Unions Have Way Too Much Power

As printed many times before, I'm no fan of unions. A link to the Montreal Economic Institute titled "Business people need to stiffen their spines."

Absolutely.

Free-enterprise has been basically ripped to shreds in North America. I love when I hear people talk about how "capitalism" doesn't work or that "deregulation" is the source of all our problems. To me, this is all par for the course. In the post-war era, most of our time has been spent nationalizing and socializing our societies. Of course deregulation will fail if the government still has a massive hand in things. Capitalism was never "pure" in my lifetime. It was a strange brew of corporate preying that teamed up with national governments. In the end, democratic principles were lost while healthy skepticism gave way to cynicism.

Business people did once have some fight. In the 1980s, I remember my father joining other business owners to fight Mayor Jean Dore's poll tax. It was a grass roots revolt.

Alas, I fear we may have lost the fighting spirit.

Government is a warm gun and no one wants to piss it off.

YOU SAVE!

Been away. I know. Busy.

But I did find time for this.

Lately, I've observed a disturbing trend in our discourse regarding health care costs. We keep hearing about how we need to do this to one segment of the population and need to do that to another all in the name of cost cutting.

It made me think about online bookstores. Whenever you click on a book you see information regarding its content, price etc. You also see something like, with your Rewards card YOU SAVE 30%!

Macabre as it may sound, but I envisioned a similar scenario for health. Imagine a section on a medical website that tracks deaths in order to measure savings.

Randy La Tournado. Died. Age 43. Heart attack. Weight 300lbs. Smoker. YOU, WE SAVE 22%. We won't have to pay for his habit for another 44 years! Instead, he had the decency to die earlier and this means a net savings per household of roughly $1000!

What will YOU do with YOUR SAVINGS!

I'll be back soon enough with other stuff.

I promise

Challenging Authority Through Art; Is North America Ideologically Evenly Split?

This article got me thinking (cantcha smell the wood burnin'?)about the role of artists in political discourse. Of course, the arts have often intertwined itself with politics throughout history. In Italy, for example, opera composers like Giuseppe Verdi used their medium to call for the unification of Italy.

I can't escape the thought there's a rather macabre irony in this. Don't all operas end in tragedy? Unification of Italy was bound to be tragic!

The article argues artists should be critical of Obama if warranted. There's a general sense of uneasiness in wanting to tackle this issue; possibly for fear of being a racist?

A few weeks back comedians confessed in not being able to find enough material to use. I felt it was because they weren't trying hard enough. The poster that circulated around California depicting Obama as 'The Joker' with the caption socialist (a commenter made an astute point. The creator should have used "Change." It would have left far more to the imagination), kicked off the festivities and most recently Jon Stewart went where no man dared go before.

Spoofing Bush is sooo over. It's lame. He had his fair share. So why is (seemingly) Obama off limits?

***

I picked up one of those "pocket book guides" about media a couple of years back. I'm a fan of the 'Dummies' and 'Pocket Book' format for introductory purposes by...the...way.

While it was informative overall, I could never get my mind quite wrapped around one assertion it made. Notably, that the media is controlled by the right. Really?

I know about the Aspers here in Canada and Rupert Murdoch and Rush Limbaugh and all that but the left is not without its bastion of media support. For example, MSNBC is left of center in its thinking (it's owned by GE and MS stands for Microsoft. Both were significant contributors to Obama. Plus it's home to Keith Olbermann). CNN was owned by Ted Turner - another Democrat supporter. The jury is out on the other (except FOX) networks.

Speaking of Fox, while it makes no attempt to feign impartiality, does it exist because the other networks weren't servicing a large portion of the American audience? I've been listening to conservative radio this past month and mentally taking notes and comparing it to the other networks. I hope I can make sense of it and lucidly articulate in a blog post in the future.

The biggest newspapers in the land - New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times - are often accused of being liberal or at least liberally sympathetic. They're offset, by the smaller New York Post and Washington Times. In Canada, The Globe and Mail and Maclean's are seen as conservative while the National Post is our "National Review" or Washington Times. For its part, the CBC is incessently perceived as not only liberal but even socialist - similar to NPR or even PBS in the United States.

I won't touch the internet. I think both sides have their supporters in high numbers.

At the very least, both sides seem well represented to me. Now who gets larger market share is a different matter altogether.

If there's one area where liberalism reigns supreme it's on campuses across the continent. My own experiences tell me this anyway. I'm still fluttering with the notion of liberals cloaking themselves brilliantly under the mask of "balanced progressive" thought.

In any event, all this suggests to me that North America, for the most part and all things considered, is pretty much a 50/50 place. Which, in turn, can be interpreted as "center." Though I sometimes wonder if it's possible to be effectively center."That's why when one side gets an edge it feels like it's "taking over." Again, I need to refine this a little moving forward.

And what about leaders? Bah. They're too busy holding the people in contempt to actually pay attention.

The one thing I've noticed is this: Conservatism has managed to maintain a connection to populism while liberalism, speaks in favor of "the collectivity" but ironically live in urban centers and has become comfortable with elitism. Perhaps therein lies the problem with modern liberalism; Too much of it is ironic; maybe even hypocritical. The problem with conservatism these days alright is its willingness to accept the expansion of government when it chooses: Fiscal stimulus and war ok. Health care reform not ok.

Last, conservatism crosses path with libertarianism on some issues mostly regarding individual liberty while liberalism sways towards socialism.

Clarifying Health Care Facts And Dropping Public Option

With the Obama administration dropping the public option from the bill, I suspect this will slow down the rabid debate - including posts about it. However, a new one will arise: How does this affect Obama's presidency moving forward? Is this a a big enough blow or can he recover? It was a bloody one.

Seven falsehoods about health care reform verified by factcheck.org.

Obama drops public option here.

Howard Dean had this to say:

"You really can't do health reform" without allowing the government to compete with private insurers, said Howard Dean, a former Democratic Party chairman. "Let's not say we're doing health reform without a public option," he added in a slap at the administration's latest move."

Government compete? I like Dean - or anyone from Vermont for that matter - but isn't that like, an oxymoron or something?

Buzz Aldrin Punches Moon Landing Conspiracist Out

Bart Sibrel is one of those "we never landed on the moon" nspiracy douches. In this video he aggressively confronts legendary astronaut Buzz Aldrin calling him a "liar and a coward." Next thing he knows, WHAM!

Good for Aldrin.

More On Canadian Public Health

It's bizarre.

Just plain weird.

I've been reading about how describing Canadian public health as "socialized medicine" is wrong.

Of course it is! Has socialism become so pervasive in our thinking so as to not think it's socialism? Somewhere along the line I missed the memo explaining socialism is now defined as "progressive."

It reminds me of the scene in Superman II when Superman tricked Zod and his cronies into believing they were outside the molecule chamber that would reverse their powers. After Lex Luthor (that weasel) warned Zod not to go into the chamber, Superman was left no choice but to enter the chamber since they held Lois Lane hostage. Ah, but Superman was thinking two steps ahead of everyone. By going into the chamber he actually protected himself so when Luthor activated the chamber, Zod was left exposed to become a mere mortal.

Socialism went into some sort of ideological chamber and came out as "progressive." The question is: Was anyone thinking ahead like Superman to reverse this?

Picked this article up. Pierre Lemieux is an economist and contributor to the Quebecois Libre - a libertarian think tank. It paints the picture that Canadian public health is nothing but a socialized system. Thinking otherwise is absurd.

Migraines: Drill A Hole In My Head Already!

I suffer from migraines. Yes, I do. Now you know a little about me. And when afflicted with it, I simply pop a 222 pill. It's an over the counter aspirin (not available in the U.S. I found out years ago much to my dismay).

After swallowing one of those suckers I feel perfect. My migraines are not vicious enough so as to render me incapacitated like some people. Lucky me.

But it still doesn't mean I don't want a trepanation procedure performed when a migraine attacks.

Is it covered by Medicare?

More On America's Quest To Fix Health Care

It really doesn't take a genius to see the Democrats are struggling with their health care plan. President Obama is not helping matters with his recent comments about surgeons performing unnecessary procedures which led to a statement by the American College of Surgeons:

"The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight."

The American Medical Assurance too opposes Obama's plan. And the AARP also had begun to distance itself.

Ouch. First the Democrats attack the people and got a revolt (some independents are also turning against him - or at least are sympathetic to the Townhall meetings. To say nothing of these secret backroom deals with pharmaceutical companies) on their hands and then they decide to go after doctors and surgeons. Maybe it's misleading but the bottom line is the people, rightly or wrongly, have become wary.

Who's their strategist? Seriously. Tactically, they've been horrible.

I'm always being told I try to do too much to fast. I think this is Obama's problem. He wants to fix the economy, environment and health all in one swoop. Nothing gets done until people psychologically feel the economy is on the mend - not what the statistics or pundits think. With the bailouts, citizens feel squeezed out of the equation and with the health care plan all they saw was yet more spending by the government. Would it have changed anything to pace himself?

This perception I just described led me to this question: Is it leadership if leaders ram things through even against the will of the people? For their own good as it were.

The Democrats may need to regroup and focus on what part of the plan they really think is necessary. This probably means concessions.

A while ago, Obama chose not to select Howard Dean as his Medical czar. Did he make a mistake? As a doctor, Dean certainly understands the issue. Here's a video with Dean talking about needing a "hybrid" plan on MSNBC. It's starts around 5.24 mark.

National Health Care In U.S. Not The Exclusive Domain Of Any One Party

I heard Rush Limbaugh on the radio the other day. Entertaining guy. Not my idea of conservatism but entertaining nonetheless.

He was hollering about the, guess what, health care plan. He set the stage in a way that characterized universal health as an idea only pursued by the left. In the process, he pitted conservatives against liberals. Naturally, liberals are the enemy.

He further claimed liberals had been trying to ram universal health for over 60 years and have been thwarted every time.

Is this accurate?

Not really. Picked this up on Cleveland.com.

According to the article, the idea of offering some form of social assistance (national health care) to all citizens goes as far back as Theodore Roosevelt - the Republican President with his face on Mount Rushmore. What more, other Republicans have tinkered with it in different ways too. Richard Nixon proposed universal health insurance in 1974 just before Watergate hit. And George W. Bush added prescription drug coverage to Medicare in 2003 - funny how no one talks about any of the good things Bush did.

So Limbaugh's set up is misleading.

Sharia Law In Britain Debate

Wind Rose Hotel posted an article about Britain's acceptance of Sharia Law. I particularly invite you to read the comments. Most enlightening and highlights just how layered the issue is.

Obsessed With Nazism

Andrew C. McCarthy has tackled the left's bizarre (and infantile) penchant for Nazi analogies over at the National Review. It's a good read. Anything I post is a good read.

I post it because for over a year I've talked about this on and off in various ways.

Are we secretly and sadistically trying to extract the "good" side of Nazi socialist policies? How many times have I read scholars talk about how their stimulus programs saved their economy. What, I'm supposed to overlook one of the most evil and heinous regime in history because they knew how to control the economy through the state? How obscene!

***

Health care reform is consuming Americans to bits, eh?

Hm. Let's see.

This is rich.

Nancy Pelosi, you know the third most powerful person in American politics who called Americans protesting health care reform bill 'Nazis' (technically, she said they were carrying 'swastikas' but hey), is seen on this video saying how much she loves protestors.

Recently, she was quoted as saying it was "un-American." Yet, isn't that the base of American history? America is built on revolutionary ideals. Shouting and confronting politicians is a normal thing in American political history.

Ok. When is it safe to call someone a hypocrite?

Tommy Douglas: Canada's Most Popular Socialist

It's "Get in touch with your socialist side" (originally "When socialists attack) week here at TC and today I introduce to you Tommy Douglas the "greatest" Canadian ever.

This is totally up for debate but it doesn't detract from the fact that Douglas was an interesting figure in Canadian political history.

As all Canadians know, Lord only knows how much it's fricken drilled into us, Douglas is the father of universal-public-health-care-socialized-medicine in Canada. If anyone ever tells you nothing ever comes out of Saskatchewan they haven't watched 'Corner Gas.' Hey, Gordie Howe and Gordon Tootoosis are a Saskatchewanites. What are the odds of having two "Gordon's" from Sas...I'm tired of typing it.

And of course, it's the birth place of Tommy Douglas and universal health. Actually, Douglas wanted to make sure universal access was available. Diefenbaker kicked it up a notch- whatever. It all ended up being what it is.

One thing I keep reading about was how "opposition to his plan was fierce" but I've yet to find any detailed specifics on this. I would have to go research it in news archives but my university library card expired. So...screwed. One thing I did find was that doctors did strike in protest and that many worried it would lead to substandard quality of care - which to many is a fair assertion.

I'll keep trying.

***
By the way, here's an interesting entry on Wikipedia comparing the U.S. and Canadian systems. Don't kid yourself, there's already strong government involvement in the American system.

Links Of interest: American Health Care

Interesting article in the NY Times about health care. Specifically, research into how some regions in the United States manage to offer effective, low-cost servicing to patients. What if it's just a matter of "tweaking?" There are already cases of what works in communities across the country.

"...we invited physicians, hospital executives and local leaders from 10 of these regions to a meeting in Washington so they could explain how they do what they do. They came from towns big and small, urban and rural, North and South, East and West. Here’s the list: Asheville, N.C.; Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Everett, Wash.; La Crosse, Wis.; Portland, Me.; Richmond, Va.; Sacramento; Sayre, Pa.; Temple, Tex.; and Tallahassee, Fla., which, despite not ranking above the 50th percentile in terms of quality, has made such great recent strides in both costs and quality that we thought it had something to teach us.

If the rest of America could achieve the performances of regions like these, our health care cost crisis would be over. Their quality scores are well above average. Yet they spend more than $1,500 (16 percent) less per Medicare patient than the national average and have a slower real annual growth rate (3 percent versus 3.5 percent nationwide)."

I heard author and doctor Robin Cook proclaim on a Montreal radio show that the U.S. "has the worst health care system in the world." Of course, this is offset by claims of just the opposite.

It seems to me, judging by what I've seen and read (particularly in this article), it's pretty creative and innovative when it needs to be.

***

The Hudson Institute examines the role of personal decision, or lack thereof, in Obama's health plan.

"Although the president is quite right in his desire to eliminate waste in healthcare expenditures, he seemingly overlooks the personal decision making that undergirds the existing system and creates a remarkable level of assurance for the American people.

With Obamacare a council or a bureaucrat relying on a computer program will determine the appropriate level of care. If an eighty year old, for example, needs a hip replacement, the bureaucrat is likely to argue that a tin joint as opposed to a titanium joint is appropriate since the person only has a few years left based on actuarial expectations. Or if an eighty year old has cancer an advisory council might suggest that aggressive and expensive radiation treatment doesn’t make sense since that person doesn’t have long to live whatever the treatment."

What Is Utopian Socialism?

With the word socialism being thrown around like a cheap skank at motorcycle party, I figured why not talk about it here?

Socialist party time!

Like conservatism, socialism is sometimes, I think, misunderstood. I'm less interested on where it fits on the political scale and more interested in its historical evolution.

Socialism basically was a reaction to classical liberalism who, according to socialists, placed too much faith in the individual. The Industrial Revolution in particular, they believed, only confirmed the fallacy of competition "without regard" for each other.

Socialists, at its foundation, don't believe man's natural sate is to be competitive. Instead, humans can achieve its happiest state in the spirit of cooperation.

It's only natural that an ideology would coincide with a political movement and socialism found expression in the Romantic movement - its complicated evolution won't be considered here. The combined forces created something called Utopian Socialism:

"Before the coming of industrial capitalism, the yearning for an egalitarian society could only be a yearning, without any concrete analysis of social reality. Utopian socialism does not refer, therefore, to the vision of a William Morris, who was a scientific socialist, but to largely pre-capitalist visions of a socialist future. Under this heading come the mediaeval communists together with the Anabaptist and other religiously-motivated sects."*

In the process, Utopian socialism challenged the philosophes of the Enlightenment and its adherence to a highly mechanized, rational and efficient human. Socialist thinkers, like the romantics, viewed the Middle Ages as a time when social unity was preserved by the Church thus creating a stable and heroic period.

It would be wrong to dismiss socialism's positive impact on humanity and Western culture - think the concept of egalitarianism. It forced man to consider his or her conscience in matters of industry. Before long, for example, a tradition of compassionate (labor) laws took root.

Three main thinkers represented utopian socialist thought: Henri Comte de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier and Robert Owen. I'll offer a quick overview on each.

Fourier sought to re-engineer society in an effort to end human suffering and misery brought on by the industrial age. And how would he do this? By creating small communities numbering around 1600 people called phalansteries. The goal was to allow people to prosper and enjoy life each according to personal needs.

Founder of the "Saint Simonian" movement, Saint Simon, interestingly, believed scientists, bankers, engineers, writers and artists would replace the clergy and aristocracy as the social elite. Kind of a new-age Nouveau Christian-humanism if you will. The only way society would progress was if it was in the hands of creative minds. He believed such people would have the will and the intellect to use technology in a way that would benefit mankind. In other words, he wanted trained experts at the top of the heap. This remains an influential argument and is known as Technocratic socialism - you know it as a bureaucracy. While he did converge with the philosophes on matters of reason and rational thought, he also didn't view society as being divided into classes with competing interests.

Both Fourier and Saint Simon were among the first thinkers in Europe to espouse woman's equality. It's hard to argue neither weren't dirigistes - a nice way of saying state control.

Finally, Owen differed with the Saint Simon and Fourier in that he was an owner and saw first hand at how workers were mistreated. Owen was one of the first men to increase wages, refuse to hire children under ten, improve workers conditions and provided food and shelter to workers. In Owen's mind, it was all just a matter of readjusting values and principles. As a result, people across Europe came to visit his factories.

Roman Classics: Cato the Younger

Cato the Younger (or Cato of Utica) was an intriguing and brilliant Roman philosopher (Stoic school) statesman (Senator) and politician with strong conservative views. One who was blessed with unshakable integrity. Voici is his story as told by the Greek historian and biographer Plutarch.

Cato was a source of intellectual guidance for revolutionaries during the Enlightenment. Dante immortalizes Cato in The Divine Comedy. In Canto I, Dante writes of Cato:

I saw close by me a solitary old man, worthy, by his appearance, of so much reverence that never son owed father more. Long was his beard and mixed with white hair, similar to the hairs of his head, which fell to his breast in two strands. The rays of the four holy lights so adorned his face with brightness that I saw him as if the sun had been before him.

Cato's life is immortalized in Joseph Addison's play, Cato, A Tragedy, which George Washington often quoted and had performed during the winter at Valley Forge, in spite of a Congressional ban on such performances.

Blog Of Interest: Watching Congress

Here's an interesting website I stumbled on called Watch Dog blog. Great information about American politics.

Superficially Renaming Streets Won't Change History

Using Hitler as analogy to all things we disagree with is not only faulty logic and exudes ignorance of history, it's contemptible.

It's a phenomena, I've observed, that found expression during the George W. Bush administration when leftists compared Bush to Hitler. Ironically, if one wants to get technical about it, Nazism fell on the left side of the scale and not the right.

Following the Bush=Hitler assertion came a cascade of terrible analogies inserting Hitler. The NDP have used it and Nancy Pelosi used it just last week; forgive me if I single them out but theirs stood out off the top of my head. There have been others and perhaps I'll try and research and list some of them here soon enough.

Most recently, a Montreal city councilor compared General Amherst to Hitler and lobbied to have his street name changed. No word on Lionel-Groulx yet...Thankfully the Tremblay administration is showing maturity and is having none of the request.

The councilman's knowledge of history is suspect indeed - ah such individuals infecting our political ranks! - and is best to focus what's left of his dubious intellectual capablities into other areas. You can't rewrite history and the fact that Montreal is a "French" city (in reality it's a bilingual city but don't that to nationalists) is irrelevant to our "English fact" heritage. The English have every right a place at the table of Montreal history.

I fear for our anayltical minds!

Just.

Terrible.

Canadian Current Events: Dumb Duck Hunters And Tim Hortons Pull Out

I watched the videos on these two Duck Hunters and the first thing I thought to myself was "Why?"

As in, what was the fucking point?

I accidentally stumbled on it. My friend in Holland sent me a video of him fishing for carp - I know ex-ci-ting. And like we're all apt to do on youtube you spend a minute or two or 50 on it.

If you really want to see it go to youtube. I didn't want to post it here.

***

Should Tim Hortons have backed out of this event?

Don't know who NOM are. But before we go all nuts on them: Remember that the President of the United States of America doesn't support same-sex marriage (as he repeatedly said. That didn't stop Ellen DeGeneres from inviting him on her show) nor does Secretary Of State Bill Clinton - erm Hilary Clinton. Sorry. Anyway, there position is probably in-line with millions of North Americans.

Is believing marriage is between a man and a woman "racist?"

I don't think it is. But if people want to enlighten...by all means.

American Current Events: Cash For Clunkers And Health Care Reform

Pundits and government officials (surprise) are already claiming the cash for clunkers program is a success.

Really? Reason Online has this to say about it.

Then again, Marketwatch has this to say.

Obama is trying too hard too fast.

I don't know why, and I could be wrong, but this reminds me of the Canadian gun registry fiasco from a few years back.

They. Just. Don't. Get.

It.

***

Some videos on Obama's Townhall meeting in New Hampshire here. He gets an 'A' for doing this.

The President claims he doesn't want to "subsidize the insurance companies." But the banks and auto industries are ok? Odd.

Now it's "insurance reform." Ok. But is it fair to single them out? Factcheck.org answers that question here. Not surprisingly, FC schools Moveon.org on how to, well, fact check.

Moveon.org simplistic? No. It can't be. It just can't be!

Factcheck also takes aim at Obama's claim AARP support his bill. Na-ah.

Alas, do not giggle with glee ye conservatives! FC tackles some dubious claims from the right here.

And what of the euthanasia claims?

All I know is if the Dems. fail to get this done, they'd be wise not to pin this on Rush Limbaugh or the insurance companies or people with Swastikas, for a nice, long look in the mirror tells many truths.

Fat Tax: Another Well-Meaning Idea That Weighs Too Much

"The natural order of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Thomas Jefferson, 1788.

We're so numb to its expansion by now...come on Commentator get with it!

I have to comment on this "Fat Tax" thing. Is it not odd that from the people who defend political correctness, they've no qualms with calling people fat?

Just an observation. What's next? Fag will be back in vogue?

Anyway, I was digesting my daily dose of musical sarcasm with the compositions of Randy Newman earlier today. One song, 'Short People,' got me thinking about the fat tax:

"Tellin' great big lies, They got little noses, And tiny little teeth, They wear platform shoes, On their nasty little feet. Well, I don't want no short people, Don't want no short people,`Round here Short people are just the same, As you and I, (A fool such as I), All men are brothers, Until the day they die (It's a wonderful world) Short people got nobody, To love They got little baby legs, That stand so low, You got to pick em up, Just to say hello,They got little cars,That go beep, beep, beep, They got little voices, Goin' peep, peep, peep, They got grubby little fingers, And dirty little minds, They're gonna get you every time, Well, I don't want no short people Don't want no short people, 'Round here"

Now just replace "short" with "fat." We don't want fat people 'round here! Of course, we're told it's all about maintaining health and I don't dispute that but...

There's a common thread with health (euthanasia, smoking etc.) when it comes to tax on consumption (yes, I do think it's a terrible idea no matter how you dress it). Namely, you're fat ergo you cost money and drain the system therefore we're phasing you out because you don't have our lifestyle. Shting! Tax!

As usual there a proponents and opponents of such a tax here and here.

The first link is to Seek Wellness and the author put it this way: "Self-responsibility is the foundation of a wellness mindset. How can a wellness enthusiast and/or promoter favor coercive strategies designed to discourage consumers from choosing high fat foods? I don't think a wellness approach is consistent with such a policy. Freedom is part of wellness, too."

I tend to look at things this way and this way here at Health and Fitness Advice.

For people who exercise and maintain a solid diet, all this seems unfair. So my question is this. Won't people who aren't obese get caught in the middle? What will be the parameters? Food is already a monstrously gigantic industry government can barely keep an eye on. So why try this?

And what of anorexia? It's the opposite of obesity, but what can we tax to prevent it? Both diseases can either genetic or psychological so why tinker with one and not the other?

Do we see things through cost-effective lenses now? Have we been reduced to an item on an accounting ledger? Or all these measures actions of a progressive government gently nudging the populace along onto a healthier path?

It seems all our solutions to problems comes down to this: Tax, tax, tax! Consume too much gas? Tax it! Drink too much soda? Tax it! Smoke too much? Tax it! Make too much money? Tax it!

Geez.

I would love to examine the diet of a bureaucrat. If it's worse than mine (and folks, I have an awesome diet), then why should I listen to them?

***
One day, we'll all have a "well trained" government official living with us.

Delving Into Ethics And Medicine

Was doing some reading on assisted suicide and came across this: Ethics in Medicine.

I don't like when one argues assisted suicide/euthanasia as if it's a cost effective measure. We should all cringe at such logic.

Practice Your Critical Abilities

I love this site. The name is simple enough: Bad Arguments.

It helps to sharpen your skills in pointing out weaknesses in an argument.

In case you're wondering, I did very well in the practice section. I've oft considered making this blog exactly that: A site that analyzes gaps of logic in the media. The problem is there's just too much of it. If I would write about every suspect article, I wouldn't eat.

For example, not to single them out, but I read the NY Times and find many offenses - but to sit and work them out and then write about it would be too time consuming. I do comment on some stuff from time to time but after a while it gets irritating (and boring) reading some of their columnists. And their not the only ones.

I'm not suggesting I'm better. Heaven knows I breakdown from time to time.

12 Canadians You've Never Heard Of

Presumptuous title I know.

More than just street names, they are significant figures from our past. People who ensured Canada was represented at the table of great ideas and contributions to history and mankind - mostly in the sciences.

Reginald Fessenden: The Father of Radio Broadcasting. Fessenden was born in Quebec and actually worked for Thomas Edison at one point.

From the first link titled, 'Unsung Hero':

"If Canadian radio archives do not contain as much material as they should, there is one historical event well documented - the achievement of Guglielmo Marconi, an Italian who made radio history by transmitting the letter "s" in Morse code from Cornwall, England to a receiving station on Signal Hill overlooking St. John's Harbour in Newfoundland on December 12, 1901.

But an equally historic event, the achievement of a brilliant Canadian inventor, Reginald Aubrey Fessenden, is generally ignored and largely unknown. On December 24, 1906, at 9 P.M. eastern standard time, Reginald Fessenden transmitted human voices from Brant Rock near Boston, Massachusetts to several ships at sea owned by the United Fruit Company..."

Charles Huggins: The pride of beautiful Nova Scotia (and American citizen), Huggins won the Noble Prize for Physiology/Medicine in 1966 "for discovering hormones that could be used to control the spread of some cancers..." (Wiki)

James Collip: Was a brilliant Biochemical researcher from Ontario before embarking on a great medical journey. While Banting and MacLeod are recognized as having discovered insulin (subsequently winning a Nobel prize), Collip along with Charles Best were unrecognized instrumental parts in the development process. Best and Banting were looking for ways to treat diabetes but couldn't purify the (bovine) pancreatic extract. Collip was recruited by MacLeod to solve this problem and he succeeded in making insulin usable.

Simon Newcomb: Was a self-taught polymath with no formal training and a Canadian-American astronomer/mathematician originally born in Nova Scotia. "Newcomb set to work on the measurement of the position of the planets as an aid to navigation, becoming increasingly interested in theories of planetary motion." (Wiki)

John Plaskett: Born in Ontario, Plaskett "...made significant contributions to the study of star pairs, known as binary stars...In 1922, he discovered a massive binary star system, which was the heaviest on record for many years - a discovery which gained him international respect as an astronomer." (Canadian Astronomy Education)

Oswald Avery: Yet another native Nova Scotian, Avery later emigrated to the United States where the bulk of his work as a molecular biologist took place. He's considered to be a pioneer in immunochemistry "but he is best known for his discovery in 1944 with his co-worker Maclyn McCarty that DNA is the material of which genes and chromosomes are made. Previously, hereditary information (genes) was thought to be stored in cells and in protein molecules." (Bio-Medicine)

Felix d'Herelle - Like Newcomb d'Herelle was a self-taught individual and a microbiologist born in Montreal. He co-discovered bacteriophages.

Colin MacLeod - Born in Nova Scotia and a Canadian-American biologists, he's recognized as the founder of molecular biology and researched the role of DNA in bacteria.

Norman Bowen - A native of Kingston, Ontario, Bowen helped to establish a discipline that brings together chemistry and geology known as petrology.

John Tuzo Wilson - From Ottawa, Wilson was a geophysicist who pioneered the study of plate tectonics and was internationally acclaimed for his work, theories and research.

Walter Zinn - Zinn was a physicist from Berlin, Ontario before it was renamed Kitchener during WWII. He worked with Enrico Fermi's team on the Manhattan Project. "Zinn released the world’s first self-sustaining nuclear reaction by withdrawing a control rod from the world’s first nuclear reactor in 1942 at the University of Chicago."

William Giauque - Though born in Niagara Fallas, Giauque is a Canadian-American who won the Nobel prize for Chemistry in 1949 for his work on the properties matter at temperatures close to absolute zero or third law of thermodynamics.

Protesting SAAQ Fees

Maybe someone can help me but I can't find any news related articles covering the protest against the Societe de l'Assurance Automobile du Quebec and the rising costs of driver registration, So far I've only spotted this one from Canadian Motorcycle News.

Good for them. We don't protest enough.

Moved Post

Something happened to my last post.

I've reposted it here at whoweare.

Paul, I know the video was unbecoming, but the overall message is correct I submit.

Nonetheless, I've made the proper adjustments and I think you'll like this approach better.

Remembering John Diefenbaker

"By the accident of geography and history we find ourselves squarely between the two greatest powers on earth. We have no fortresses facing either. We want to live at peace with our northern neighbours, as we have lived so long at peace with our southern neighbours."
- September 26, 1960, speech to the United Nations.

In responding to two men of great life experiences in a previous post, they helped to jiggle-joggle my memory of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker.

It is oft asserted Canadian politics is boring but Dief the Chief was anything but. As leader of the Conservative party with strong populist impulses, Diefenbaker was responsible for Canada's Bill of Rights, called a Royal Commission on Health Services, was committed to enhancing Canadian arts and culture and was one of the few people to stand against the internment of Japanese-Canadians.

A man known for holding deep convictions with high ethical standards, he was nonetheless a controversial figure. Most memorable was his decision to mysteriously cancel the Avro Arrow Project - Canada's greatest military achievement -which remains a mystery for some reason.

Ryder Hesjedal Does Canadian Cycling Proud

I'm late with this but I wrote about Hesjedal's impressive result at the Tour de France over at whoweare.ca.

Quotes Of Lasting Value

Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine, from The American Crisis (No. 4), 1777.

We're at the exhaustion stage now.

Paine's role often overlooked if not forgotten in American political life.

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. Edward Carrington, 1788.

I hadn't noticed.

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. James Madison, Virginia Convention, 1788.

Isn't this precisely what's happened?

Townhall Mania; Wisdom Of Founding Fathers Forgotten

I've always liked Dave Nalle at Blogcritics.org. He schools his commenters and they never realize they've been zinged.

Are the Townhall meetings real, spontaneous, grass roots anger or are they orchestrated by big pharma and other lobbyists looking to protect their interests? The former would mean democractic impulses are alive (and I'm sure many of the people there are genuinely concerned and want to learn more), while the latter is conspiratorial in nature (I'm sure some vested interests are worried).

When is resistance genuine? Can we tell anymore?

***

Recent American politics is grossly incongruent to the principles established by the Founding Fathers. To invoke their names during a speech does a disservice to the political legacy they left behind.

Everything in between, the nonsensical conspiratorial, unsubstantiated and selective bull shit that seems to get so much play, is pure obfuscation, which in turn, introduces obtuse contemporary political discourse.

***

I don't know if Obama is a socialist but one thing is not up for debate: He is engineering a massive redistrubution of, well, everything. I know this is true because the biggest apologist of anything leftist (or at least Democratic) I've ever had the pleasure of watching, Eleonore Clift of Newsweek, agreed on the McLaughlin Group a few weeks back!

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." Thomas Jefferson.

Match these words with Bush and Obama economic interventionism and try and tell me they fulfill these words.

As for, socialism itself, I will post about it later on.

Cancer Claims Yet Another Young Life

The door bell rang earlier this evening. It was our neighbour. He and his wife have had the dishonor of watching their child of 13 years, Gabriele, battle cancer for two years. Today, after two weeks in intensive care, fighting tears his father announced his son lost his battle with the dreaded disease.

Powerfully sad.

No child deserves to die. It's a cliche I know. But it's true. Fact of life sure, still grotesque nonetheless. No parent should have to bury their child. God ordains they must.

Wal-Mart Keeping Unions At Bay...So Far

This post won't be too popular with some but as Wal-Mart battles unions across the continent (and the world), I'm hoping they hold their ground and prevail. Chicago's South Side is one such battle ground.

CNN's Report Card On The President

I wrote in a previous post Obama deserves a full term to fully be judged. Nonetheless, I still find CNN's report card fascinating.

Judging by these results, and we should keep in mind it's a poll, it seems Americans are less than impressed. In just 200 days?

To some, he's on track (personally, I don't think he is on matters of foreign policy and economics) and he should stay the course trusting the fruits of his labor and patience will blossom.

We'll see.

Influential Director Hughes Passes Away

Director John Hughes died today.

Even though I'm a child of the 70s, I was aware of my conscience in the 80s. Many factors and things contribute to this growing awareness including films.

Going to the movies was the main thing to do pre-16 years old. And in the 1980s there was a block of movies that literally defined a generation and they came from the director John Hughes. His list of movies goes on and on. Read the above link for details.

Anyone who was a teenager in the 1980s got hooked on films like 'Sixteen Candles,' 'National Lampoon's Vacation' 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off' and 'The Breakfast Club.' Possibly the most influential of all the teen flicks he made.

That movie had such an impact it infiltrated schools. Let me tell a true story. In junior high in 1985, which is when the film was released, I was 13. By then, I was already what is termed a "a bad student with great potential."

Whatever. My buddies and I were to busy being "cool." We frustrated teachers so much they tried everything to get us back on track. One in particular was our English teacher Ms. Molinaro. She got the idea one day of creating "A Breakfast Club" but with an added twist of getting us invloved in school. Every day, and I forget the time, we would meet and do something - I forget what. I think it was writing. Yeah, that's it. She wanted to expand our creativity because we exhibited quite a bit of it in class. Only this time, we weren't disturbing anybody.

I don't think it worked out well since I can't seem to recall what was accomplished. But in hindsight, she tried and we should be grateful. We liked her but we could never really get on track when it came to academics.

She enjoyed my writing by the way.

Another way Hughes' films influenced me is with the script I wrote. When I was asked who I would have play the parents in the family in the show, I felt Molly Ringwald and Judd Nelson would be the perfect candidates.

Hey, I can dream too.

Great Speeches By Abraham Lincoln Part II

The Presidential Question: Speech in the United States in the House of Representative, 1848.

Lincoln discussing General Taylor, Veto power and charges by Democrats about Taylor's lack of principles. He brilliantly turned the mirror on Democrats and reminded them of their own documented lack of principles. Read entire text here.

"...Gentlemen on the other side are unanimously agreed that General Taylor has no other principles. They are in utter darkness as to his opinions on any of the questions of policy which occupy the public attention. But is there any doubt as to what he will do on the prominent questions if elected? Not the least."

"...Now this is the whole matter. In substance, it is this: The people say to General Taylor, "If you are elected, shall we have a national bank?" He answers, "Your will, gentlemen, not mine." "What about the tariff?" "Say yourselves." "Shall our rivers and harbors be improved?" "Just as you please. If you desire a bank, an alteration of the tariff, internal improvements, any or all, I will not hinder you. If you do not desire them, I will not attempt to force them on you. "

"...My friend from Indiana (C. B. Smith) has aptly asked, "Are you willing to trust the people?" Some of you answered substantially, "We are willing to trust the people; but the President is as much the representative of the people as Congress." In a certain sense, and to a certain extent, he is the representative of the people. He is elected by them, as well as Congress is; but can he, in the nature of things know the wants of the people as well as three hundred other men, coming from all the various localities of the nation? If so, where is the propriety of having a Congress? That the Constitution gives the President a negative on legislation, all know; but that this negative should be so combined with platforms and other appliances as to enable him, and in fact almost compel him, to take the whole of legislation into his own hands, is what we object to, is what General Taylor objects to, and is what constitutes the broad distinction between you and us."

"If we run our eyes along the line of the past, we shall see that almost if not quite all the articles of the present Democratic creed have been at first forced upon the party in this very way. And just now, and just so, opposition to internal improvements is to be established if General Cass shall be elected. Almost half the Democrats here are for improvements; but they will vote for Cass, and if he succeeds, their vote will have aided in closing the doors against improvements. Now this is a process which we think is wrong. We prefer a candidate who, like General Taylor, will allow the people to have their own way, regardless of his private opinions..."

"...You Democrats, and your candidate, in the main are in favor of laying down in advance a platform--a set of party positions--as a unit, and then of forcing the people, by every sort of appliance, to ratify them, however unpalatable some of them may be. We and our candidate are in favor of making Presidential elections and the legislation of the country distinct matters; so that the people can elect whom they please, and afterward legislate just as they please, without any hindrance, save only so much as may guard against infractions of the Constitution, undue haste, and want of consideration. The difference between us is clear as noonday. That we are right we cannot doubt. We hold the true Republican position. In leaving the people's business in their hands, we cannot be wrong. We are willing, and even anxious, to go to the people on this issue."

"I repeat, I would not introduce this mode of discussion here; but I wish gentlemen on the other side to understand that the use of degrading figures is a game at which they may not find themselves able to take all the winnings. ["We give it up!"]

"Have no fears, gentlemen, of your (General Cass) candidate. He exactly suits you, and we congratulate you upon it. However much you may be distressed about our candidate, you have all cause to be contented and happy with your own. If elected, he may not maintain all or even any of his positions previously taken...he will never desert you till you first desert him."

"...But, as General Taylor is, par excellence, the hero of the Mexican War, and as you Democrats say we Whigs have always opposed the war, you think it must be very awkward and embarrassing for us to go for General Taylor. The declaration that we have always opposed the war is true or false, according as one may understand the term "oppose the war." If to say "the war was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President" by opposing the war, then the Whigs have very generally opposed it. Whenever they have spoken at all, they have said this; and they have said it on what has appeared good reason to them. The marching an army into the midst of a peaceful Mexican settlement, frightening the inhabitants away, leaving their growing crops and other property to destruction, to you may appear a perfectly amiable, peaceful, unprovoking procedure; but it does not appear so to us. So to call such an act, to us appears no other than a naked, impudent absurdity, and we speak of it accordingly. But if, when the war had begun, and had become the cause of the country, the giving of our money and our blood, in common with yours, was support of the war, then it is not true that we have always opposed the war. With few individual exceptions, you have constantly had our votes here for all the necessary supplies."

"The Democrats are keen enough to frequently remind us that we have some dissensions in our ranks...Some such we certainly have; have you none, gentlemen Democrats? Is it all union and harmony in your ranks? no bickerings? no divisions?...I have heard some things from New York; and if they are true, one might well say of your party there, as a drunken fellow once said when he heard the reading of an indictment for hog-stealing. The clerk read on till he got to and through the words, "did steal, take, and carry away ten boars, ten sows, ten shoats, and ten pigs," at which he exclaimed, "Well, by golly, that is the most equally divided gang of hogs I ever did hear of!" If there is any other gang of hogs more equally divided than the Democrats of New York are about this time, I have not heard of it."

Why We Have English Institutions In Quebec

I received a comment recently regarding my post about the OLF.

The poster asserted something I've often heard in the past and thought to discuss it here. Essentially, that the English-speaking minority is well-treated here, what, with our three English universities, hospitals and all that.

Let's tackle this claim in point form:

1) First off, to my interpretation, implied is that we should just be happy and shut up.
2) Second, does the person mention this in an effort to justify pitting one set of citizens (the majority) against another (minority)?
3) Third, as a counter point, the English have such institutions because they were far more advanced in terms of wealth and economic power. The Church (with aid from the Duplesis administration in the 1940s) basically kept French-Canadians on the farms. They were told to avoid engaging the greedy, immoral economic activities with the English. Naturally, they along with the Scots, literally built the city of Montreal with little resistance and once positioned it as the central metropolis in Canada. What happened after the Quiet Revolution I ask?
4) Fourth, the commenter is best to ask: Why do the minorities have the right to go to English schools? Why do they have their own institutions? Is it because Quebec was an open and tolerant society and accorded such rights?

How did it come to be that Italians, for example, spoke "anglais?" There seems to be a belief that immigrants freely chose this route. This is not necessarily accurate. Italians, since they were Catholic and Latin, actually wanted to go to French schools (while ensuring their kids learn English since this was the power language) but they were denied access. The success attained moving forward was not thanks to Quebec support and more with the commitment of all major minorities like the Irish, Jews and Chinese - to improve their lot mostly on their own.

Interestingly, when Quebec nationalists (and I'm sure there's more information on this somewhere) observed how fast minorities moved up the social ladder they attempted to force them back into the French system. Like the government did in the past, they were physically grabbing kids out of their class rooms! Italians in particular rebelled in what was known as the St. Leonard Riots (very little scholarship is available about this) and one of the results was the community was exempted from the draconian Bill 101.

Je me souviens has many faces, eh?

Dog On Death Row

The Yukon Supreme Court is set to over a verdict on dog's fate.

"The Yukon Supreme Court is to hear its first capital case in living memory when a judge decides the fate of the dog. Trevor was rescued from a home last January where he was so neglected, his tight collar had grown into his body."

Whitehorse hasn't seen this much action since Sam Steele patrolled the region.

Loose Lips With Nazism, Taking Money And Cash For Clunkers

Have you heard about the recent uproar regarding Nancy Pelosi? She disappointed me. She ought to know better. And why isn't there an SNL character for her? Seriously. Palin and Pelosi aren't that different when you think about.

By the way, here's an interesting article about her father.

What's going on in American polity? How can American politicians stand up and charge each other and citizens of being "Nazis" the minute they disagree with one another?

Whatever. Are these people insane or just plain ignorant? Both? It's time this sort of destructive language (and it happens in Canada too) be tackled straight on. In our institutions of higher learning, in important intellectual magazines and in Congress and Parliament. It must END.

Few of these people are upholding the ideals, traditions and wisdom of their Founding Fathers. The actions of the Democrats and Republicans (in recent years) run less in line with these men of genius who bestowed upon them a great Republic to be molded in a new way never seen before and more with static European socialism.

***
I love this line by the President and Democrats, "we're putting money back in the hands of people."

I ask:

Why take it in the first place?

***

Cash for clunkers: I'm betting it'll go something like this. You get $4500. But the "unintended consequences and costs" (administrative costs, scamming for example) may cost people higher. So in effect, what you do is give in a car to save the environment but it will cost you money to do it. I'm curious to see how this plays out. I hope I'm wrong.

This is just a Canadian assumption because we see this all the time here.

Some Links: Conspiratorial Wackos, White House Paranoia, CNN Grades Obama, Canada Bored Stiff

The NRO's take on how the right and left have been invaded by extremists. The "Birthers" on the right and Truthers on the left. From The Corner segment.

***
My friend sent me this straight from the White House blog:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Wow. Para-NOID! So. Let's see. Hm. Debate is to be discouraged? Citizens should snitch on one another?

Wow.

***

For those interested on such things. CNN is conducting a report card on Obama's Second 100 Days. Personally, while I get you can judge early on a path a leader may take, I still prefer to wait it out and see how it plays out.

Sure, I don't think his bail out plan is all that smart - yeah, right. The economy is recovering and it's because of the stimulus package. Sure - but let the guy settle in a little.

I hear this in sports all the time. A new coach is barely a few games in and the media asks fans about the performance. Doesn't he deserve the full season?

***

Man, with Parliament not in session, there's not a whole lot of shaking goin' on here in Canada.

Conservatism As A Dirty Word And Are The Americans Looking To Copy Canadian Socialized Medicine?

It's a bizarre thing really.

I'm amazed at just how misconstrued and hated conservatism has become. I'm not sure when and where this happened but I fear it's become unhinged. Are a few bad apples giving conservative thought a bad name? I mean, the founding fathers had no trouble with conservative thought, right? Awesome Abraham Lincoln was a Republican - well, a Whig at first but hey.

***

I've been watching the health care reform debate in the U.S. with interest because, well, it's interesting and it indirectly implicates Canada (and Europe) since the Americans are considering some form (exactly what is unclear) of socialized medicine.

To my observation, I think both sides are using our system to fit their needs and arguments. The left paint waayy to nice a picture and the right waayy too bad a picture. Regardless, I'm not so sure Canadian style medicine is what the Americans want. So it makes little sense to really compare it to us. I think President Obama is not explaining his case well. True, some conservative ads have gone on the offensive with dubious allegations but the left does that too.

That doesn't mean the right aren't asking some valid questions - the Canadian system is indeed under severe strain. Anyone arguing otherwise is either blinded by lofty rhetoric or denying rising evidence pointing to this. I would hope this is considered by Americans.

Nonetheless, I'd be surprised if Obama rams a one-size fits all nationalized program. Although the White House claim that "disinformation" is derailing his plan is a bit rich. One thing I learned in life. When you fail the first person who should be staring back is you.

Now, whether this is just a precursor to that I don't know. It can.

If I'm American, I ask a loooootttttt of questions. A lot.

Broward County Sexual Assault Case

Dunno.

Just find this article interesting.

Jonathan Bleiweiss, an (apparent) upstanding gay Deputy and model citizen was arrested for allegedly well, you read part of it:

"Prosecutors and public defenders are reviewing at least 15 pending criminal cases -- an attempted murder case among them -- that may depend on the testimony of accused Broward Sheriff's Deputy Jonathan Bleiweiss.

Broward Public Defender Howard Finkelstein said Wednesday that his staffers also are looking at recently closed cases. He said they have been getting unconfirmed reports that the deputy might have been physically abusing homeless people."

In Search Of Individual Liberty In Quebec

Does it exist?

In light of my recent post about Quebec's OLF, I'd like to make clear something. My issue is with its usefulness to a society beyond language and culture. Disassociated from both, one can muster a sober assessment of how it makes people feel.

To me, it's not right. There is no justification for it I reiterate.

As for the United States, it has itself abandoned large tracts of its intellectual heritage its magnificent founding fathers left them. They have their own issues. However, their writings live on and I do believe they can still be applied to all freedom loving peoples on earth. They left a legacy of such priceless brilliance, it would make us fools to not listen.

The question I pose then: Is Quebec balancing individual liberty (if they care about such intangible and universal notions) and protecting its culture? Can it be mutually inclusive?

I don't see how laws designed to protect the collective can be such.

Alas, I leave it to people to enlighten.

Mass Tax Revolt Possible In The U.S.?

Was listening to the Dennis Miller Show earlier today. Hey, I'm interested in hearing everyone's point of view. He said something that piqued my interest and got me thinking about my many trips to Italy and France.

In discussing the Obama administration and its lofty and expensive plans, he asserted that at some point there will be a tax revolt in the United States.

This is when I began to recall conversations I had with cousins who own businesses in both aforementioned Latin countries. Italy and France, by all accounts once added up, are socialist in orientation. To what degree they're efficient on the matter is hard to say. I would guess France is far more functional than Italy. Regardless, both share a common trait: Each have high numbers of tax evaders and both have substantial black markets. Italy's economy in particular is said to be around 35% underground!

Now I can't speak for the Scandinavian countries (increasingly under duress when it comes to paying for their generous welfare states), or Germany or the United Kingdom but according to people I spoke with in France and Italy, they squarely blame excessive government intervention and intrusion for why this is the case. The bureaucracy in Italy is psychologically abusive to the point where the pragmatic Italian mind finds ways to circumnavigate it. My cousin in Milan freely admits (and proudly) he outwits the government. If he doesn't, they take everything he claims.

My cousin in Paris has a similar story. While he feels France is far more organized, the state's addiction to taxes is no less gross.

Speaking at my cousin's restaurant over a bottle of wine with many a person, at the local and personal level, there was real outrage about the state of their country. The complaints weren't all that different than what we have here. I've always loved the French and their argumentative abilities. It is in his restaurant I learned many of our perceptions of the French are unjustified if not misunderstood - and vice-versa I might add.

They feel the welfare state is bleeding them dry but seem paralyzed when it comes do turning thought into action. They spoke as though they had no liberties left but weren't ready to flat out say it. The legacy of 1789 and their contribution to establishing a free republic in the United States in 1774-1776 seems forgotten.

In my cousin's assessment, he argues if he doesn't be "careful" with his incomes taxes, l'etat can literally take up to 87% of his income! I had no way to verify this but this was his claim.

The French and Italians have revolted - by going underground.

At the pace the U.S. is going, this is possibly how they're going to revolt. Canada accepts tax increases without much fight. The U.S. is not like Canada. They're not apathetic. They're action oriented much like their counterparts in Europe.

We'll see.

CRTC Net Neutrality Hearings Ongoing

Don't forget to follow the CRTC Net Neutrality hearings!

Quebec Must Embrace Liberty

From Whoweare.ca I present this video titled "Quebec fails its minorities."

I must, again, remind of my position whenever I'm confronted with an issue discussed in the video. Namely from the perspective of liberty.

So any comments about "how hard can it be to post bilingual signs" (I wish it were the case. The OLF can visit you for far less than this) miss the point and merely tolerate draconian laws that don't value civil liberties. Detach yourself from the parochial side of the coin for a second and look at it from a larger picture; one that goes beyond cultural nationalism. I recognize this will ruffle some language nationalists (I'm aware how serously some take it) but my intention is to point out there are consequences for such actions. Those consequences are rarely, if ever, discussed here.

As a citizen of Quebec, I must admit I am shamed by our behavior. There's no excuse on any level, be it moral, cultural, legal, (of course, we have found ways to justify it) to ever enter a person's place of business to make them feel like they're the enemy. I have friends - both French and English - who have been visited by L'Office de la Langue Francaise (the dreaded language police). If only the average citizen knew the anger and disgust felt by citizens after being visited by these - Commentator watch your language!

As one person put it to me, "I felt like I was in 1933 Germany. I needed to take a shower after the stench of intolerance was so strong. If I could do it over I would move." Ironically, this person was half French and employs 35 French-Canadians! Not good enough apparently.

Parochial organizations like the OLF have a negative effect on a population; in particular the non-French speaking one. It's not a myth - we DO leave and MANY do cite the politics as a reason. The Montreal diaspora roams the continent in search of new hopes and dreams. They find peace of mind elsewhere. It's not enough to say, "hey, even with the political climate we still live great here." You can live great in many places minus the OLF.

Quebecers need to ask themselves: How would they feel if there was an English language police harassing them at their place of business? Not so long ago, they knew what it felt like yet...yet they see no contradiction in causing such heart ache on their fellow citizens based on...language.

Sad.

And don't look to the Quebec Liberals for intellectual guidance on the issue. They plan to hire more inspectors to infringe on our civil liberties.

After viewing the video, I suggested to the person who sent it to me to ask the film maker to expand on the story. To collect and document the indiscretions of the OLF shared by Ms. Plamondon. There's more than enough material (I know of six off the top of my head) to make a 90 minute documentary. I would then present it to an international film festival exposing Quebec's tolerance for anti-democratic institutions like the OLF. The question is: Is there the will to fight for individual liberty?

By speaking from the perspective of the citizen, perhaps we can have a real debate about the issue.

Democracy Is Just A Word

...An empty shell.

It's what you fill it with that gives it meaning. More, a soul.

Let me borrow an analogy from the financial industry with Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSP. Equivalent to a 401k in the U.S. as I understand it).

An RRSP onto itself is just a savings vehicle in the abstract if empty. It comes with one built-in advantage: It's tax sheltered. It can't do anything for you if you don't invest in something. What you invest in will determine your financial picture in the future for better or worse. You must be wise and prudent in your assessments and decisions. You miss and the tax-sheltered advantage of an RSSP is all for not.

A democracy is only as valuable as what you put into it. Its built-in feature is voice to the people. It must also entail liberty. If you permit yourself to be unwise and imprudent, dismissing the people's aspirations for example, what you may have then is a democracy in name only. You can rightly claim it's a democracy; but in reality it's nothing but a mistake; a foul corrupt version of a noble idea.

A Chilling Reminder Of Why Freedom Of Speech Is On The Run

I'll be monitoring this situation carefully.

President Obama recently appointed his Harvard contemporary (seriously, is Harvard but a mere rag now seeing the type of thinkers coming out of its ranks?) Cass Sunstein to help crackdown on bloggers who are "out of control." Read more about this here at Project World Awareness. It would be interesting to know if such a draconian measure extends outside the United States. Can they, if they deem it so, ask me to remove this post because of the image to the left of this paragraph?

Every single day, Orwell's 1984 becomes more and more a reality.

What's the difference between Black shirts, Brown shirts and this new breed of White shirts? They (and both parties in the U.S. have much to answer for regarding this) may not physically harm the people but their actions equally amount to a declaration of war on civil liberty.

Perhaps we can amend von Clausewitch's dictum 'War is politics by other means' to 'War on freedom is politics by other means.'

How grossly lamentable these actions by the President are - and Julius Grey the Montreal constitutional lawyer mentioned in an earlier post. I bring up him up because it's a reflection on how government and lawyers are increasingly willing to attack the press and bloggers.

Bloggers should not go down without a fight. Leaders increasingly do not reflect the aspirations and needs of the people. They reflect their own petty, arrogant and disconnected ideals.

If we're not careful and vigilant, we'll become dead spirits flowing dishonorably among the dead souls of leaders.

If we can't stand up for our right to speak, then what are we good for?

"You're A Crappy Blogger Who Likes To, Well, Crappily Blog"

Oh, I was just reminded of something I heard over the radio while driving in Delaware and want to post about it before I forget.

It was a political show (don't know the name) and a person (I really can't remember who) was being interviewed by a reporter. All I remember is that it was a serious subject matter relating to Afghanistan.

The female interviewer (yes, I'm specifying gender for the heck of it), opened with this:

"You've succeeded, in well, being successful at...blah,blah,blah."

Aside from my eyebrow raising to the top end of my forehead, it surprised me how no one spotted this in the editing stage.

Oh well. I guess the reporter, well, was reporting so I should cut her some slack. It seems you can't criticize anymore without someone saying stupid things like "well, why don't you try and do this job!" or "we all make mistakes" and "it's not that serious an error relax."

Bah.

The art of perfection is dead.

Mutual Funds Fees 101

Some of my friends, not all since I probably lack credibility in their eyes - the bastards -ask me my opinion on investments from time to time.

For example, somebody asked me about fees in mutual funds and what they represent. I thought this would be a good topic to post about here for novice investors on The Commentator - sponsored by nobody. Incidentally, if you want to advertise on this blog please contact me at 555-4242. That's 555-haha.

I sponsor myself. I answer to no one.

Ok. Moving along.

The fees (known as Management Expense Ratios (MER)) on mutual funds are an important consideration when buying them. They can significantly impact your return on investment. In a way, an MER serves as a reoccurring tax on your return because they're expensive and you pay them on a yearly basis.

When a mutual fund is considered, there are three popular choices to purchase it:

1) Front-end (you pay up front and are not on a schedule giving you the option to sell anytime), 2) Back-end (you defer the payment. Choosing this option puts you on a schedule. Usually five years. If you decide to sell such a fund you will be subjected to a deferred sales charge or redemption chargers based on the original amount invested or the Net Asstet Value (NAV) of the fund at the time of redemption. As your schedule date draws nearer, the sales charge diminishes along with it)
3) No-load typically sold by banks and management companies.

Of course, there are other types but mentioning these is enough for our discussion on MERs.

On top of this, are the MERs charged - not including a broker commission if you use one. More on this later regarding tralier fees and distribution charges.

ADVICE: ALWAYS READ THE PROSPECTUS provided to you. Be careful, while it may seem logical to go with a no-load fund, other factors come into play. For instance, a no-load fund may not be as good as a performer as, say, a front-end one. You have to do your homework. Moreover, no-load funds can (and often do) charge higher MERs. Someone has to pay the broker's trailer fees. What God giveth he taketh.

Dad, what's a trailer fee? I told you son, I paid that trailer 100 bucks now go haul wood chips! Seriously, a trailer fee is a commission paid annually by mutual fund companies to sales representatives for on-going services to the client. They generally range between 0.25% and 1% based on the assets of the customer. They're paid out from the MER or through something called a "Distribution Charge" which can be paid out quarterly or yearly. Either way, they both impact your returns. You can debate whether a trailer fee is necessary (conflict of interest between broker and company immediately springs to mind) amongst yourselves. As a point of interest, investment advisors can earn a living of these residuals alone.

Back to MER's. What? You thought that was it? So young. So impressionable.

Uusally, as a very rough rule of thumb, the best way to view an MER is to subtract it from the annual return of a particular fund. If a fund claims it returns 8% and the MER is 2.5%, you reduce it by this amount. In this case, you're left with 5.5% return.

Life is all about context, at this point you have to compare what that 5.5% return represents with other forms of investments like real estate and bonds. But that's not the point of this post. Given how MER's are calculated (generally on the asstes held in an entire management portfolio and not the performance), if you have an underperforming fund, the combo between fees and bad returns can be devastating in the long-run.

What does the MER pay for? Stuff like the mutual fund manager's salary, legal and custodial fees, audits and commissions as mentioned earlier. It costs money to run things, you know.

MER's charged are higher in Canada than in the U.S. (surprise, surprise) and run anywhere from 1% to 3%.

In the past, I have spoken to mutual fund reps about any plans to cut MER's. All of them admitted they were high and that companies were working towards lowering them but according to them, the costs of running a fund are extremely high.

Hope this helps. If it doesn't, buy my murder-mystery book and DVD titled "Who Murdered My Returns?"

Two Wolves And A Chump: A Fraudulent Business Venture Lands Man In Jail

If you're sleeping at the switch, or want something so bad (usually for most people that would be money) to the point of clouding judgment, you're vulnerable to immoral hacks, hustlers and criminals.

What follows is a true story about how innocence and ignorance are not a good combo in the face of fraud.

Someone close to the family, let's call him Max, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for his (unwitting) part in fraudulent activity in the United States. In a nutshell, while on vacation in the U.S., he befriended two men. Soon enough, a rapport was established and he was offered a partnership in a business venture in computer equipment.

Flag 1: Two men you barely know in a foreign country offering you a part in a lucrative business should raise your defense mechanism.

Looking for a chance to make a quick buck, Max did no such thing and jumped head first into it. The two men found their pawn - or fawn. They told him to not worry about anything; that they were well capitalized. All they needed him to do is cover a couple of things.

Flag 2: When two strangers start telling you specifics on how to open a bank account or register something, in this case he was told to make sure the account was 10 years-old, it might be wise to walk away.

Following their instructions, the plan was executed. Essentially, they were to sell equipment they never owned to companies in order to pocket the money. Unknown to Max but discounted in the minds of the criminals (which is why they're, well, criminals and needed a fall guy) was that the FBI was monitoring the situation. I don't know what led them to track these guys but they were.

Next thing Max knows - BUSTED!

Max truly believed he was getting involved in a legitimate business. Max wasn't all that successful in his life and was pushing 50. I assume he felt this was his last shot at financial glory. Interestingly, his father-in-law (not exactly the most moral of guys himself) is wealthy enough to support his three children and their entire families. I'm sure this was all fine and dandy to Max but he obviously wanted to do it on his own.

A court date was set, and the trial ensued. By now, Americans know that Max was as good as toast as Americans take fraud (and crime in general) extremely seriously. Canadians have grown accustomed to a more lax justice system. It should not surprise people most believed there was a chance he could get off seeing he was used extending the logic to he being a victim of fraud himself.

In the present immigration climate in the U.S., Max was easy pickings for the prosecutor. Max was painted as an illegal foreigner who came into the country to steal money off the backs of good, hard working Americans. Next thing he knows, he's sentenced to 10 years in jail.

Which brings me to the question of whether justice was served. I'm not sure. I may be wrong but the analogy of arresting a drug user as opposed to the pusher strikes me as appropriate here. Sure, Max was stupid for what he did and deserves to pay the price (we're all accountable for our actions) but the fact that the two ring leaders were never to be found and presumed to have escaped, makes me wonder if any message was truly sent.

They didn't nab the bad guys, instead what they got was a fool. Which makes them look like fools in the eyes of criminals.

Now Max leaves behind a wife and three children back home. A sad story indeed.