Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Dying Wish

This post will be relatively short.

I refuse to believe that Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG) made the 'dying wish' that she allegedly made.  Nevermind the fact that dying wishes are not binding.

By all accounts, RBG was a brilliant jurist.  She worked very hard to get to the top court.  And while many might have disagreed with her politics, myself included, no one seems to have a negative thing to say about her dedication to the law and to the office she held.

The main document, indeed the ONLY document she was to use to guide her legal decision-making was the Constitution of the United States of America. She took an oath to protect and defend it.  Presidents too take the same oath.  She had as much reason as any to know what was written in that document.  That document instructs Presidents to nominate members to the Supreme Court.

Why then, as her dying wish, would she suggest that someone else, specifically Donald Trump, ignore what the Constitution instructs him to do?

It can't be because there isn't enough time.  Three Justices, RBG included, were nominated and confirmed in a length of time shorter than the time remaining before election day.  Even so, the questions about time are not the concern of the Supreme Court.

And it can't be because it's an election year.  RBG said in 2016 that Presidents are elected for four years, not three.  She even warned against the danger of a Supreme Court that could deadlock on questions about the election.

No, I don't believe that, at the last minute, RBG would be interested in tarnishing a stellar career and her decades of public service to make a politically explosive final wish.

 

We Had A Dream

In words that still move me today, the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King defined racism by defining what it would look like when an individual does not behave in a prejudiced way towards another individual.  He suggested that relating to people according to their character rather than the colour of their skin was the way to be.

"I have a dream that one day out in the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by their character."

This put the onus on the individual, and rightly so, because racism is an individual choice and an individual act.  Racism, where it exists, resides in the heart of the individual.  Where else should we try to fight it?

Then Critical Race Theory came along.

This new model is incompatible with MLK's message because it seeks to define racism and its impacts at the group level.  To do this, it has to blame racism on white people as a whole, ignore experiences of other races who failed to be victimized, and absolve Blacks and others of any responsibility from any combination of individual choices or culture in the aggregate.  Like a superhero movie script, this theory requires ample suspension of belief, and has a caricatured villain and a monolithic hero.

Never mind the old lessons our parents taught us, we are to learn a new lesson.  We are to learn that racism is to be defined in myriad new ways.  We are to learn that racism is only practiced by Whites and that most of that is directed at Blacks.  We are to learn that ALL Whites are racist and that even Whites who have neither the power to nor the interest in oppressing others are guilty.  We're not supposed to get hung up on how well such an assertion would fit the old definition of racism.

In the past, some Whites (pre)judged Blacks, and now, to reach some cosmic equilibrium in time and space, Blacks and anyone else who wants to must now be allowed (pre)judge all Whites.  We're not to point out the irony when 'enlightened' Whites insist that they are needed to build this new framework.  Indeed, if these enlightened Whites were forced to see this irony it would undermine their opportunity to virtue-signal or flagellate like only Leftists do.

We are now to understand that we are racist, yes, racist if we subscribe to MLK's message.  To these new 'anti-racists', MLK's simple idea is outmoded because it abstracts out race from one side or the other.  MLK's model is problematic because it could be 'misused' to define racism in forms inconvenient to a new narrative in which racism only flows in certain directions.  To determine that misbehaviour and maltreatment can only be 'racism' when it flows in certain directions, the correctness of behaviour has to be defined in terms of race.  If that feels backwards, it's because it is.

Critical Race Theory provides a bottomless well of grievance. This means that the son of former slaves doesn't have to think or do anything but feel.  He doesn't have to forgive and doesn't have to disconnect the sins of the former slaveowners from the sons of former slaveowners.  And thus he doesn't have to sit at the table MLK implored him to sit at.

George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, Jacob Blake, Michael Brown and others were elevated to Sainthood before the truth of their crimes and personal responsibility for their own injury or death could define the narrative.  In each case a preemptive double-down based on race alone (and the automatic assumption of racism) was employed.  It is a signature play in the Leftist playbook and the Media have it down to a 'T'.  It is perverse that men like this are hailed as paragons of the Black community while black individuals who achieve, and especially those who excel, are ignored or disparaged.  For the Left, the best thing a black man can do is get himself shot why a white cop.  The circumstances of such a shooting don't matter at all.  The Media will do the rest. 

----

Individualism destroys this model, so individualism must be destroyed first.  

We are supposed to understand that differences in individual outcomes have nothing whatsoever to do with individual choices and the culture in which one is steeped.  (The extent to which an individual steeps themselves in any culture is a choice too.)  We are supposed to understand that individuals, especially Blacks, have no agency and that the world is a place where white racism is hip deep and only Whites have canoes.  Whites aren't granted much agency either presumably because they might try to take steps toward being better or to fool themselves and others into thinking that white people can be good at all.  In this new model, Whites have a choice: admit to being mostly racist, or confirm their absolute racism by asserting that they are not.  You needn't bother trying to please these people.  Your racism is unforgivable and you are irredeemable anyway.  The better to keep all Whites in their place.

It's simple, really.  Whiteness is a new 'original sin'.  And, like so much else about the Left, they offer guilt without the possibility of redemption. The best a white person can do is to grovel and scrape and expend energy helping to build a racial framework that infantilizes, disenfranchises, dehumanizes and dis-empowers Blacks with a litany of excuses like candies from a PEZ dispenser.

Jews and Asians have better lives than Whites in the West by the very same metrics these 'anti-racists' lament in the Black experience.  This is an inconvenience to be ignored lest it destroy the preferred narrative.  But for baseline antisemitism accepted and even perpetuated in the same circles as these cultists, there is little talk of Jews or Asians being the 'alpha-victimizers'.  Such talk would lead to inconvenient questions about how these groups somehow oppress Whites (and Blacks) and do so so disproportionately.

For some, this cultish enslavement of the mind is appealing.  It is easier for some people of all races to accept or assert 'white guilt' rather than think critically about the individual behaviour of the supposed victimizers or victims.  For many, this provides fertile soil for blame-shifting.  This new-age secular religion with its message of indelible guilt without any chance of redemption is a real turn-off for some; and for others its a real turn-on.

Like an economy, a society is made up of billions of interactions between individuals.  These 'anti-racists' try to reason away the individual elements of these interactions so they can instead manufacture a world view animated by the scourge of racism.  Like a hammer looking for a nail, these cultists see racism everywhere.  I fail to see the point of imagining a monster so large that it cannot be slain by mere humans.  The Left has a habit of redefining something to the point or normalizing it.  (ie. rape)  They overplay their hand again here by defining racism as something so insidious and intractable as to be understood as 'normal' in the human experience.  Why then, should we not be tempted to throw our hands up and resign to the 'truth' of it all?  For the Left, a problem that can't be solved is a gift that keeps on giving.

The circular logic of Critical Race Theory is that it only makes sense if you are first prepared to redefine racism in a way consistent with Critical Race Theory.  Otherwise, Critical Race Theory is...inescapably racist.

Critical Race Theory is a creed of hate and a framework for intolerance and paralysis.  Hate and intolerance can never do any good.  Effective 'anti-racism' cannot be built on a racist foundation like this because it only outlines blame and victimhood and engenders tribalism. 

I choose to live in a world where the teachings of MLK are not old-fashioned.  I choose to live in a world where my behaviour as an individual matters.  I choose to live in a world of grace, forgiveness and civility.  

I have a dream...

What's Old Is New Again

 

 

I gave up on Mainstream Media a long time ago.  It's been over a decade since I sat down to watch 'the news'.  Even then I was wondering how I was being manipulated.  Large market, corporate journalism is largely dead.  Entities used to provide news AND opinion and make the distinction between the two. Now they only provide opinion animated by a political ideology and call it news.  The line between news and opinion is not blurred, it is obliterated.  Ezra Levant calls these entities collectively as the "Media Party" in Canada and the name is not inapplicable to the Mainstream Media in the US.  But for the few outliers like the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, we differentiate these entities by how far down the Leftist rabbit hole they have gone.

I haven't posted in a while because Twitter had allowed me to follow and respond to events of the day.  Like Facebook long ago, Twitter has become a cesspool of Leftist nonsense where the lowest common denominator prevailed.  So a month ago I gave up on Twitter and deleted my account.  I joined Parler and I'm waiting for it to catch on as I am sure it will.  For now, it is largely an American platform, meaning that it has been taken to mainly by Americans.  I say that I'm waiting for Parler to catch on but I wonder if many, or any, on the political Left will muster the courage to join a platform that doesn't have a Jack Dorsey type ready to ban people to save their feelings.

I can't respect political views held by people too cowardly to even articulate them.  On Twitter, Leftists barely had that courage even though Twitter shadow-banned, suppressed, suspended and outright banned many of their most problematic opponents.  Perhaps Parler will serve as a right-wing echo chamber.  That would be unfortunate.  But it will take the Left to grow a spine to keep that from happening.

I need a new (or old) outlet for my opinions to be expressed.  I hope to re-ignite this blog.  Let's see how it goes.

 

Michelle Obama Is Clueless

Michelle Obama yesterday said 'Any woman who voted against Clinton voted against their own voice'.

So, did white people do the same when they voted for her husband?  Was she upset when whites voted 'against their own voice'?

Alternate Budget

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is 'an independent, non-partisan research institute concerned with issues of social and economic justice', or so says its website. In practice, while its not affiliated with an established party its really a front the NDP; an attempt at 'fiscal legitimacy' if such a thing can truly be achieved by Canada's far left.

One of their favourite things to do is to trot out an 'alternative budget' ahead of the Government.

As you might guess, its full of guilt-money initiatives, social engineering, and mechanisms to make government even more bloated.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/

Very few people have the intestinal fortitude to slog through a budget document, myself included. So I'm looking at the 'Budget in Brief' as many would.

I notice that Canada's debt from this budget's projections would go up about $88B from 2011-2015. To start, I expect better from my current government.

In the 'Aboriginals' section (first in the alphabetical list) I see a program called 'Urban Aboriginals'. This program is costed at $122M. I wonder what why it would cost $122M to have some Aboriginals live in urban centres. While they lived in urban centres might they be there to work in mainstream society (as opposed to reservation life) and hence cost at least no more?

In the Agriculture section I see something unexpected. This 'budget' cuts Biofuel subsidies by $200M a year. Biofuels, of course, are not a panacea, but that doesn't stop the granola-eating, tree-hugging, Kum-ba-ya singing environmentalists from thinking it is.

Carbon taxes start in 2011 and go from $9.6B to $14B the following year. Guilt money; a tax for a problem that doesn't exist. Moreover, its a tax that wouldn't do anything to fix the 'problem' its for.

There is $1B for 'Recession Relief for Non-Profits' for this year only. This is actually agreeable, in principle. Its not hard to imagine that many non-profits are struggling because the donation base has tightened its purse strings and/or been asked to give more to more charities. And as non-profit agencies often use funds more efficiently than governments through their programmes, it makes sense that we want to keep them viable and effective.

On the matter of Employment Insurance, the CCPA wants to make qualification criteria the same across the country. I think this is a step backwards. The criteria was adjusted to make things more fair as job markets are not the same nationwide.

On the topic of Post Secondary Education, there are a bunch of programmes (RESP) and tax credits cancelled and in its place is a $2B programme called 'Income Tested Grants'. So, instead of having the current ones administered through Revenue Canada with various lines on our tax returns, presumably we get a bloated, wasteful bureaucracy that decides who gets how much based on perceived need.

On taxation, I see some curiosities too.

Research on CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) tells me that the highest federal income tax bracket is 29%. The CCPA's budget would increase that to 31.5%. Given that in two years the added revenue is only $1.7B, perhaps it accounts for those who are in the highest tax bracket and might choose to leave, taking their skills, education and job-creating money abroad.

They also want to cap Tax-Free Savings accounts and RRSP contributions, and fully tax capital gains and stock options. These are fine ways to discourage saving and investment. Given that in this country its best for an individual to not save at all for their retirement than to save a little, discouraging RRSP contributions would seem to already be the wrong answer.

Due to time constraints, I can't polish this now or expand on these points any more than I already have.

'Discriminating' does not equal 'discrimination' every time

I recently had a (leftist) friend on Facebook tell us that he'd just made his 72nd blood donation. He lamented the 'discrimination' at play. I don't think it had to do with the rules regarding recent tattoos or piercings or recent travel, or medications used, previous disease, hospital stays or any of the myriad reasons why a blood donation may be refused. It was in regards to the rules around gay men.

A few people piped in, supporting the friend's notion that the system discriminates. Of course, as a I am what I am and as the resident Conservative amoung his 'friends', I had to stick my oar in.

My post follows:

Perhaps we can consider that the rules are there not for political or personal reasons but for reasons of safety and after cost-benefit risk analysis AND considering the perception of the public for whom the blood system is for. Even if AIDS infection rates were the same with gay men as with the rest of the public, (I don't claim to be an authority on such things) the perception that it might not be might compel people to not accept donations or worse, not donate at all. Like many things, perception IS reality. Sorry, but the viability of the system is more important than some ruffled feathers. Why is my right to safety less important than someone else's 'right' to not be offended? 'Political Correctness' be damned. Not EVERYTHING is supposed to be a Charter Right.

Now, if there is no higher risk by allowing gay men to donate, then great! Educate the public, then change the rules. We CAN be an enlightened bunch. I suspect that in this era of falling all over ourselves appeasing special interest groups, we'd have done this already if the stats told us to or even if the stats could be distorted enough to tell us to.

'Discriminating' does not equal 'discrimination' every time.

CAW Greed and Short-sightedness

Canadian Auto Workers President Ken Lewenza wants Ontario to guarantee the pensions of retired workers should GM and/or Chrysler fail.

The audacity of such a demand is blinding.

The North American automakers are in such trouble because of two main factors: one, the unbridled and short-sighted greed of the Unions and two, the colossal mismanagement of the automakers. Other factors like product quality were secondary as the automakers were forced to cut corners. This slippery slope has contributed to the fact that ‘Big Three’ no longer holds the same meaning.

In the 1990’s, when GM was considered ‘too big to fail’, the Union lobbied the Government to allow GM to not properly fund its worker’s pension fund. Why? Because the cookie jar was already empty and those now-loosened funds could buy more cookies for the Union’s members. And as the first deal made come negotiation time is used as a template, all of the ‘Big Three’ were set on the same hook.

These retirees made wages and enjoyed benefits well beyond that of other union and non-union workers (most of whom with superior skills and qualifications) and in their collective stupidity and arrogance believed everything their union told them about the party never ending; that they always had their employer dominated. Most, it seems, planned for their individual financial futures accordingly, depending on their gold pensions to be there.

Now the Union is telling the government that they should make you and I pay their way. I don’t have a pension. I have to save for my own retirement. And I might be made to fund the retirements of workers who had remuneration packages entirely incongruent with their skill-set and the market value for their work.

I think not. Let these retirees go back to work. I wouldn’t anticipate retiring without planning ahead. Why should they?

Health Care: Looking For Middle Ground

As expected, there are groups in the United States using the tragic and untimely death of Natasha Richardson as fodder to diss ‘Canadian-style’ healthcare. I don't fault the Canadian system for her death. These things happen. Its not tragic because she was pretty, or because she was famous, or because it happened in Canada. She was young and the injury preventable and seemingly mundane. Its tragic because it would seem she sought out treatment too late.

Pragmatism should (usually) come before national pride, so I am not a proponent of the status quo with respect to the Canadian health care system. The notion that health care should still be delivered through a bloated government monopoly is asinine and idealistic.

Health care has come a long way and is a lot more complex and expensive than it was 40+ years ago. When Tommy Douglas’ idea went national, cancer patients simply died. Diagnoses and treatments that we have now for many diseases and disorders just didn’t exist. These are often very expensive. Things have changed drastically since the systems inception. Why shouldn’t the system?

Horror stories abound on both sides of the border and point to the faults of both. We hear of people dying in Emergency Rooms because they had diagnostic appointments weeks or months in the future. And we hear of people not having access at all because of finances. We also hear wonderful stories of the successes each system has. That’s all rhetoric. No system is perfect.

The truth often lies in between both extremes. If we are pragmatic, we might realize that changes can be made in both systems to improve access and timeliness.

Why can’t a ‘for profit’ clinic invest its privately-funded start-up capital in diagnostic machinery and then staff qualified, well-paid (though probably non-union) personnel and charge back the services it provides to the public system? If the public system can do it cheaper, then the private company would have to only live off the excess demand. Perhaps we could even ask the patient if they’d like to cover the difference and take the private option if it can be provided sooner. (I know I would) But if as I suspect, a private venture could do it cheaper, so much the better. The savings can be sent elsewhere. I don’t see the threat to our system that the NDP and Liberals talk about.

I don’t care what the United States ultimately decides to do. I am only concerned with the Canadian system. I think it’s a broken system. Moreover, I don’t think Tommy Douglas would disagree given how things have changed since the 1960’s. We can't let our misplaced pride in being different from the United States stop us from seeing the truth and changing according.

Unfortunately, while the system is considered a sacred cow, we won't be able to save it from itself. Because of that, I believe the system will eventually collapse.

Lets Set Aside the 'Science' of Global Warming

Forgive me if this is a bit willy-nilly. Its 1AM and I'm cobbling this together from snippets of a thread. I'm debating Global Warming with someone on the National Post's website. I only copied and edited my own contributions, so I don't have to give credit to the other individual or explain any plagarism.

The 'Hockey Stick Graph' is the poster child for the 'Warmists' and it makes the most compelling visual (to the masses) in Al Gore's propaganda piece "An Inconvenient Truth". If you've seen the movie, you know what I am talking about.

In any case, I could talk about how the 'Hockey Stick Graph' has been debunked, and you can talk about how that debunking has since been debunked.

And I can talk about scientists that have sold their souls and can't go back on what they have been yelling at us with megaphones for fear of losing credibility, and you can talk about the ones who MUST be in the pay of Big Oil.

And we can bicker over 'consensus'. Is it really there? Was it ever there? Is it crumbling?

But what does all that MEAN?

Yes, there is 'science' supporting both sides with everything from computer models to core samples. So what? Where does that get us if each side suspects the other of having a political and/or monetary agenda? We can boast that 'my science and beat up your science'. The science is what it is. It all comes down to who happens to be right in the first place. In any case, only science that supports AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) gets published these days, and even then, it has to have more doom and gloom than the last story or else it won't fly. This week its 1 metre rise in sea levels; next week it'll be a 2 metre rise. Who cares that their isn't that much water in the world. Why let facts get in the way of scaring the crap out of those who won't or can't think for themselves?

So let’s make all the 'science' suspect and go back to anecdotal evidence. History records what people saw and things that happened. The people who recorded it all died off before they had a chance to care about how much money people make selling fossil fuels or preaching the 'Word according to Al'. Let's try to explain in an objective manner what they saw.

During the Medieval Warming Period temperatures were far warmer than we see today. Of course, Medieval Man had no means to empirically measure the temperatures so we need to use anecdotal evidence to support the notion that they experiences temperature far higher than we see today. We see evidence that grapes were cultivated in England and that parts of Europe had two growing seasons. They also had hurricanes. I can’t recall one hitting Europe in my lifetime. Can you?

A scientist makes a theory then looks at fact and checks for fit. A true scientist is satisfied with the answer: the truth, whatever it may be. Ideally, they should be equally happy to have the theory disproved as it is still one step closer to understanding Nature. A scientist holding his theory above truth is no longer a scientist. A theory is just that until disproved. It is never proven, really. All it ever is, is 'the best we have right now'. Newtonian physics works just fine when you look at cars colliding in an intersection. But when you look at really big things, really small things and things going really fast, Sir Isaac Newton didn't quite have all the answers. How could he? Nonetheless, he was able to explain a lot about the world he could see.

Newtonian physics applies to two cars colliding as well as it does two trucks or two satellites in orbit. So it stands to reason that any theory that presumes to explain warming should not fall flat when used to explain a previous warming, right?

'Warmists' can't explain the Medieval Warming Period because, quite simply, it doesn't fit their theory. So they are forced to change the Medieval Warming Period into a little blip on the Hockey Stick Graph. Its fraud. Its playing fast and loose with the facts. Its unscientific. For them its just an inconvenient truth to be dismissed with the wave of a hand.

Toronto's 'Africentric' school

Can anyone tell me why this notion is not racist? Can non-black people go to this school?

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2009/03/09/toronto-s-africentric-signs-up-enough-students-will-open-in-fall.aspx

Ostensibly, this is an effort to engage black students in school so they don't drop out. Its interesting that school boards are even ALLOWED to consider skin colour when collating data on dropout rates. Blacks don't drop out of school because of inferior intellect, and they don't drop out because we force them to study 'white' math, 'white' geography and 'white' reading. There might be the complaint that Canadian history is 'white' history but largely, it is. But isn't it still part of the curriculum? Should it not be?

I don’t know, it seems like segregation to me, even though its voluntary.

Canada Should Not Fight For Clemency For Canadians Abroad

I agree with the Conservative Government's action in regards to Ronald Smith. He is being punished in a democratic country and that's good enough for me.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1357626

I have never supported the notion of capital punishment as a mode of revenge or even deterrence. I have always supported the notion of capital punishment as a way of mitigating the (negative) impact of a particular human being’s existence on this Earth. So, obviously, I don’t even like the name ‘capital punishment’. Perhaps ‘capital mitigation’ is a better term.

Imagine the good that could be done with the money and resources used instead to keep people like Mr. Smith incarcerated until they die of natural causes.

Sid Ryan Gets the Smackdown He Deserves

As individuals, if we don’t have enough to worry about anymore or if we are bored with our own existence, we might allow ourselves to become focused on things that really are none of our business. And the most arrogant of us might presume to develop opinions on issues about which we know nothing. And I suppose organizations can do the same. Clearly this is the case for CUPE’s leadership.

Perhaps it’s a sign that unions are no longer necessary that CUPE felt it was right to dabble in International Politics.

CUPE’s membership published an open letter to Mr. Ryan and the rest of their leadership.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/02/28/cupe-members-to-sid-ryan-time-to-say-goodbye.aspx

The text of the letter follows:

An open letter to Sid Ryan andthe CUPE Ontario leadership:We, the undersigned academic members of CUPE Ontario, wish to express our outrage at the recent actions taken by Sid Ryan and other CUPE Ontario officials. These actions, which approve a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, both violate the authority with which they have been entrusted and, worse, undermine academic freedoms.

CUPE national, as well as the University of Toronto Education Workers, CUPE local 3902, have disapproved of this motion and decision, and for good reason. The most urgent matter of concern to the union is the ratification of reasonable contracts across Ontario. The primary mission of the union is to ensure the fair employment and treatment of its members. The current leadership has overreached its mandate, recklessly and irresponsibly dabbling in complex international politics. This leadership has demonstrated its resolve to continue in this fashion even though it is not competent to do so, it has not been elected to do so, and it is not in its jurisdiction to do so.

These actions have harmed our union.

As is widely known, Sid Ryan and the current leadership have decided to boycott Israeli academic institutions, based on their readings of events in the Middle East. In doing so, Sid Ryan and other CUPE Ontario officials are using union dues to forward a one-sided political agenda. This constitutes a misappropriation of union dues for partisan purposes.

This misguided political agenda was never put to the vote of the total membership, and demonstrates the degree to which CUPE Ontario policy is the expression of an autocratic minority that has disregarded the tenets of the democratic socialist tradition; namely, the freedom of discussion, votes involving all members and transparency. The leadership, headed by Sid Ryan, grandiosely claims to represent “civil society.” But Sid Ryan represents only himself and like-minded colleagues — civil society has not been consulted.

Surely Mr. Ryan knows that had he consulted his constituents, he could not claim that union members would support a focus on boycotting academic institutions. But of course, none of us has had the opportunity to express any opinion on the use of our dues for his partisan political preferences.

Many have pointed out that singling out predominantly Jewish institutions for this boycott suggests a discriminatory policy. The experience at York University campus only last week demonstrates how quickly anti-Israel positions can translate into anti-Semitic slogans. Whatever the intent, the question arises: “Why is the leadership doing anything that could be remotely construed as anti-Semitic?” This accusation of anti-Semitism shames our union. Such policies are an inept and disgraceful abuse of the authority vested in this leadership.

It is ironic that this censorial activity is led by a man who is quick to claim for himself the mantle of human-rights activist. Freedom of thought is a most fundamental human right, yet it seems to be a right that Sid Ryan has no trouble trampling on. Sid Ryan seems to think that he and his closest colleagues have the right to determine which academics we ought to listen to and which ought to be censored. That tells us all we need to know about Mr. Ryan’s estimation of his own moral and intellectual capacities, and how little he values those of others.

To Mr. Ryan, we say this: We are academics. Without academic freedom, there is no civil society. The boycott he champions in our name undermines civil society by weakening the very freedom on which it depends. The freedom of thought is arguably the most important foundation and fruit of civil society. The boycott of academic institutions is an attack upon this freedom, which an enlightened union should be supporting, rather than limiting. For Mr. Ryan’s boycott limits the freedom not only of the academics he wishes to prevent from speaking (in this case, Israeli academics), but also of those who might wish to listen (Canadians).

For all of the above reasons, we, as Ontario academics, call on Sid Ryan to resign for undermining our union.We do not consent to have our wages used to support resolutions on which we have not been allowed to vote, which violate the spirit of the union’s constitution and which compromise our integrity at a most fundamental level.

Signed by members of CUPE 3902, University of Toronto:Paul Nahme, Jenn Cianca, Carolyn Reimer, Ian Richards, Callie Callon, Lindsay Ann Cox, Jonthan Newman, Sarah Kleeb, Shari Goldberg, Jade Weimer, Tim Langille, Emily Springay, Matt King, Amy Fisher, Zvi Halpern, Aldea Muldhern, Tema Smith, G. Anthony Bruno, Kathleen Gibbons, Nicholas Dion, Benjamin W. Carter, Jason McKinney.

Toronto mosque offers 'detox' for extremists

The National Post - 11FEB2009

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=1275285

'12-step program targets al-Qaeda sympathizer'

Good on him. But we'll need a whole lot more of this if Islam is to mature like other faiths have.

Given the rather extreme instructions and absurd promises in the Koran (please, enlighten me if I am wrong as I am no theology expert) that can easily be used to justify violence, (salvation through murder of 'Infidels', virgins in the afterlife and all that) we won't see the end of violent Islamist Fundamentalism in our lifetime. Moreover, the fundamental differences between the Islamic notion of 'peace' and our notion of 'peace' are too great. 'Peace' to us is non-violent co-existence. 'Peace' to a Muslim is defined as the point in time when all walking this Earth worship Allah.

Biofuels and Global Warming

There is a lot of rhetoric about ethanol, biofuel, and the intersection of the food and fuel economies. Like Global Warming, there are many, many facets to the matter. One needs to understand science and math (statistics) to some degree to truly have an informed opinion on Global Warming. To understand biofuels, I need to know more about farming and biofuel production techniques. And my meagre understanding of organic chemistry is not enough by far.

So, I don't know what to think.

The water argument has its holes. As does the linearity of the notion that crops go to food OR fuel. There are questions as to the true cost/feasibility of ethanol, from cost to make, efficacy, to the impact on the environment. And so on.

A good number to start with would be the number of people who could be fed by the land that would be needed to fill a 60L tank with fuel. Of course, we’d have to ignore the fact that you can’t expect the average car made these days to run if all you poured into tank was ethanol.

But this idea is fraught with complexity too. What biomass are you using? Corn, sugar, hemp? What process are you using to make the ethanol? What energy are you getting from the ethanol compared to gasoline? What environmental impact does the production (and transport) of the ethanol have compared to gasoline with respect to water usage, energy input, etc.? What about soil depletion and other land use concerns? What byproducts are you creating? Is there a market for them or a cost to dispose of them?

Both sides of this argument have a reason to exaggerate.

Wherever the 'truth' lands, its fairly clear that biofuels are not the panacea they are supposed to be.

Regarding the economic impact of all this, we can be sure that people living in the West will still be able, next year, next month and in the next decade, go to Burger King and partake of as many Whoppers as they want. The big losers will as always be the poorest. And on the global scale, that’s not us. Its people we don’t see. Its people we don’t have to see if we don’t want to, providing the TV remote is at hand.

Suppose that the food shortage is indeed due at least in part to the biofuel subsidy craze. (This seems like a logical notion.) And if we are going (or trying to go) to biofuels to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels because of Global Warming then we’d better be right. From previous posts, you might see that I am a non-believer in Global Warming. The irony here is that a lot of ‘Global Warmists’ say that we can’t afford to be wrong on Global Warming; that we SHOULD behave as if it is true because of the Armageddon that is awaiting us if we do nothing. They are right on the first point. But they choose to ignore the impact of the fight.

We can’t afford to be wrong. This is only the thin edge of the wedge. Fighting Global Warming may make millions starve to death and create unrest unlike anything we’ve seen. This crusade Al Gore and his ilk would have us fight may create destruction and death unlike anything Mankind has seen.

Our Governor General Lacks Moral Fibre: Part 3

I received a response to my letter. In light of the most recent development (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=130134) I felt the need to respond.

Below is the text of my most recent letter followed by the form letter I received.

Ms. Lappa,

Ok, now I am really angry. The buffoonery continues.

You told me (in your form letter attached) that I should be assured that this person and that committee, etc. were to hear my thoughts and further review this matter. I admit, I was dubious. I was disappointed that you could not indicate that the Governor General herself is hearing us. I found the communique to be rather dismissive.

My instinct served me well. Instead of doing what I was promised, the Governor General passed the buck to the Prime Minister's Office hoping that a 'Meritorious Service Decoration' might do the trick. Wrong again.

May I remind you that the Governor General is the Head of State of Canada. As my Queen's representative in Canada, her 'boss' is Queen Elizabeth II. There is no passing the buck here! By trying to pass the buck the Governor General has further tarnished her credibility and undermined her Office. I am sure that Queen Elizabeth II would have made the right choice in this matter THE FIRST TIME. That is what the Governor General is here for. This cowardly act raises the question as to whether or not the PMO should now bestow all honours that the Governor General does; thus making the Governor General's Office irrelevant. Surely, denying Constable Garrett's honour diminishes all honours that the Governor General may bestow.

Instead of doing the right thing the Governor General is trying the patented 'duck and cover'. Someone who focussed solely on saving face and is so devoid of core Canadian values does not deserve the privilege of public office, much less Head of State. It is clearly time for this Governor General to step aside and let someone else take her Office.

Let me be absolutely clear. Nothing less than the Cross of Valour bestowed appropriately by the Governor General is satisfactory. And of course, my preference would be that another Governor General bestow the honour.

Good Day,


This is the form letter I received.

"On behalf of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, I thank you for your correspondence concerning the awarding of a Canadian Bravery Decoration, posthumously, to Constable Christopher Garrett.

The Chancellery of Honours of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General and members of the Canadian Decorations Advisory Committee (Bravery) are aware of the strong interest Canadians have shown in the case of the late Constable Christopher Garrett and understand their desire to honour this fallen police officer.

Please be assured that your comments will be brought to the attention of the Honours Policy Committee, responsible for the regulations on Canadian Honours, as well as to the attention of the Canadian Decorations Advisory Committee, responsible for reviewing all eligible nominations. The Office of the Secretary to the Governor General is also examining, in consultation with the government, options for recognition of Constable Garrett's distinguished service to his community.

Yours sincerely,

Gabrielle D. Lappa
Director of Honours"

Our Governor General Lacks Moral Fibre: Part 2

Our Governor General did not see fit to make an exception in this case.

The text of my follow-up letter follows:

"Your Excellency,

It was with shock and extreme disappointment that I read of your decision to deny Constable Chris Garrett his due honour.

My first e-mail was polite, as it should have been.

By denying Constable Garrett, I believe that you have diminished the value of all honours your office would presume to bestow in the name of Queen Elizabeth II.

As you seemingly do not hold to the same values that I do, I feel that you do not represent me. I look forward to a time in the future when I may feel that way again about my Governor General. Unfortunately your successor will probably not have to opportunity to correct your error in judgement in this matter.

There is no excuse for this blind act of bureaucratic bafoonery. I believe you have brought shame on your office and, by extension, my Queen. I cannot adequately describe in words just how my faith in your office, and even how I value your office has been shaken. I have to wonder just how relevant the office of Governor General is when someone who holds it is so dismissive (or perhaps devoid) of core Canadian values of peace, justice, compassion and the rule of law.

http://northumberlandnews.com/northumberland/Breakingnews/article/89332 <http://northumberlandnews.com/northumberland/Breakingnews/article/89332>"

Our Governor General Lacks Moral Fibre: Part 1

I sent a letter to our Governor General on 25OCT2007 in regards to Constable Christopher G Garrett of the Cobourg Police Department who made the supreme sacrifice in the line of duty. Mortally wounded, he emptied his service weapon at his fleeing killer who was bent on more violence against the Police and the public.

An appeal was put to the Governor General to make an exception and award Constable Garrett the Cross of Valour even though the period of application (2 years) had passed. The delay was necessary as the carriage of justice whereby Constable Garrett's killer was tried and convicted took longer than two years.

The text of my letter follows:

"Your Excellency,

It is my understanding from the news tonight that there is a chance that Constable Garrett of the Cobourg Police Department may not, posthumously of course, be honoured for his sacrifice due to a technicality regarding the time window of application.

No doubt you are aware of this matter and the magnitude of Constable Garrett's bravery and sacrifice.

I hope you can come to appreciate the extenuating circumstances in this case and provide Constable Garrett the honour he richly deserves. I never knew Constable Garrett, or anyone else in the Cobourg Police Department. But Constable Garrett and men and women like him in Emergency Services provide to the rest of us the finest examples of Canadian values.

I implore you to examine this matter and come to the same conclusion I have. Also, I respectfully ask that you consider that the 2-year limit for such applications is too short given how long it takes for some court cases to conclude.

Most Respectfully,"

Senate Reform in Canada

I think Canada in all its diversity (industries, geographies, economies, etc.) NEEDS an upper house to balance the powers of the House of Commons, the PMO and the Supreme Court. Canada does NOT need the Senate it has. We cannot look to the tiny, more homogeneous nation (in those respects) of New Zealand as a model and simply abolish the Senate. While it would be an improvement, it would not be ideal.

Abolish the one we have in order to make a new one? That seems the only logical solution. I don't think we can reform it piecemeal and depend on future governments to keep that ball rolling.

You don't slowly peel off a band-aid...

The question is, can we put a formula together that fits Canada's needs? Even saying that Ontario should get x number is inadequate because they could all come from Toronto. In provinces with extreme diversity we'd have to take into account those areas and try to provide representation. All the while, we need to keep in mind that an upper house is SUPPOSED to be regional. It will be difficult to explain to the population why Saskatchewan and Manitoba get the same number of Senators as Ontario, for example.

I know, I'm getting ahead of myself...

Anyway, if it starts it will be tough, but it would definitely be worthwhile. Canada needs to leave the 19th Century behind and move into the Third Millennium.

I'm One of a Thousand Voices

I'm not sure how well-viewed my particular blog is. I am one of many Conservatives blogging and this blog is linked to Blogging Tories. But I tend not to post very often because I don't know if anyone is reading my little ol' blog.

Do any of you feel the same?

If so, might we collaborate? I propose the (not new) idea of getting a few of us together to post to one site; your's or mine, or an altogether new one. Perhaps the sum of our efforts can be greater than our individual ones.

Read my previous entries and see if you like what you see.

Regards,

Gargoyle

CPP Pain

The following is an excerpt from an e-mail from the payroll people here reminding us about the deductions that start up again in January. The numbers are of course nothing unique to my company.

The Canada Pension Plan numbers are always painful to look at given that those of us under 40 will likely never see it.

“Canada Pension Plan: Maximum employee deduction: $1,989.90 (annual salary of 43,700.00)
Employment Insurance: Maximum employee deduction: $ 720.00 (annual salary of 40,000.00) for all provinces except Quebec”

It occurred to me that the CPP deductions are, to many of us, a tax on those who were too young to vote against Pierre Trudeau…

And the EI plan is another complete cock-up. If the contributions didn't outstrip the payouts so drastically, I wouldn't have a problem. But the Liberals while they were in office coolly shifted excess contibutions in the order of $40B to general coffers. As a revenue stream going into general coffers I can't imagine what else you can all it but a tax on the employed.