The title of this blog is a slogan adopted by the Conservative party to publicly denounce Dion’s proposed carbon tax. I find the slogan ironic since the Conservative party has recently decided to implement new gun and drug legislation that will inevitably cost taxpayer’s (a.k.a. YOU!) more.
The Conservatives have decided once again to get even tougher on crime (SURPRISE…not). They’ll do this by introducing new minimum mandatory sentences on more gun and drug offences. Offences that have been proven over and over again to seriously affect disadvantaged Canadian citizens and troubled communities.
This is yet another example of a government decision that is following in our “Big Brother to the South” footsteps. First with proposing $490 billion in military spending over the next 20 years ($15 billion having already been approved) and now adopting their draconian perceptions of crime and crime prevention through longer prison sentences.
The Saturday Toronto Star edition focused largely on the effects of getting tough on crime, its consequences, and demands on taxpayers. It outlined some important information that more Canadians need to be aware of.
To start, it’s apparent that many Canadians firmly support these new federal measures. I believe this support is rendered from the government’s focus on high profile violent incidents misleading citizens to believe that crime rates are up. This is not the case. In fact, the Toronto Star cites that the country’s crime rate has dropped some 25% over the past 15 years and this trend is continuing.
Moreover, the paper took a look at the current cost of the criminal justice system that the United States employs. This system is similar to the one that the Conservatives are currently working toward. The United States has created a bill of $200 billion a year for its law enforcement policies. This number should be compared to the $234 billion Canada has as its ENTIRE federal budget used for 2007-2008. How are Canadian’s ever going to afford this?
To be frank, I wouldn’t mind footing this bill if was actually effective but it’s not and it never will be. I’m surprised our government is making the same mistakes of similar developed westernized countries rather than learning from them. Why doesn’t everybody see through this??
There are other ways to go about crime control and prevention that are effective and don’t include incarceration. For example, the YELL (Youth Employment Local Leadership) program available in East Scarborough cost between $250,000 to $300,000 to accommodate 37 participants in a 10 month program. Only two participants did not complete the program while the remaining 35 found employment or pursued more education.
In this sense, the program presents a small fee considering incarcerating these 35 individuals over 10 months would cost $1.68 million with 4 out of 10 reoffending within the first two years after release.
Unfortunately, it seems like the majority of citizens have their mind made up to support these new measures. I can only wait for the day when I can say, “I told you so.” Probably in the very distant future, but hopefully not.
Until next time
Sources for this blog provided by:
The Toronto Star, Saturday July 19, 2008. “Special Report: Why getting tough on crime is toughest on the taxpayer” pg. A1 & A14-15 AND “High-cost ’hoods” pg. ID1 & ID4-6
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Conservative Election Ethics
It seems that every government party engages in some sort of questionable conduct. Currently, the Conservatives are being accused of breaching Elections Canada spending limits on advertising for the national campaign.
Elections Canada initiated a review on the Tories spending and found that they manipulated spending limits breaking electoral law. Elections Canada alleges that this scheme involved 67 local candidates, 4 of which who are now Cabinet Ministers.
The actions are being deemed a clever "in-and-out" scheme where the party would direct money to local candidates, who would then transfer it back to the party. The party would then use the money for more advertising on the national campaign.
Currently, Elections Canada allows $18.3 million for national campaign advertising. If the trial judge finds that the Tories did breach electoral law, they would have overspent by some $1 million.
Stephen Harper's comment's on the infraction can be likened to a three year olds response. He denied that any wrongdoing had occurred. Furthermore, Stephen Harper felt inclined to not only deny that their actions were wrongful, but that, simply put, everybody does it.
This situation brings up some serious ethical concerns. Firstly, political parties need to follow electoral law. The review of political party elections spending has found that no other party in the 2006 campaign engaged in this activity. The Tories stand alone. Secondly, it is well known that Prime Minister Harper appoints his Cabinet Ministers. Having 4 Cabinet Ministers participate in this undertaking is a concern. Did they partake in this scheme as a simple deal to ensure a ministerial position?
Either way, I've always believed that ethics operates above and beyond the law. Therefore, it raises some concern in me when political parties can't abide by simple electoral law. Also, this further leads me to wonder whether being elected has anything to do with politics.
If that extra $1 million actually made the difference in winning the 2006 election, government is all marketing and has nothing to do with politics.
Until next time
Sources for this blog provided by:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/07/15/inandout.html
Elections Canada initiated a review on the Tories spending and found that they manipulated spending limits breaking electoral law. Elections Canada alleges that this scheme involved 67 local candidates, 4 of which who are now Cabinet Ministers.
The actions are being deemed a clever "in-and-out" scheme where the party would direct money to local candidates, who would then transfer it back to the party. The party would then use the money for more advertising on the national campaign.
Currently, Elections Canada allows $18.3 million for national campaign advertising. If the trial judge finds that the Tories did breach electoral law, they would have overspent by some $1 million.
Stephen Harper's comment's on the infraction can be likened to a three year olds response. He denied that any wrongdoing had occurred. Furthermore, Stephen Harper felt inclined to not only deny that their actions were wrongful, but that, simply put, everybody does it.
This situation brings up some serious ethical concerns. Firstly, political parties need to follow electoral law. The review of political party elections spending has found that no other party in the 2006 campaign engaged in this activity. The Tories stand alone. Secondly, it is well known that Prime Minister Harper appoints his Cabinet Ministers. Having 4 Cabinet Ministers participate in this undertaking is a concern. Did they partake in this scheme as a simple deal to ensure a ministerial position?
Either way, I've always believed that ethics operates above and beyond the law. Therefore, it raises some concern in me when political parties can't abide by simple electoral law. Also, this further leads me to wonder whether being elected has anything to do with politics.
If that extra $1 million actually made the difference in winning the 2006 election, government is all marketing and has nothing to do with politics.
Until next time
Sources for this blog provided by:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/07/15/inandout.html
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Text Message Fiasco
Much to everyone's surprise (not) some major player's in the cell phone industry have introduced yet another fee on an extremely popular cell phone feature. Text messaging over the past 5 years has increased tremendously in popularity. Admittedly, I am an avid user.
While this increase doesn't immediately effect me since I was retarded enough to actually sign up for a million-year contract, a number of other consumers who opt out of signing a contract and buy their cell phones outright will soon feel the burden.
The fee is being implemented on August 8th for all incoming messages for Bell and Solo Mobile users. Undoubtedly when the fee is implemented, other wireless carriers in Canada will follow suit. These Canadian wireless carriers are copy-cats since U.S. carriers Verizon Wireless and AT&T Wireless launched similar fees. Emulating U.S. business practices is probably what bothers me most about this situation.
What brings peace and calm to my world of anger in this situation is an action brought about by the NDP. They have initiated an online petition opposing what they call the "text message cash-grab". Kudos to a political party that has successfully reacted to a situation they see numerous of Canadian citizens upset about! Truly refreshing.
I agree fully with this petition since cell phone usage rates in Canada are substantially higher in comparison to other countries. Furthermore, you'd think that with the advancements in technology reducing carriers actual costs, savings could be passed onto consumers but this is obviously not the case.
All in all, I'm already unhappy about paying the system access fee of $6.95 per month which, in my opinion, is robbery. I'm not looking forward to paying for these additional costs once my contract is expired. Perhaps I'll get rid of my cell phone altogether....a novel idea these days.
Until next time
P.S. I have a three-year contract...just feels like a million years when you hate the company
Sources for this blog provided by:
http://www.ndp.ca/page/6585
Every radio station and news report in CANADA
While this increase doesn't immediately effect me since I was retarded enough to actually sign up for a million-year contract, a number of other consumers who opt out of signing a contract and buy their cell phones outright will soon feel the burden.
The fee is being implemented on August 8th for all incoming messages for Bell and Solo Mobile users. Undoubtedly when the fee is implemented, other wireless carriers in Canada will follow suit. These Canadian wireless carriers are copy-cats since U.S. carriers Verizon Wireless and AT&T Wireless launched similar fees. Emulating U.S. business practices is probably what bothers me most about this situation.
What brings peace and calm to my world of anger in this situation is an action brought about by the NDP. They have initiated an online petition opposing what they call the "text message cash-grab". Kudos to a political party that has successfully reacted to a situation they see numerous of Canadian citizens upset about! Truly refreshing.
I agree fully with this petition since cell phone usage rates in Canada are substantially higher in comparison to other countries. Furthermore, you'd think that with the advancements in technology reducing carriers actual costs, savings could be passed onto consumers but this is obviously not the case.
All in all, I'm already unhappy about paying the system access fee of $6.95 per month which, in my opinion, is robbery. I'm not looking forward to paying for these additional costs once my contract is expired. Perhaps I'll get rid of my cell phone altogether....a novel idea these days.
Until next time
P.S. I have a three-year contract...just feels like a million years when you hate the company
Sources for this blog provided by:
http://www.ndp.ca/page/6585
Every radio station and news report in CANADA
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Tasers - Weapon vs. Firearm
Questions have been swirling around whether Taser's are safe and whether police forces should be allowed to continue using them. This continued debate initiated an inquiry by the RCMP complaints commissioner.
A main recommendation of the inquiry is to reclassify tasers as prohibited firearms taking them out of the prohibited weapons category. I couldn't agree more. In fact, I personally believe and hope that taser use would be discontinued all together, but this is a good first step in my books.
The reclassification of tasers into the firearms category increases the liability of a police officer if they were to use the taser. The liability would be equivalent to the liability a police officer has now if they were to draw their gun. Also, more training, reporting, and certifications would go along with this transition.
This increased liability and responsibility is paramount since a considerable number of civilians have died after being tasered. A death that drew extensive media coverage was that of Robert Dziekanski, a polish immigrant, who passed away in October after he was repeatedly zapped with a taser gun by RCMP at Vancouver Airport. This event stirred controversy as the incident was caught on camera. Moreover, this video didn't show Robert Dziekanski being "combative" or "resistant" (discretion? what's that?).
Just recently, a man in Simcoe died shortly after he was tasered. OPP claim that they were confronted by "a combative male party" in the June 24th issue of the KW Record. So far in Canada, at least 20 people are known to have died after they were tasered.
All this proves to me is that tasers are not the so called "non-lethal alternative" to a gun as many police forces boasted when they were first released for use. The inquiry suggests that police don't appreciate the pain inflicted by tasers. Furthermore, Dirk Ryneveld, the B.C. police complaint commissioner, argues that "the taser has become a tool of convenience." I believe this statement to be completely legitimate.
Instead of exercising discretion, I believe police are automatically reaching for tasers to subdue these so called ‘combative and resistant’ civilians while tasering them into oblivion. It’s obvious to me that these stun guns are extremely dangerous and I am dumbfounded as to why their use has not been discontinued as the number of deaths continue to mount.
While a discontinuation may seem extreme to some, the math seems pretty simple to me. Rising issues + unresolved problems + numerous deaths = (?)
I’ve made up my mind - a decision I'd like to live with.
Until next time
Sources for this blog provided by:
KW Record, Tuesday June 24, 2008. "Man dies after OPP use Taser on him" pg. A3
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/06/25/bc-more-taser-testing.html
A main recommendation of the inquiry is to reclassify tasers as prohibited firearms taking them out of the prohibited weapons category. I couldn't agree more. In fact, I personally believe and hope that taser use would be discontinued all together, but this is a good first step in my books.
The reclassification of tasers into the firearms category increases the liability of a police officer if they were to use the taser. The liability would be equivalent to the liability a police officer has now if they were to draw their gun. Also, more training, reporting, and certifications would go along with this transition.
This increased liability and responsibility is paramount since a considerable number of civilians have died after being tasered. A death that drew extensive media coverage was that of Robert Dziekanski, a polish immigrant, who passed away in October after he was repeatedly zapped with a taser gun by RCMP at Vancouver Airport. This event stirred controversy as the incident was caught on camera. Moreover, this video didn't show Robert Dziekanski being "combative" or "resistant" (discretion? what's that?).
Just recently, a man in Simcoe died shortly after he was tasered. OPP claim that they were confronted by "a combative male party" in the June 24th issue of the KW Record. So far in Canada, at least 20 people are known to have died after they were tasered.
All this proves to me is that tasers are not the so called "non-lethal alternative" to a gun as many police forces boasted when they were first released for use. The inquiry suggests that police don't appreciate the pain inflicted by tasers. Furthermore, Dirk Ryneveld, the B.C. police complaint commissioner, argues that "the taser has become a tool of convenience." I believe this statement to be completely legitimate.
Instead of exercising discretion, I believe police are automatically reaching for tasers to subdue these so called ‘combative and resistant’ civilians while tasering them into oblivion. It’s obvious to me that these stun guns are extremely dangerous and I am dumbfounded as to why their use has not been discontinued as the number of deaths continue to mount.
While a discontinuation may seem extreme to some, the math seems pretty simple to me. Rising issues + unresolved problems + numerous deaths = (?)
I’ve made up my mind - a decision I'd like to live with.
Until next time
Sources for this blog provided by:
KW Record, Tuesday June 24, 2008. "Man dies after OPP use Taser on him" pg. A3
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/06/25/bc-more-taser-testing.html
Monday, June 23, 2008
GM - Friend turned Foe
GM and their recent hoax of a contract renewal with its Oshawa truck plant have been in my head for over a week. This issue has hit close to home as both of my parents work in the auto industry. My father has personally worked in the Oshawa plant helping set up and facilitate new lines of production in the past. Moreover, as a resident of Oshawa for two years, I was surrounded by fellow classmates whose parents worked (hard) at the GM factory.
In hindsight, I realize how many people I knew in Oshawa who relied on this factory to provide for their families. I even rented an apartment from a GM engineer who worked at GM headquarters in Oshawa. When I lived there from 2005-2007, everything seemed peachy. GM had funded an entire research building at a newly developed university in Oshawa during my stay.
Today, as I sit here writing this, I’m left wondering why GM, a company I used to be proud of, felt the need to breach a three year contract only weeks after signing it.
In the June 14th Toronto Star, an article outlined a judge’s ruling that dismantled the CAW’s current blockade and limited pickets so GM salaried employees could continue working at its headquarters. This ruling was made by Mr. Justice David Salmers of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Justice Salmers agreed with GM’s claim that they would suffer irreparable harm from the blockade if it were to continue.
Firstly, that ruling really busts my chops. Irreparable harm if the blockade were to continue? I mean, we are talking about an entire community, not only Oshawa, but Durham region in general, who relies heavily on this industry to propel its economy and provide for its families. What about the irreparable harm there?
Secondly, GM claims that it is ceasing production because of gasoline prices and consumers shifting attitudes toward smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles (Toronto Star, June 14, B1 & B4). I do not find this claim to be acceptable for two reasons. I mean, gasoline prices increasing has been no surprise (if you’re shocked, please pick up a newspaper once a month from now on). Demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles has also been a no-brainer in recent years. Why has GM lacked consideration and proactive measures to tailor to these new needs and demands? Isn’t that what business is about?
Lastly, I find it rather upsetting that GM may be allowed to breach its contract and not fulfill the three year obligation they made to the Oshawa plant. Justice Salmers called GM’s decision “almost deceitful business practice” (Toronto Star, June 14, B4). ALMOST deceitful? Let’s not kid ourselves.
I can only hope that with today’s judicial activism, the Superior Court can recognize that corporations, like GM, should not be allowed to breach such contracts. Furthermore, I hope that the results of this pending issue result in GM being REQUIRED to fulfill this contract setting precedent for future (bullshit) cases such as this one. Really, why should Oshawa worker’s pay for GM’s lazy demeanor?
Until next time
Sources for this blog provided by:
Toronto Star, Saturday June 14, 2008. “CAW must dismantle blockade, judge rules” pgs. B1 & B4
In hindsight, I realize how many people I knew in Oshawa who relied on this factory to provide for their families. I even rented an apartment from a GM engineer who worked at GM headquarters in Oshawa. When I lived there from 2005-2007, everything seemed peachy. GM had funded an entire research building at a newly developed university in Oshawa during my stay.
Today, as I sit here writing this, I’m left wondering why GM, a company I used to be proud of, felt the need to breach a three year contract only weeks after signing it.
In the June 14th Toronto Star, an article outlined a judge’s ruling that dismantled the CAW’s current blockade and limited pickets so GM salaried employees could continue working at its headquarters. This ruling was made by Mr. Justice David Salmers of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Justice Salmers agreed with GM’s claim that they would suffer irreparable harm from the blockade if it were to continue.
Firstly, that ruling really busts my chops. Irreparable harm if the blockade were to continue? I mean, we are talking about an entire community, not only Oshawa, but Durham region in general, who relies heavily on this industry to propel its economy and provide for its families. What about the irreparable harm there?
Secondly, GM claims that it is ceasing production because of gasoline prices and consumers shifting attitudes toward smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles (Toronto Star, June 14, B1 & B4). I do not find this claim to be acceptable for two reasons. I mean, gasoline prices increasing has been no surprise (if you’re shocked, please pick up a newspaper once a month from now on). Demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles has also been a no-brainer in recent years. Why has GM lacked consideration and proactive measures to tailor to these new needs and demands? Isn’t that what business is about?
Lastly, I find it rather upsetting that GM may be allowed to breach its contract and not fulfill the three year obligation they made to the Oshawa plant. Justice Salmers called GM’s decision “almost deceitful business practice” (Toronto Star, June 14, B4). ALMOST deceitful? Let’s not kid ourselves.
I can only hope that with today’s judicial activism, the Superior Court can recognize that corporations, like GM, should not be allowed to breach such contracts. Furthermore, I hope that the results of this pending issue result in GM being REQUIRED to fulfill this contract setting precedent for future (bullshit) cases such as this one. Really, why should Oshawa worker’s pay for GM’s lazy demeanor?
Until next time
Sources for this blog provided by:
Toronto Star, Saturday June 14, 2008. “CAW must dismantle blockade, judge rules” pgs. B1 & B4
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Oil prices vs. (whose) Demand (?)
As someone who has worked for the leading Canadian energy company for the past five years, I've constantly been hassled and harassed by consumers in relation to oil prices and specifically, gas prices. Hearing complaining and whiny customers is a part of my sad, (almost) minimum wage job.
The main question I'm constantly peppered with? A predictable "why are gas prices so high?" Firstly, I must admit that I have never concerned myself with the price of gas. While I do drive, I'm one of the few who don't view it as a necessity. In fact, I only use my car four months out of an entire year and it is only one form of transportation that I use during this time. The remaining eight months I rely on my legs and local transit.
Enough about me and why I'm so great. The real issue here that is claimed to justify this rise in oil prices is demand. I took a second (literally) to look into this in a Google search and was bombarded with information on demand changes and statistics on oil. I read that from 1965 to 2006, oil consumption increased by 168% overall. In comparison to other consumption increases of other energy products, this was more than reasonable.
What caught my eye was the individual country/area statistics on oil consumption changes. I was delighted to find that Canada wasn't even significant enough to list. What surprised me was China's increase in oil consumption, an outrageous 3328% from 1965 to 2006! Moreover, China actually accounts for 76% of the total world increase in oil consumption (total world increase at 168% if you forgot already). This is in comparison to total Asia Pacific at 15% (still outrageous but I'd hate to be picky), South and Central America at 5%, and the U.S. at 2% (FYI: I rounded the percentages UP).
This increase in oil consumption is seriously displaced. I can only hope that Saudi Arabia's call for a summit between oil producing and consuming countries will recognize that not all countries are responsible for this so called "demand". Even with this increase, the Saudi government actually published a statement in Tuesday's Toronto Star claiming that "[t]he increase in prices isn't justified in terms of market fundamentals".
In my personal experience, I haven't seen a significant demand or consumption increase in Ontario at any of the locations I worked at. It pleased me to also find that Canada was not important enough to be listed as a main contributor to the increase in consumption. The main question that plagues me then is why we are left to pay for demand that we didn't significantly contribute to?
Either way, currently our gas prices are up and people are beginning to abandon the glitz and status that apparently only a truck or SUV can bring, and settle for smaller more efficient cars ...or at least that's what GM asserts. But that's another topic for another day.
Until next time
Sources for this blog provided by:
Toronto Star, Tuesday June 10, 2008. "Pressure rises to cut oil prices" pgs. A1 & A21
http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/mainpages/consumption.html
The main question I'm constantly peppered with? A predictable "why are gas prices so high?" Firstly, I must admit that I have never concerned myself with the price of gas. While I do drive, I'm one of the few who don't view it as a necessity. In fact, I only use my car four months out of an entire year and it is only one form of transportation that I use during this time. The remaining eight months I rely on my legs and local transit.
Enough about me and why I'm so great. The real issue here that is claimed to justify this rise in oil prices is demand. I took a second (literally) to look into this in a Google search and was bombarded with information on demand changes and statistics on oil. I read that from 1965 to 2006, oil consumption increased by 168% overall. In comparison to other consumption increases of other energy products, this was more than reasonable.
What caught my eye was the individual country/area statistics on oil consumption changes. I was delighted to find that Canada wasn't even significant enough to list. What surprised me was China's increase in oil consumption, an outrageous 3328% from 1965 to 2006! Moreover, China actually accounts for 76% of the total world increase in oil consumption (total world increase at 168% if you forgot already). This is in comparison to total Asia Pacific at 15% (still outrageous but I'd hate to be picky), South and Central America at 5%, and the U.S. at 2% (FYI: I rounded the percentages UP).
This increase in oil consumption is seriously displaced. I can only hope that Saudi Arabia's call for a summit between oil producing and consuming countries will recognize that not all countries are responsible for this so called "demand". Even with this increase, the Saudi government actually published a statement in Tuesday's Toronto Star claiming that "[t]he increase in prices isn't justified in terms of market fundamentals".
In my personal experience, I haven't seen a significant demand or consumption increase in Ontario at any of the locations I worked at. It pleased me to also find that Canada was not important enough to be listed as a main contributor to the increase in consumption. The main question that plagues me then is why we are left to pay for demand that we didn't significantly contribute to?
Either way, currently our gas prices are up and people are beginning to abandon the glitz and status that apparently only a truck or SUV can bring, and settle for smaller more efficient cars ...or at least that's what GM asserts. But that's another topic for another day.
Until next time
Sources for this blog provided by:
Toronto Star, Tuesday June 10, 2008. "Pressure rises to cut oil prices" pgs. A1 & A21
http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/mainpages/consumption.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
