Unions call for 'Buy Canadian' policy
Note that it's the Canadian Auto Workers pushing for this policy. How exactly are we to support their industry? As far as I know, their bread and butter is American car companies. Shall we support their industry by buying American and Japanese cars built in Canada? Are they serious?
Let's not kid ourselves. These aren't "Canadian car companies," they are American companies whose actions are dictated by American interests, and Japanese companies dictated by Japanese interests. They will use us as long as they need us and then bam, out on our collective ear. One need only look at the impending closure of the Oshawa GM plant to see that this is true. There was much pleading and protesting about it, to no avail. And GM has already exported huge chunks of its manufacturing labour to Mexico. Mexico recently surpassed Canada in auto manufacturing. Coincidence? No. It's all about financial advantage. GM is not a Canadian company, it's not based in Canada, and it couldn't care less about Canadian jobs. The sooner we get that through our heads, the better.
I know of two Canadian car companies - Zenn and Dynasty... and neither of them ever got proper support from any level of government.
Compounding this tragedy is the environmental impact of such governmental mismanagement. Both of these are 100% electric cars. They are classified as LSV (Low Speed Vehicles) and are ideal for the type of short distances typical for city dwellers for getting to work, the grocery store, and miscellaneous errands. Since, at last count in 2006, 80% of all Canadians lived in an area classified as urban, a whole lot of people could be using these. Alas, the federal government dragged its heels on making provisions for putting these cars on our roads. Once it finally did, it fell to the provinces, and all but two - BC and Québec - have dragged their heels as well. So, where are these cars getting sold? In the 47 U.S. states that allow them, amongst other places. I've said it before - it's a travesty.
And now that the U.S. economy is tanking fast, and with it their rate of new vehicle purchases, how do you suppose these Canadian car companies are faring? Did the government offer to bail them out or help them along? No! Millions in bailout dollars are instead going to GM and Chrysler, with a line of credit extended to Ford... all American companies.
If the government was really serious about Canadian jobs, the Canadian economy, and the environment, they would give proper support to Canadian-based companies. Why are we giving billions of dollars - that's "billions" with a "b" - to GM, an American company that is already closing down at least one of their Canadian plants? What would happen if we took the money designated for American car companies and put it into Zenn and Dynasty and Canadian startups who want to make cars here? There would still be plenty left over to go into public transportation and infrastructure. Why would we insist on spending big bucks to (1) ensure that our businesses are at a disadvantage and (2) ensure that large segments of our economy and jobs remain at the mercy of foreign interests?
What a crock.
11 February 2009
10 February 2009
OC Transpo strike - penny wise and pound foolish
Strike cost city $13.4M - so far
Hope it was worth it to save $3M or so on scheduling inefficiencies!
Mayor O'Brien is an arrogant, pigheaded moron. Alain Mercier is similarly muleheaded and couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag. The city councillors, by and large, stood by with their thumbs up their butts. And the ATU needs to get a grip - this is a recession; world economies are tanking; tens of thousands of jobs are being lost in this country; maybe just maybe instead of wreaking hardship on those less fortunate than themselves, they could have just been thankful to have a damn job and helped out their fellow citizens in a jam. And talk about shooting yourself in the foot - they had to know this would result in transit cutbacks and therefore potential layoffs in the future. Certainly having no job results in even more family time than the scheduling they're fighting for.
The city councillors are promising never to "let this happen again." That's not good enough. It never should have happened a first time. They don't deserve another chance. I hope those who voted for them and for this Conservative union-busting mayor are appropriately disgusted with themselves.
I, for one, will not forget this at voting time.
And if we do not continue to push for CIRB to change their definition of what constitutes a threat to public safety, push for public transportation to be declared an essential service, and push for alternate modes of transportation such as a driverless light rail and more cycling lanes, we will still not be assured that a set of fresh political faces will not thrust us back into this same exact situation each and every time an ATU contract expires. We cannot afford to let anyone off the hook. The well-being of our poorest and most disadvantaged citizens, our businesses, our economy, and our environment depend on it.
Hope it was worth it to save $3M or so on scheduling inefficiencies!
Mayor O'Brien is an arrogant, pigheaded moron. Alain Mercier is similarly muleheaded and couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag. The city councillors, by and large, stood by with their thumbs up their butts. And the ATU needs to get a grip - this is a recession; world economies are tanking; tens of thousands of jobs are being lost in this country; maybe just maybe instead of wreaking hardship on those less fortunate than themselves, they could have just been thankful to have a damn job and helped out their fellow citizens in a jam. And talk about shooting yourself in the foot - they had to know this would result in transit cutbacks and therefore potential layoffs in the future. Certainly having no job results in even more family time than the scheduling they're fighting for.
The city councillors are promising never to "let this happen again." That's not good enough. It never should have happened a first time. They don't deserve another chance. I hope those who voted for them and for this Conservative union-busting mayor are appropriately disgusted with themselves.
I, for one, will not forget this at voting time.
And if we do not continue to push for CIRB to change their definition of what constitutes a threat to public safety, push for public transportation to be declared an essential service, and push for alternate modes of transportation such as a driverless light rail and more cycling lanes, we will still not be assured that a set of fresh political faces will not thrust us back into this same exact situation each and every time an ATU contract expires. We cannot afford to let anyone off the hook. The well-being of our poorest and most disadvantaged citizens, our businesses, our economy, and our environment depend on it.
"The best job in the world," and other exploits
There is a contest where people are trying to audition for "the best job in the world." The position is called Caretaker of the Islands of the Great Barrier Reef and is a publicity gimmick by Tourism Queensland Australia. You get paid to live on one of the beautiful islands, snorkel, check out luxury spas and local events, etc., take videos and pictures of it all, and blog about it at least once a week. Rough stuff, I know. Naturally, LOTS of people are applying.
In order to get selected, you have to get the most votes for your audition video. This one's from a guy up here in the Yukon. Too damn funny.
Which got me thinking about the "Polar Bear Dips":
...and the "snow baths" (at about 5:24):
What is it about Canadians and doing insane things in ice and snow? Things that make you wonder just how many marbles they are missing?
That's awesome!
I'm still pretty sick this time around but I hope to join my fellow citizens next year. :-P
In order to get selected, you have to get the most votes for your audition video. This one's from a guy up here in the Yukon. Too damn funny.
Which got me thinking about the "Polar Bear Dips":
...and the "snow baths" (at about 5:24):
What is it about Canadians and doing insane things in ice and snow? Things that make you wonder just how many marbles they are missing?
That's awesome!
I'm still pretty sick this time around but I hope to join my fellow citizens next year. :-P
04 February 2009
Tasers and minors
Ontario rejects call for banning taser use on minors
Sound decision.
Mind you, I understand the outrage over the tasering of a non-aggressive FAS-afflicted 14-year-old girl. I don't know all the facts, and perhaps none of us ever will, for a variety of reasons - not the least of which being the protection of her identity. The article itself states that none of the allegations has been proven in court, but that there is a tape recording of the incident which the Ontario children's advocate has seen and verified. I can only assume this means the tape is probably legitimate, but has not been presented formally as court evidence just yet. At first blush, this certainly seems to be an unnecessary and appalling (ab)use of police force. If this is indeed the case, the officers should be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible.
That said, an age restriction on tasers stating that someone's life must be "clearly at risk" might sound great on the surface when one is justifiably outraged about police abuse, but it would be neither practical nor properly enforceable. Violent situations can turn life-threatening in the blink of an eye. Do we want officers hesitating in such situations? Are we saying that, in the heat of a volatile situation, faced with what may quickly become a life-threatening situation at the hands of an young attacker, an officer should stop and question the subject to determine age eligibility for taser use? Because honestly, how else are the police expected to know? Maybe the violent suspect is 19... or maybe s/he is 17½.
And what exactly constitutes "a life clearly at risk?" If a youth pulls a knife, but hasn't attacked anyone with it (yet), does this fit the description? What about a youth sitting on top of someone and repeatedly punching him/her in the head? What about a youth who is verbally threatening to kill someone, but hasn't physically done anything (yet)? Two youths fist-fighting? A youth who appears to be reaching for a gun? In each of these cases it could be argued by a lawyer that a life wasn't "clearly at risk" - even if the danger was real and/or injury had already occurred.
Enacting such a narrow requirement would put police in an untenable situation when faced with potential danger to the public or themselves - what are they supposed to do? Should they taser, billy club, shoot, risk life and limb, or hesitate? Every option could potentially generate a lawsuit. If your child or other family member was permanently maimed by a young aggressor because police hesitated to taser him/her according to the requirement, would you sue? Or if the police went ahead and tased the aggressor before s/he had a chance to attack your loved one, would you want that aggressor's family to be able to sue and get big bucks because police guessed wrong and s/he was 17?
Unless you've been living in a cave for the last several decades, you also know that the vast majority of gang members are minors and young adults. I lived in L.A., the undisputed gang capital of America, for more than 30 years (before finally having the good sense to leave). Gang activities such as shootouts, drive-by shootings, and jumpings (surrounding and attacking a victim) were far and away the number one threat to citizens' everyday safety. One of the biggest problems we had is that minors knew they could get away with a lot more than adults could, and they used it strategically to their advantage. One mustn't forget this group of very dangerous young individuals that police must deal with - in some areas more often than others.
According to Statistics Canada, 33% of 2007 murder suspects were under the age of 25. That means minors and people who could be mistaken for minors made up fully 1/3 of all murder suspects. From this statistic alone, one can safely deduce that if the taser age restriction were to pass, police officers would face far too many volatile situations where they must choose between hesitating and risking the aggressor killing/injuring someone in the meantime, unnecessarily risking life and limb, or using other weapons such as a billy club or gun to stop the aggressor. Like it or not, the risk of permanent damage or death from a taser is still lower than it is for either of the other two weapons used to incapacitate an aggressor. Why would we force police to use the more damaging and risky weapons on youths? This makes no sense and in effect achieves the exact opposite of what is intended by potentially increasing the risk that young offenders will be permanently maimed or killed during violent conflicts with police.
No, this restriction is too narrow. It all looks good on paper at first blush... but life just doesn't work that way, so it all breaks down from there. Officers should not be forced to wait until someone's life is clearly at stake, regardless of the age of the aggressor. And there is no time in these situations to be guessing someone's age. It's so easy to judge the police and play Monday morning quarterback if you've never been in such a volatile situation yourself. I have - many times, unfortunately. Those situations are not nearly as easy to accurately assess in the heat of the moment as one might think. (And no I'm not in law enforcement, I'm a computer geek - but I've experienced all of the craziness L.A. has to offer, so I know what I'm talking about.) It is extremely difficult to predict whether an agitated and violent person is going to suddenly turn on someone and cause injury or death.
That said, tasers should only be used in those situations where there is (1) risk of injury and (2) a risk that officers could lose control of the situation if they don't use it. Acceptable: a single officer is trying to apprehend a suspect who is attacking and violently resisting arrest. Not acceptable: officers have already disarmed and subdued a suspect but taser anyway because s/he has pissed them off.
The particular situation of this 14-year-old, with the facts as presented so far, should never have happened. Not by virtue of her age, mind you, since 14-year-olds are certainly capable of assaulting and murdering people... but rather because she was (1) not threatening or attacking anyone and (2) already in a controlled situation by virtue of being unarmed and behind bars. As it stands, this looks like an alarming example of unwarranted police brutality on an unarmed, unthreatening, mentally disabled aboriginal child. Yes, we should be outraged - but just as important is that we are outraged for the right reasons.
Sound decision.
Mind you, I understand the outrage over the tasering of a non-aggressive FAS-afflicted 14-year-old girl. I don't know all the facts, and perhaps none of us ever will, for a variety of reasons - not the least of which being the protection of her identity. The article itself states that none of the allegations has been proven in court, but that there is a tape recording of the incident which the Ontario children's advocate has seen and verified. I can only assume this means the tape is probably legitimate, but has not been presented formally as court evidence just yet. At first blush, this certainly seems to be an unnecessary and appalling (ab)use of police force. If this is indeed the case, the officers should be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible.
That said, an age restriction on tasers stating that someone's life must be "clearly at risk" might sound great on the surface when one is justifiably outraged about police abuse, but it would be neither practical nor properly enforceable. Violent situations can turn life-threatening in the blink of an eye. Do we want officers hesitating in such situations? Are we saying that, in the heat of a volatile situation, faced with what may quickly become a life-threatening situation at the hands of an young attacker, an officer should stop and question the subject to determine age eligibility for taser use? Because honestly, how else are the police expected to know? Maybe the violent suspect is 19... or maybe s/he is 17½.
And what exactly constitutes "a life clearly at risk?" If a youth pulls a knife, but hasn't attacked anyone with it (yet), does this fit the description? What about a youth sitting on top of someone and repeatedly punching him/her in the head? What about a youth who is verbally threatening to kill someone, but hasn't physically done anything (yet)? Two youths fist-fighting? A youth who appears to be reaching for a gun? In each of these cases it could be argued by a lawyer that a life wasn't "clearly at risk" - even if the danger was real and/or injury had already occurred.
Enacting such a narrow requirement would put police in an untenable situation when faced with potential danger to the public or themselves - what are they supposed to do? Should they taser, billy club, shoot, risk life and limb, or hesitate? Every option could potentially generate a lawsuit. If your child or other family member was permanently maimed by a young aggressor because police hesitated to taser him/her according to the requirement, would you sue? Or if the police went ahead and tased the aggressor before s/he had a chance to attack your loved one, would you want that aggressor's family to be able to sue and get big bucks because police guessed wrong and s/he was 17?
Unless you've been living in a cave for the last several decades, you also know that the vast majority of gang members are minors and young adults. I lived in L.A., the undisputed gang capital of America, for more than 30 years (before finally having the good sense to leave). Gang activities such as shootouts, drive-by shootings, and jumpings (surrounding and attacking a victim) were far and away the number one threat to citizens' everyday safety. One of the biggest problems we had is that minors knew they could get away with a lot more than adults could, and they used it strategically to their advantage. One mustn't forget this group of very dangerous young individuals that police must deal with - in some areas more often than others.
According to Statistics Canada, 33% of 2007 murder suspects were under the age of 25. That means minors and people who could be mistaken for minors made up fully 1/3 of all murder suspects. From this statistic alone, one can safely deduce that if the taser age restriction were to pass, police officers would face far too many volatile situations where they must choose between hesitating and risking the aggressor killing/injuring someone in the meantime, unnecessarily risking life and limb, or using other weapons such as a billy club or gun to stop the aggressor. Like it or not, the risk of permanent damage or death from a taser is still lower than it is for either of the other two weapons used to incapacitate an aggressor. Why would we force police to use the more damaging and risky weapons on youths? This makes no sense and in effect achieves the exact opposite of what is intended by potentially increasing the risk that young offenders will be permanently maimed or killed during violent conflicts with police.
No, this restriction is too narrow. It all looks good on paper at first blush... but life just doesn't work that way, so it all breaks down from there. Officers should not be forced to wait until someone's life is clearly at stake, regardless of the age of the aggressor. And there is no time in these situations to be guessing someone's age. It's so easy to judge the police and play Monday morning quarterback if you've never been in such a volatile situation yourself. I have - many times, unfortunately. Those situations are not nearly as easy to accurately assess in the heat of the moment as one might think. (And no I'm not in law enforcement, I'm a computer geek - but I've experienced all of the craziness L.A. has to offer, so I know what I'm talking about.) It is extremely difficult to predict whether an agitated and violent person is going to suddenly turn on someone and cause injury or death.
That said, tasers should only be used in those situations where there is (1) risk of injury and (2) a risk that officers could lose control of the situation if they don't use it. Acceptable: a single officer is trying to apprehend a suspect who is attacking and violently resisting arrest. Not acceptable: officers have already disarmed and subdued a suspect but taser anyway because s/he has pissed them off.
The particular situation of this 14-year-old, with the facts as presented so far, should never have happened. Not by virtue of her age, mind you, since 14-year-olds are certainly capable of assaulting and murdering people... but rather because she was (1) not threatening or attacking anyone and (2) already in a controlled situation by virtue of being unarmed and behind bars. As it stands, this looks like an alarming example of unwarranted police brutality on an unarmed, unthreatening, mentally disabled aboriginal child. Yes, we should be outraged - but just as important is that we are outraged for the right reasons.
O Canada - no, it's not up for debate
N.B. anthem dispute opened divisions in community: parent
Why this has become such an issue completely baffles me. I just don't get why 2 families should get to dictate the protocol for an entire school... especially since that protocol involves removing something as integral as the national anthem. Maybe it's just my American upbringing (ironically), but I happen to believe that you must integrate to a certain extent in your country of residence - because no matter how much your beliefs may differ, some things are not negotiable. Yes, by all means write letters to your politicians, protest, and get involved to change things for the better when people are being wronged and victimized. But removing a key part of the national identity from an entire school just because you don't want to hear it is destructive, unfair, arrogant, and more than a little contemptuous - even more so in a country such as ours, where we are sleeping next to the elephant and our struggle for national identity is intensified.
There is a very simple solution: if you don't want to hear a country's national anthem, leave. But be forewarned: no matter where you go you're going to have to hear somebody's national anthem - and most places wouldn't entertain your sentiments anywhere nearly as long as they have here. They sure as hell wouldn't in the States. They'd kick you in the pants and tell you to put up or get out.
And so help me, I agree.
No country is ever perfect. You may not like its government, prevailing attitudes, climate, culture, religion, foreign policy, crime rate, geography, or any number of other things... but whatever it is, if it bothers you that much you're free to go somewhere else that fits you better. I did. So this isn't just hypothetical rhetoric - the very fact that I've moved back to Canada for good shows that I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. And if The Star Spangled Banner had bothered me the same ridiculous way O Canada bothers these 2 families, I could take solace in the fact that I only have to hear it during the hockey games.
Why this has become such an issue completely baffles me. I just don't get why 2 families should get to dictate the protocol for an entire school... especially since that protocol involves removing something as integral as the national anthem. Maybe it's just my American upbringing (ironically), but I happen to believe that you must integrate to a certain extent in your country of residence - because no matter how much your beliefs may differ, some things are not negotiable. Yes, by all means write letters to your politicians, protest, and get involved to change things for the better when people are being wronged and victimized. But removing a key part of the national identity from an entire school just because you don't want to hear it is destructive, unfair, arrogant, and more than a little contemptuous - even more so in a country such as ours, where we are sleeping next to the elephant and our struggle for national identity is intensified.
There is a very simple solution: if you don't want to hear a country's national anthem, leave. But be forewarned: no matter where you go you're going to have to hear somebody's national anthem - and most places wouldn't entertain your sentiments anywhere nearly as long as they have here. They sure as hell wouldn't in the States. They'd kick you in the pants and tell you to put up or get out.
And so help me, I agree.
No country is ever perfect. You may not like its government, prevailing attitudes, climate, culture, religion, foreign policy, crime rate, geography, or any number of other things... but whatever it is, if it bothers you that much you're free to go somewhere else that fits you better. I did. So this isn't just hypothetical rhetoric - the very fact that I've moved back to Canada for good shows that I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. And if The Star Spangled Banner had bothered me the same ridiculous way O Canada bothers these 2 families, I could take solace in the fact that I only have to hear it during the hockey games.
01 February 2009
Ugh - say it isn't so
Liberal MP David McGuinty (Ottawa South) cynically credited President Barack Obama's visit to Ottawa on Feb. 19 as the reason why Labour Minister Rona Ambrose moved to end the strike.Somebody please tell me that's not the real reason. Granted, it would have been highly embarrassing to have the U.S. President here in a gesture of international partnership, while getting stuck in extra traffic and driving past yelling ATU picketers and yelling anti-strike protesters. Obviously, if we cannot resolve municipal issues in our own capital city then it doesn't really bode well for our capability for international partnership, now does it?
"Ultimately, because (Prime Minister) Stephen Harper was worried about Barack Obama's mobility in this city for his photo-ops," said McGuinty. "I believe that was a contributing factor of solving this strike. Honestly." (full article)
Despite the TTC strike having been ended within 3 days, ours was allowed to drag on for nearly 2 months - maddening and grossly unfair in itself. Given the proximity of Premier McGuinty's very public demands for federal action, citing these facts, and the sudden reversal by Rona Ambrose a few hours later, I admit I assumed a direct correlation between these two events. This situation alone would be an outrage and a disgrace, since it should not require public humiliation plastered all over the mass media to force the government to take care of business - especially given the near-immediate resolution of such a matter in Toronto. But honestly, if the Tories' only motivation to alleviate Ottawans' suffering is potential embarrassment at the impending visit of a foreign leader, and not the embarrassing outcry at home, then they're even worse low-lifes than I originally thought. And that's saying something.
Ontario fairness
It appears that Premier Dalton McGuinty has made some gains for Ontarians (1, 2 in funding for health care, education, infrastructure, and a number of other fronts. His Ontario Fairness website has been up for some time, it seems, as part of a lengthy battle to get federal representation and funding that is actually proportional to our population.
Congratulations, McGuinty, on your successes in this regard.
I think this is especially commendable because, surprisingly, Ontarians don't seem to be clamouring on the Parliament front lawn demanding it. I've known of McGuinty's cause (from his website) since before we immigrated, yet this is the first time I've heard anything about it in the media or anywhere other than his website. Do people just not know about it, or feel like it doesn't affect them, or don't think it does any good to make a stink over it? Maybe they do, and I just haven't been hanging with the right crowd.
Congratulations, McGuinty, on your successes in this regard.
I think this is especially commendable because, surprisingly, Ontarians don't seem to be clamouring on the Parliament front lawn demanding it. I've known of McGuinty's cause (from his website) since before we immigrated, yet this is the first time I've heard anything about it in the media or anywhere other than his website. Do people just not know about it, or feel like it doesn't affect them, or don't think it does any good to make a stink over it? Maybe they do, and I just haven't been hanging with the right crowd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
