Canada is known to be one of the most desirable places in the world to live. Countries don't get like that without some management of people who do and want to live there, and as far as I can tell the latest proposed changes to the IRPA do just that.
The changes, which amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, were included in the budget bill, making them a confidence matter. If they're passed, the changes would speed up the processing of applications for skilled workers, but they would also throw other claimants to the back of the line and reject others outright.
There is the usual eyewash about this all being a way to ethnically cleanse the immigrants to this country, but I'm not entirely clear who it is these naysayers think will be kept out by this. I see nothing racist about merit-based entrance to Canada, and I'm of the opinion that those screaming "racism" the loudest are the ones who protest too much.
If I say we need more educated/skilled immigrants and less of the tired, poor huddled masses, I am tarred as a racist (it's happened). Although at no point (then or now) did I say anything about what colour or extraction those desired immigrants were, my antagonists assumed I was talking about northern Europeans.
India alone has an educated, English-speaking middle class which outnumbers all of the "white" Dominions, the UK included, and I have no intention of keeping them out if they have what we need to keep the country economically viable. I use India as an example, but the lefty paternalist assumption that "skilled" means white is quite an insult to people from any corner of the globe who worked their ass off to get a good education and make themselves more attractive as potential citizens.
If you're hiring, don't you look for those with the best credentials? Well you do if you want to stay in business, and Immigration policy is just HR writ large.
There are ongoing problems with recognizing the credentials of immigrants, and there are at least noises about addressing that. I think letting more professionals in whose credentials won't be honoured is putting the cart before the horse, but maybe the politicians will surprise me and co-ordinate these efforts. If not, at least someone is planning to do something to actually screen would-be immigrants with an eye to who the country needs and who wants to be here for the right reasons.
As for the fact that the government tagged it onto a budget bill that would trigger an election should it fail, so what? It's a tactic, sure, but if this "new" policy is so horrible, all the opposition parties should unite to defeat it, damn the torpedoes. My conclusion from that is that the Immigration proposals are not so odious after all, and/or Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (and hangers on) lack the moral fibre to follow their moral compass. That would make them hypocrites, not a character trait I'd be looking for in a citizen. Anybody want to trade some slightly used politicians for some doctors or electrical engineers?
Somehow I don't see too many takers...
Wednesday, 2 April 2008
Tuesday, 1 April 2008
Maybe it IS a war; the French want no part...
I had the intention of using this space to tell my small world to stop calling what we're doing in Afghanistan a "war". That was before I read the results of that French poll quoted in the linked article. To whit:
Now I won't get into this CBC reporter's math (since when is 65% "more than two-thirds"?), but numbers like that are a good indication of general attitudes despite the manipulation that is possible, indeed likely on a question like this. Semantics about exactly what word is appropriate aside (I'd use "insurgency", myself), if you're not in favour of a war against the Taliban and al Qaeda, why even bother with an Army?
Again, I have no idea how this question was phrased, but I suppose "Are you in favour of Bush's imperial hegemonic war in Afghanistan against the freedom fighters of al Qaeda and the scholars of the Taliban?" is possible. Even if this (admittedly extreme) question wasn't exactly what was posed, the widespread association between Afghanistan and Iraq is troublesome.
Afghanistan was under an extremely unpleasant government which was actively assisting training and hosting a terrorist organization responsible for various bloody attacks against Western targets. Those targets were mostly American, but everyone should remember that the bad guys would get around to us lesser "Satans" eventually too.
That support is a casus belli by itself, and the Americans were 100% within their legal and moral rights to invade to knock them out of action. The fact that they (and we) are trying to put the place back together is a good thing.
Enough of that. I've been of the opinion for some time that NATO needs a purge, and this doesn't change my mind. Let France, Germany, Spain and Italy go their own way (since they aren't team players anyway) and bring the Poles and other more motivated countries in, and then at least we'd be able to make realistic plans knowing our allies were the real deal.
Reapeating myself, I know. I also appear to have been incorrect about Canada pulling out by 2009, but a lot of stuff can happen between now and then, so don't count my fearless predictions out yet.
In a speech in Britain last week, French President Nicolas Sarkozy pledged to bolster France's troop strength in Afghanistan, saying he would confirm the offer during the NATO meeting in Bucharest, which will take place April 2-4. Sarkozy did not specify a number, but news reports have said the plan would add 1,000 troop reinforcements.
But more than two-thirds of people questioned in a French poll published Tuesday say they oppose Sarkozy's plan to increase the number of French troops in Afghanistan.
Sixty-five per cent said that the United States and its allies are wrong to lead a war in Afghanistan against fighters linked to the former Taliban regime and members of al-Qaeda. Seventeen per cent said they support the effort.
Now I won't get into this CBC reporter's math (since when is 65% "more than two-thirds"?), but numbers like that are a good indication of general attitudes despite the manipulation that is possible, indeed likely on a question like this. Semantics about exactly what word is appropriate aside (I'd use "insurgency", myself), if you're not in favour of a war against the Taliban and al Qaeda, why even bother with an Army?
Again, I have no idea how this question was phrased, but I suppose "Are you in favour of Bush's imperial hegemonic war in Afghanistan against the freedom fighters of al Qaeda and the scholars of the Taliban?" is possible. Even if this (admittedly extreme) question wasn't exactly what was posed, the widespread association between Afghanistan and Iraq is troublesome.
Afghanistan was under an extremely unpleasant government which was actively assisting training and hosting a terrorist organization responsible for various bloody attacks against Western targets. Those targets were mostly American, but everyone should remember that the bad guys would get around to us lesser "Satans" eventually too.
That support is a casus belli by itself, and the Americans were 100% within their legal and moral rights to invade to knock them out of action. The fact that they (and we) are trying to put the place back together is a good thing.
Enough of that. I've been of the opinion for some time that NATO needs a purge, and this doesn't change my mind. Let France, Germany, Spain and Italy go their own way (since they aren't team players anyway) and bring the Poles and other more motivated countries in, and then at least we'd be able to make realistic plans knowing our allies were the real deal.
Reapeating myself, I know. I also appear to have been incorrect about Canada pulling out by 2009, but a lot of stuff can happen between now and then, so don't count my fearless predictions out yet.
Sunday, 30 March 2008
This Earth Hour has Seven Seals.
Last night was the much hyped night of the Earth Hour; A lot of people turned stuff off for a bit, then turned it back on. I am not alone in feeling that the whole thing is a gimmick, and in a lot of cases I'm a bit concerned about what people think they were accomplishing.
If you're so concerned about things, scrap your cars, take a bike or public transit everywhere and disable your AC in the summertime when you really could use it. Eat more food that doesn't require cooking, hell, just inconvenience yourself a whole bunch and turn back all the progress we've made in quality of life. Alternatively, put yourself deep in debt to invest in solar, geothermal or other renewable energy for your house.
It is NOT a "step in the right direction"; it's a blip, a public-relations exercise, nothing more and people who fail to recognize this (and worse, actively deny it) worry me. I wonder what other schemes they'll cook up and how many will follow along with it in spite of their better interests.
In any event, you can be sure that no Asian countries (Australia doesn't count) of significance took part in this, and if India, China and Russia alone don't do it, just like Kyoto, it's a waste of time.
Of course if people want to use less energy I'm all for that, and in my own way I do the same when I have the chance. If I could afford it, I'd set my house up to be "off the grid" if push came to shove, but it isn't economical. The choice seems to be deliberately shooting our standard of living in the foot or, well, not.
It must be remembered that higher technology allows an ever smaller environmental footprint the higher your technology gets. Hunting and gathering, slash and burn agriculture, all the hallmarks of a low (or no) technology society don't work with the kind of population the planet has presently. Turning off the lights (literally and figuratively) could bring more than an hour of darkness.
If you're so concerned about things, scrap your cars, take a bike or public transit everywhere and disable your AC in the summertime when you really could use it. Eat more food that doesn't require cooking, hell, just inconvenience yourself a whole bunch and turn back all the progress we've made in quality of life. Alternatively, put yourself deep in debt to invest in solar, geothermal or other renewable energy for your house.
It is NOT a "step in the right direction"; it's a blip, a public-relations exercise, nothing more and people who fail to recognize this (and worse, actively deny it) worry me. I wonder what other schemes they'll cook up and how many will follow along with it in spite of their better interests.
In any event, you can be sure that no Asian countries (Australia doesn't count) of significance took part in this, and if India, China and Russia alone don't do it, just like Kyoto, it's a waste of time.
Of course if people want to use less energy I'm all for that, and in my own way I do the same when I have the chance. If I could afford it, I'd set my house up to be "off the grid" if push came to shove, but it isn't economical. The choice seems to be deliberately shooting our standard of living in the foot or, well, not.
It must be remembered that higher technology allows an ever smaller environmental footprint the higher your technology gets. Hunting and gathering, slash and burn agriculture, all the hallmarks of a low (or no) technology society don't work with the kind of population the planet has presently. Turning off the lights (literally and figuratively) could bring more than an hour of darkness.
Saturday, 29 March 2008
This is what happens when we leave...
The Brits quite understandably pulled out of most combat operations Basra, and by extension most of their military commitment to Iraq a while ago, and now we see what happens. This is a good example (on a smaller scale due to the more homogeneous religious make-up of Basra) of what will happen to Baghdad when the Americans finally pull out.
BAGHDAD — Shiite militias in Basra openly controlled wide swaths of the city on Saturday and staged increasingly bold raids on Iraqi government forces sent in five days ago to wrest control from the gunmen, witnesses said, as Iraqi political leaders grew increasingly critical of the stalled assault.
Violence Flares Across the South
Witnesses in Basra said that members of the most powerful militia in the city, the Mahdi Army, were setting up checkpoints and controlling traffic in many places ringing the central district controlled by some of the 30,000 Iraqi Army and police forces involved in the assault. Fighters were regularly attacking the government forces, then quickly retreating.
I am no supporter of the débâcle in Iraq, and I do hope that McCain's noises about being less ready to invade places marks a more realistic American foreign policy. That said, more chaos surely follows any major pull-out of American forces from Iraq in the near future, so I imagine they'll continue to put good money (blood and treasure) after bad for a while yet. What price democracy in the (Arab) middle east? More I suspect than even the USA can afford...
Closer to home, I don't feel that things would go quite like this were Canada to pull out of Afghanistan, but Iraq and Afghanistan are apples and oranges. If NATO gave up, Afghanistan would likely be split into north and south, much as it was before we showed up, albeit the North would be able to stand on its' own (with help). Welcome to Talibanistan, free-fire zone...
We'll be in the 'Stan for some time yet, so hopefully NATO steps up and sends more troops where we need them to move things along a bit. I don't want to see any repeats of Basra in OUR sandbox...
BAGHDAD — Shiite militias in Basra openly controlled wide swaths of the city on Saturday and staged increasingly bold raids on Iraqi government forces sent in five days ago to wrest control from the gunmen, witnesses said, as Iraqi political leaders grew increasingly critical of the stalled assault.
Violence Flares Across the South
Witnesses in Basra said that members of the most powerful militia in the city, the Mahdi Army, were setting up checkpoints and controlling traffic in many places ringing the central district controlled by some of the 30,000 Iraqi Army and police forces involved in the assault. Fighters were regularly attacking the government forces, then quickly retreating.
I am no supporter of the débâcle in Iraq, and I do hope that McCain's noises about being less ready to invade places marks a more realistic American foreign policy. That said, more chaos surely follows any major pull-out of American forces from Iraq in the near future, so I imagine they'll continue to put good money (blood and treasure) after bad for a while yet. What price democracy in the (Arab) middle east? More I suspect than even the USA can afford...
Closer to home, I don't feel that things would go quite like this were Canada to pull out of Afghanistan, but Iraq and Afghanistan are apples and oranges. If NATO gave up, Afghanistan would likely be split into north and south, much as it was before we showed up, albeit the North would be able to stand on its' own (with help). Welcome to Talibanistan, free-fire zone...
We'll be in the 'Stan for some time yet, so hopefully NATO steps up and sends more troops where we need them to move things along a bit. I don't want to see any repeats of Basra in OUR sandbox...
Friday, 28 March 2008
Democracy; watch this space.
Unless there is a rapid and profound reversal in the fortunes of one of the American Democratic candidates, Hillary and Barrack are racing to see who can lose to McCain. I am not a keen observer of the American political scene, so if I’m coming to this conclusion it’s either too obvious to miss or I’m just pulling stuff out of my ass again.
I am of course not above such things here, but as always you get what you pay for, and you get fair warning of my lack of academic rigor when it comes to anonymous ranty stuff. With that out of the way, in the absence of anything that particularly outrages me today, this will be the beginning of a free-form noodling about what we have for government and what else there may be down the road, or at least options.
What I would really like to do is encourage a discussion about Democracy, and what we understand that to be. From there, what we actually have vs. our expectations, and possibly what could be done to bring the two closer together.
This is more an issue for the Americans (to the best of my knowledge I have no American readers) as the Canadian system has not strayed far, warts and all, from our founding. So if it seems I look south of the border a lot, it’s both because their system and political origins are more interesting than ours and because of the state and fate of America is of no small concern to the rest of us Democracies.
Main Entry: [from Miriam-Webster Online Dictionary]
de•moc•ra•cy
Pronunciation:
\di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural de•moc•ra•cies
Etymology:
Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
There’s a pretty non-partisan definition to start from. Even more simply; a form of government that involves the direct, non-violent intervention of the people in the governing process. (Source: me)
More to follow as I come up with it, likely to show up as edits to this post, hence the subtitle.
I am of course not above such things here, but as always you get what you pay for, and you get fair warning of my lack of academic rigor when it comes to anonymous ranty stuff. With that out of the way, in the absence of anything that particularly outrages me today, this will be the beginning of a free-form noodling about what we have for government and what else there may be down the road, or at least options.
What I would really like to do is encourage a discussion about Democracy, and what we understand that to be. From there, what we actually have vs. our expectations, and possibly what could be done to bring the two closer together.
This is more an issue for the Americans (to the best of my knowledge I have no American readers) as the Canadian system has not strayed far, warts and all, from our founding. So if it seems I look south of the border a lot, it’s both because their system and political origins are more interesting than ours and because of the state and fate of America is of no small concern to the rest of us Democracies.
Main Entry: [from Miriam-Webster Online Dictionary]
de•moc•ra•cy
Pronunciation:
\di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural de•moc•ra•cies
Etymology:
Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
There’s a pretty non-partisan definition to start from. Even more simply; a form of government that involves the direct, non-violent intervention of the people in the governing process. (Source: me)
More to follow as I come up with it, likely to show up as edits to this post, hence the subtitle.
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
Colour Coded
I like to stay away from racial issues, but the current flap over Obama's church brought a bit of this up, and made me think about it. This quote from the comments section in particular,
The fact that we refer to anyone with even 10% of "black" blood as "black" is masking the true meaning - it means they are "not white".
is a significant point. For years I have had an issue with people who are half or more Caucasian identifying themselves as "black", since they are as much white as black, and no matter what your heritage is, you should at least not deny that it's part of you. For example, I'm not sure what Halle Berry's mom thinks about her daughter identifying herself as "black", but I'm sure that I'd be disappointed were I in her position.
This is not to say that I encourage people to hyphenate the hell out of themselves, but being of mixed background should be an opportunity to put certain historical baggage behind us. This doesn't just apply to mixed race, as there are lots of people who are the same colour who don't get along. Someone half English and half Irish, for example, can choose to identify with one side or the other, OR they can identify with both, perhaps.
My own mix isn't too antagonistic, at least not recently, so I have no problem picking the eyes out of the best parts of my heritage. I understand that things are farther apart, more fresh and unpleasant, etc. for many others, so any high-profile personalities that provide a good example in this regard are a big step in the right direction.
So, as far as I'm concerned, Halle Berry is a hottie, no race ID required. By the standards that some people apply to her (as an example), I could just as equally call her a hot "white" woman; she's as much that as black.
Will Pastor Wright sink Obama's run for Pres? I have no idea and I care even less. This will likely push some of his white supporters away, and his repudiation of Wright's comments will ironically push away some of his more militant black supporters too.
As always my fearless predictions are not warrantied, and more of a spleen-venting than anything else.
The fact that we refer to anyone with even 10% of "black" blood as "black" is masking the true meaning - it means they are "not white".
is a significant point. For years I have had an issue with people who are half or more Caucasian identifying themselves as "black", since they are as much white as black, and no matter what your heritage is, you should at least not deny that it's part of you. For example, I'm not sure what Halle Berry's mom thinks about her daughter identifying herself as "black", but I'm sure that I'd be disappointed were I in her position.
This is not to say that I encourage people to hyphenate the hell out of themselves, but being of mixed background should be an opportunity to put certain historical baggage behind us. This doesn't just apply to mixed race, as there are lots of people who are the same colour who don't get along. Someone half English and half Irish, for example, can choose to identify with one side or the other, OR they can identify with both, perhaps.
My own mix isn't too antagonistic, at least not recently, so I have no problem picking the eyes out of the best parts of my heritage. I understand that things are farther apart, more fresh and unpleasant, etc. for many others, so any high-profile personalities that provide a good example in this regard are a big step in the right direction.
So, as far as I'm concerned, Halle Berry is a hottie, no race ID required. By the standards that some people apply to her (as an example), I could just as equally call her a hot "white" woman; she's as much that as black.
Will Pastor Wright sink Obama's run for Pres? I have no idea and I care even less. This will likely push some of his white supporters away, and his repudiation of Wright's comments will ironically push away some of his more militant black supporters too.
As always my fearless predictions are not warrantied, and more of a spleen-venting than anything else.
Sunday, 16 March 2008
Jack Layton's "plan" in action, look out.
"Turning point", my buttocks.
One of these yahoos said that this nationwide protest marked the "turning point", demonstrating the overwhelming will of the Canadian people in opposition to our mission in Afghanistan. The biggest one of these protests garnered a whopping 1000 protesters, definitely not a sea-change in Canadian public sentiment, whatever our old pal Jack Layton may have said to the media from Queen's Park.
One of these yahoos said that this nationwide protest marked the "turning point", demonstrating the overwhelming will of the Canadian people in opposition to our mission in Afghanistan. The biggest one of these protests garnered a whopping 1000 protesters, definitely not a sea-change in Canadian public sentiment, whatever our old pal Jack Layton may have said to the media from Queen's Park.
The sizes of the crowds varied from location to location, with cities like Montreal and Toronto having protesters numbering in the hundreds. Other sites, such as Halifax, had only a few dozen demonstrators.
In Calgary, some protesters wore two hats. One minute they were demonstrating against seal hunters. But minutes later they swapped their placards for anti-war signs.
Everyone loves the professional protester class, and they were out in (what passed with them for) force Saturday, and all over the news. The biggest one was 1000 people, and you can get 1000 people to support almost anything in a city the size of Toronto, so not impressive. The comments from Calgary are also revealing, showing their colours as general malcontents. Well, at least they didn't smash anything. This time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)