterwards. What the crowd who cites CH’s government funding are trying to do is bad business and bad manners, period.

Next, as far as employment laws are concerned, I have to admit that it’s no surprise that John Tory has once again demonstrated that his lust to win seats in Toronto trumps all common sense and principle, not to mention the desire to hang onto that rural rump that his party currently possesses in the legislature. If a company decides to abide under Charter-protected freedoms of religion as it conducts its business, what right does the state have to come in and impose its own morality. If what the company does is bad practice, won’t its reputation get around and the court of public opinion weed out any unwarranted behaviours? Who would want to buy from a reseller who refuses to hire women when they know full-well that a boycott could be right around the corner? Likewise, we expect Christian organizations, Muslim centres and urbane companies to all hire and work according to what their respective entities stand for. If the public tolerates it through their business practices, so what? Or are we actually, finally brave enough to admit that this is just an attempt to impose state-sanctioned atheist secularism into every aspect of society? I didn’t think so.

Much of this will matter very little though as we will once again see a rip-roaring battle ensue where the God-haters and religiophobes of our society once again rise us to defend a separation of church and state concept they barely understand and always reinvent to suite the flavour of the day. Nowhere will be hear of the 500+ years of jurisprudence that has allowed Christian organizations to serve the public good over that period of time and gave Canada, in particular, such bedrock foundations as the Sisters of St. Joseph, the YMCA or Christian Horizions — all of which have, by a desire to serve a higher calling, given us cheaper, wholesome and quality social services than we would’ve had if we just had the state do it all itself from the beginning. Certainly there will not be a mention of that. Of course, once the crusading secularists have weeded out every vestige of Christian presence in our society, who will be left to do all the things that government is too incompetent to do properly and the rest of us are too selfish to do willingly?

Global Warming Panacea - Worldwide Depression

Lorrie Goldstein has some suggestions for the Globe and the Star:

(5) “Good news” stories about the bright side of runaway fuel, food and energy prices. For example, when they get high enough that people stop their discretionary spending, thus leading to a recession, thus dramatically lowering greenhouse gas emissions the way that great environmental leader, Russia, did, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 — meaning we, too, will now have billions of dollars worth of “hot air” to sell to other countries under the Kyoto accord.

That pretty much nails it.  Want to fight global warming?  Send the world into recession… or better yet, depression.  That will curb emissions and save the planet.  Perfect.

(Yes, I know global warming prophets don’t actually recommend economic depression as a tool for fighting climate change, but it sure would work, wouldn’t it?  And food shortages coupled with skyrocketing transportation costs will get us there in a hurry.)

Hat tip to Kate.

New Evolutionary Ancestor Discovered!

Finally, the proof that I’ve been looking for all along. Why didn’t you atheist dudes tell me about this? After all, isn’t this specimen the sort of definitive and uncompromising link that has long been touted as the object which separated the educated and enlightened from the ignorant and self-deceiving. Consider me ignorant no longer!

Soft Racism

Definition: when the oppressors no longer tell the oppressed that they are too stupid for normal education - it just lets the oppressed say it, then agrees with them.

Just another symptom of a nation that has copped out of caring for its fellow citizens by simply making mental, emotional and psychological problems, a “culture” or a “lifestyle choice“.

Sometimes I despise what Canada has become.

Selling Off the Resources

When I was in high school, my social studies class taught us about the basic economic principles behind industry.  We were taught about primary industry, secondary industry, and tertiary industry.  It was explained that primary industry involves the harvesting of natural resources.  Examples of this are logging, mining, and oil drilling.  Canada is famous for this, with our abundance of land and resources.

Secondary industry involves the processing of raw resources into more usable forms.  Examples of this are sawmills, smelters and refineries.  These industries take out a lot of the waste in the resource (slag, bark, etc.) and present a raw material that can then be used to create something useful.  This processing takes industrial and technological and human resource investment, but provides much more benefit in terms of profit to the community, and to the state.

Tertiary industry involves the actual production of goods.  It takes the cut lumber, the refined crude, the wood pulp, the steel, and turns it into goods - paper, houses, buildings, cars.  This involves even more technology and human resources.

Every job created in industry means more taxes collected for government, more income, more employment, more services needed.  It is an economic fact that every industrial job created spawns seven service industry jobs in the community.  Thus, truly industrialized nations are based upon the building of secondary and tertiary manufacturing.  They create more in terms of national growth than primary industry does.  Colonialism was based upon this reality.  Industrialized, technological nations with a surplus of population exploited colonies for primary industry, shipping the raw materials home where the processing and manufacturing was done.  It made Britain, Europe, and the USA extraordinarily wealthy.

It should be pointed out, however, that the USA was a former colony.  It was being exploited by this economic reality, UNTIL it simply refused to be exploited anymore.  Taking secondary and tertiary production upon to itself has made America the most powerful economy in the world.

Why isn’t Canada like the USA?  It is because we have never stopped being a colony.  As our ties slowly disintegrated with England, we became a colony of America.  Now we provide the raw materials to America’s economic engine, but the cost is that we are forever a colony, throwing away our treasured resources and allowing other nations to exploit them and turn them into goods the world needs.

This is why it outrages me when I see our governments wilfully sabotaging our economic strength.  When I first moved to BC, I read in the paper about the new BC Liberals agreeing to INCREASE raw log exports (primary industry) to America and Asia, just as our lumber mills (secondary industry) were all shutting down due to lack of investment in technology and inefficiency.  We were throwing away jobs, sending them overseas and destroying towns that had prospered for a hundred years.  Why?  Because our government didn’t have the guts to stand up to big international conglomerates and tell them, if they want our logs, they need to process them here, before shipping them to market.

It really is that simple.   Canada has so much in the way of resources, and we are so close to markets like Asia and the USA that these big companies won’t find better places to get them.  It is too profitable to walk away from.  However, if we are willing to give away our resources, they will process them in the cheapest ways possible, which means we lose.

Flash forward to news today about a pipeline proposed to take oil from Alberta to the Gulf Coast.  The main focus of the pipeline is to get oil to the “Gulf Coast Refinery Complex”.  I am sorry.  They built those refineries to get oil from offshore rigs and from the Texas Oilfields.  If those fields are tapped out, too bad.  They need to build more refineries in Alberta.  It’s our oil, we deserve to benefit from the secondary and tertiary processing that come from its production.

Yes, America would love to keep the refining and the jobs and the taxes where they are, but not at the expense of Canada.  That just ain’t right.

Did the TTC Just Kill It’s Sweet Public-Private Partnership Deal?

Amazing, just sheerly amazing! That’s the only thing that can be said about the TTC union’s decision to reject a deal so sweet that the last week was littered with dozens of columns expressing the devastating effects of allowing TTC employees a golden goose as big as being guaranteed highest bidder for not just any contract in Toronto, but in the GTA. First Toronto, tomorrow the world?…

While the reasons for the union, essentially a private organization unaccountable to voters, to reject such a honey of deal remains unclear at this time, it might be time to eulogize this sort of hostage-victim relationship that the transit workers have enjoyed with the city over the last few decades since it’ll never be sweeter than this again. Combined with an illegal strike in 2006, today’s sudden cancellation of service will likely mark a turn in already sour public temperament after the aforementioned week of learning from the media just how much they had to empty the cupboard this time to appease the already well-compensated workers. As a general rule, you don’t come back to the kid you just stole lunch money again for another sucker punch indulgence. That’s exactly what the TTC has done here, prompting both Comrade Miller and a formerly reluctant Dalton McGuinty to reach a deal legislating back-to-work orders, on top of considering a further provision making the TTC essential service. If that last part is successful (and it should be since paying our taxes to public unions is also an essential service), the TTC will have lost most of the ridiculous bargaining powers it used to hold the 2 million-plus city at bay. The threats of literally shutting down the city will evaporate over night and Toronto might actually be able to keep new contract raises under the rate of inflation.

If, on the other hand, the TTC fights back and takes a page from the teachers unions’ during the Bill Davis years in the 1970s, we’ll enter into an ugly, painful, but necessary stage where the public’s outrage with an out of control union will flare up so quickly that we might actually begin to see private transportation grow to a significant level of business. Fleets of shuttle cars, taxis and other creative means of moving people would remove any necessity for the TTC, which would be relegated to a poor cousin dependent on government honey for survival, and much akin to the CBC today. We might see a Mike Harris-type Premier come along and ask why the TTC’s subway service just couldn’t be privatized like the 407 was nine years ago, since commuters already pay for the TTC as it is.

In short, the TTC is about to be de-clawed, and if it shows any teeth because of the procedure, it might find itself further surgically altered. The TTC’s literally putting all it’s stakes on the line today though. Enjoy the nice Saturday weather and smugness today though, for tomorrow you find out that you’ll get more than you bargained for!

UPDATE: Views from Joanne and Tony, with more to follow I’m sure!

“You Think I’m Bad, The Other Guy Will Kill Off 1 in 5 Of You!”

The London Mayor likened a London led by Tory candidate to the Black Death at the launch of his campaign the other day.

“Having Boris as mayor would be like reliving the Black Death of the Middle Ages or almost as bad as that.”

Kind of dramatic, eh?