Friday, March 10, 2017

Not my kind of conservative

Over the years, I have written about both my own personal values, and about Canadian values in general. On some of these issues, my position has changed, as has the party in power, at least twice since I started this blog. Regardless of which party was governing, I felt comfortable expressing my opinions.

Many of the posts linked to in that first sentence or so are lamenting the Liberal tendency to define Canadian values by what they themselves believe. I felt excluded. I felt vilified. It frustrated me that my own government could say that my beliefs on say, abortion or criminal sentencing or whatever -- were un-Canadian. While it bothered me that they might say that my view were un-Canadian, never once did I feel the need to change my opinion or hide from my belief system.

Leadership hopeful Kellie Leitch is tone deaf when it comes to the issue of immigration and values. Much as I believe we must be vigilant when granting citizenship, and I believe that terrorism is reason enough to strip citizenship from a new Canadian, some arbitrary, bureaucratic 'values' test that many Canadian born people might not pass, is insulting to all Canadians, and particularly to conservatives -- the people 'expected' to support such an asinine idea.

I can't stand PMJT. I think he's narrow minded, elitist, smug and stupid. I believe his policies and will damage the economy. I think  wrong headed on immigration. I believe he is self serving and foolish.

If Kellie Leitch were Conservative leader during the next election, I would vote for Justin.
If we must have an opponent in the seat of government, let him be one we can actually oppose and for whom we are not responsible.
                                                                                    Alexander Hamilton
Happily, it seems most conservatives agree. Now let's just hope Kevin O'Leary isn't made a serious candidate by the media the way Trump was in the US.

canadianna

Saturday, March 04, 2017

Trump vs the World

Recently my son and I were discussing Donald Trump. We both detest the man, and cringe if our political opinions align with something Trump says. But my son is young. He's an optimist. When I saw the rally on CNN in 2015, before Trump had even announced his intention to seek the nomination, I told my son I was worried because he would win. My son didn't believe it. And later, when Trump single-handedly decimated the Republican leadership pool for a generation, I told my son I thought he'd win the election. Despite my assertion, we were both astounded when he actually did.
 
Now, not quite two months in, my son is sure that despite everything, Trump can't ruin America. On most things political, I defer to him. He knows history, the constitution, the actual workings of the political machinery. He loves America. Admires the political system. He's a smart kid. But on Trump, he's wrong.
 
We all know that Trump is an anomaly. The rules of basic human interaction and decorum don't apply and obviously neither do the political conventions that have helped shape the western world as we know it. Yes, Trump can ruin America. In fact, he has the power to ruin the world.
 
On one hand, we have the GOP, giddy with power, acquiescing to Trump and (with a few exceptions) falling all over themselves to defend the indefensible. To my mind, Trump is always indefensible. As ad hominem a statement as that might be -- it's my blog and that's how I feel. These Republican politicians seem eager to stand by their leader regardless of how hapless his moves and bizarre his behavior, applauding politely from the sidelines at announcements that should make them pause.
 
Despite Trump's relatively normal demeanour during a joint address to congress, he is both an enigma and a threat by virtue of his capricious and unstable personality. And let's remember who lurks behind his curtain. While some of the people who Trump has surrounded himself with are not in league with the devil, more are. Those who see themselves as simply serving their country, are not strong enough personalities to challenge the new status quo.
 
On the other hand, so many political actions are in fact, reactions. Rather than being sound policy, some laws and even entire belief systems are a response to past policy. Germany today, with its open borders and extreme hate laws, is still reacting to Hitler and its Nazi past. One can argue whether the law against Holocaust denial is good for preventing hate or bad for assailing free speech, but it exists because of Germany's history.
 
Within the confines of law and politics, I don't believe that Trump alone can ruin America. I do believe that because he is extreme in everything he does, reactions to him are also extreme. As time goes on, regardless of his stance on issues, moderate people all over the world, not wanting to be tied to his brand of 'conservatism' will edge further and further away from positions that Trump taints by holding them. People whose vision is already decidedly to the other extreme, will be emboldened, perceiving their views, regardless how extreme the other way, as being the only decent and respectable ones.
 
To begin, Trump has destroyed the possibility of discussing borders and immigration rationally in the same way Nazism prevents Germans from taking anything less than its polar opposite stance. And with Trump, that was just the campaign. The first week's work solidified it and it only gets weirder from here.
 
Trump alone can't change America or the world, but strange and extreme alliances are bound to form as part of the 'resistance' to Trump. The societal shift that causes, and the changes it brings, will be no better than the world the resisters fear that Trump will foist upon them, but at least they will be able to feel good about themselves.
 
canadianna

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Return to Sender

We've lived in our home for about a year and a half. In that time, we've received a bunch of mail for at least a dozen different people. I dutifully scrawl "MOVED" or 'Not at this address' on each envelope and drop them back into the post.

Recently we received one for a new name, this time from Service Ontario. I handled it the same as always.... wrote on the front and dropped in a mail box. A few days later, there it was back in my mailbox. SO.... I drew lines through the address. Like this.

Guess what just came in the mail?
 How does this happen?

I'm gonna try one more time. I shouldn't have to black out the address for them to understand it shouldn't be delivered here.

canadianna

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Fare to Scarborough?

Those of us who live in the suburbs often commute a long way to our jobs. We are encouraged to curb the car and use transit.

Now Metrolinx is examining the idea of charging fares by the kilometre.

While two of the previous options included some form of distance-based charge, the new proposal would charge all riders a per kilometre rate.

Sounds reasonable, right?

Taxis charge by distance -- only . . .  they go pretty fast and have all the convenience of a car. You pay a premium because the ride is door to door, pretty much on your terms and not a communal experience. Not true of public transit.

GO Transit already uses that fee scheme . . . except of course that the people who can afford to use GO trains for their daily commute probably aren't the sort who are scrounging change in order to ride. They get a tax break for having bought passes, and they probably make enough per year that the tax break actually makes a difference at refund time.

Who really benefits from this fantastic idea of charging based on distance?

Well... chances are it won't hurt people who live downtown .... they tend to work and play down there.

It likely won't hurt the people who live in the bedroom communities outside of the city who already use their Presto cards and will continue on in the same way they have been.

So then, who will it hurt?

Scarborough.

We have the largest area geographically so even if we commute only within Scarborough, it can be further than most people need to travel if they're going from one of the former boroughs to another. Many lower income people travel via TTC to North York, Etobicoke and downtown for work and school.

A per km fee for someone who lives in Malvern to say the Eaton Centre? By transit, that's almost 40 km for someone in the northeast of the city. While the proposal has yet to lay out a per km rate, it would definitely put a lot of the city out of reach for many people in Scarborough.

Thankfully, John Tory doesn't seem to be warm to the proposal.

Let's hope this goes the way of the DVP/Gardiner tolls.

Sunday, January 29, 2017

None is too many ... again

The first concentration camp became operational in 1937. At least three more were opened for business over the next two years. If Germany had stayed within its own borders, then the arrest, detention and subsequent extermination of Jews would have been a domestic issue of no concern to the international community.

We know this is true because in the years leading up to WWII, the world community was given countless warnings, witnessed the abominable treatment of Jews and had ample time and opportunity to step up. With a few exceptions, the international community's answer was to close the doors to Jewish immigration.

For those who are willing to give Trump a pass on his EO because it's America's business:
NO. This is what they meant about 'never again' and 'those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.' This... this is the time when those sayings are relevant.

For those who say not to get hysterical because it's 'temporary':
NO. It was also sudden and without warning... an election promise to handle an issue is not the same as making a proclamation and having people's lives stand still.

For those who say that Obama picked the countries and Trump just followed through:
NO. I know he wants to prove he has yuge hands, but a sweeping ban (albeit and lately clarified) is not reasoned and not helpful to the security of your nation. While I don't believe it will create more terrorists (those so inclined need no excuses) I believe those already inclined will now have more 'justification' and 'rationalization' for their insanity and that might end up in escalation.

For those who say that it isn't actually a #MuslimBan because there are other religions affected:
NO. You know who he meant. It doesn't matter if you feel Trudeau and Obama unfairly excluded Christians. This should make you even more mad because Christians are still affected.

For those of you who say they're savages who brought it on themselves:
NO. The people affected by this have been vetted, are residents, hold green cards, have family. I live within walking distance of three mosques so please don't tell me I'm being na├»ve.

For those who say that Saudi Arabia and its ilk take in no refugees:
YES and is that who you aspire to be?

For those of you saying that it's only right to want to secure your borders:
YES. But this wasn't the way to go. For sure put a temporary halt to new refugee claims, rethink the vetting system, do what you need to do to feel safe--- but don't say while people are awaiting their flights, or have already boarded their planes, or have gone on vacation for a couple of weeks ... they won't be welcomed in when they land. That's just insanity.

We all want a safe world. Making it unsafe and unsettling for some of its most vulnerable populations is never going to be ok with me.

For those of you who say condemnation of Trump is hysteria...how long do you wait before you call out a tyrant?

canadianna

Saturday, January 21, 2017

Let's talk, because this is awkward

Trudeau did the right thing by meeting with indigenous leaders after the suicides of two children earlier this month, but read the piece in The Star. This band asked for funding for what they knew was an impending crisis ... existing crisis ... and the answer they got from Health Canada was, sorry, no, because the timing for their budget was 'awkward'.

You know what's awkward? That two little girls chose death over life in Canada. That's pretty awkward.

The not quite $400k in funding might not have saved those girls, but seriously??? A Canadian community makes a plea for help -- and we ALL KNOW they need it. We pay it lip service and ink and clicks -- but from our government, the answer is no, and yet "Between 2012 and 2017, the Aga Khan Foundation Canada received $75 million from Global Affairs Canada to fund the Partnership for Advancing Human Development in Africa and Asia".

That's pretty awkward, eh? We have millions to shovel over across the ocean and not a pittance for some little girls here at home.

Don't get me wrong. I know we fund the reserves and I know that in many cases monies are handled abysmally by the leaders who live high while their people suffer.

You know, the only thing Pierre Trudeau was ever right on was his White Paper on "Indian Policy". Some of his more lamentable and ruinous ideas were born and festered for generations, but this idea never got off the ground -- that native peoples deserve true equality instead of the never ending paternalistic head-patting they're still getting in the name of preserving their culture. I think we should be asking their children instead of their Chiefs -- they're showing us they're not happy and let's not pretend that the squalor they live in is anything like the cultures that existed before Canada was Canada.

We've done some real damage to our First Nations people through attempted assimilation in the wrong way, and then by apartheid via the reserve system. There has to be a better way. Forget worrying about a cultural genocide where you might not remember the languages or stories or old ways of life ... a real genocide of despair is going on here and we can't even shell out a few hundred thousand dollars to feign concern.

We have to talk. Mental health is a huge issue in all communities and it's laudable what Bell does yearly, reminding us. Maybe, since our government has failed this Indigenous community, maybe @Bell_LetsTalk will consider using some of the money it raises on January 25th to support the mental health initiative requested by this community last summer.

How many more little kids have to kill themselves before this becomes more than just a talking point.

canadianna   


Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Choosing each other

Immigration is like a marriage.

The potential immigrant chooses Canada and applies to become a citizen (the proposal). Canada accepts the proposal and after some time and paperwork, welcomes the new immigrant as a citizen (the wedding). There's even a ceremony where an oath is sworn. It is a covenant . . . a promise . . . a two sided promise. I, the immigrant promise to uphold the laws of the land and we, Canada promise to ensure your rights.

Divorces happen.

Covenants can be broken.

A Canadian is not a Canadian when he has broken the covenant.

That covenant is with US. All of us. It is a promise to the people, not to the government and when someone CHOOSES to renounce US, it seems entirely appropriate that we should have the right to renounce THEM.

While it might not seem fair that a homegrown terrorist can't be deported, I'm grateful that those who have opted to remain dual citizens must keep their promises or be booted.

It might seem simplistic. It is. You chose us. Then you turned on us. In whose rationale are we bound and obligated to your sorry ass?

canadianna

Sunday, February 22, 2015

On the niqab

I live in Scarborough where a lot of women wear hijab*** or the niqab. Hijabs*** don't bother me. The niqab forces me to look away. It says the wearer doesn't want to meet me, has no interest in the world outside of her culture. I respect that-- their business. That might not be the message she is trying to send but it's the one I'm receiving as a Canadian raised in Toronto during the 70's.

That said, I'm in a pretty heavy twitter argument over whether Harper's response to the niqab is right. I'm actually being mistaken for a Liberal. Should a woman in our free society be allowed to cover her face during the oath of citizenship. Harper says no. I believe he's wrong.

I believe the person taking the oath is ID'd prior to the oath-taking and the choice to cover her face during the oath taking (if based on religious or cultural tradition) should be respected. Who am I to say it goes against Canadian culture? My schooling told me that our culture was whatever we said it was... well ... we said we were pluralistic, we embraced multiculturalism ... Would we say 'no' to a kilt or a sari? A turban or a kirpan? The covering of the face by some Muslim women, except in the presence of their immediate families, seems foreign or strange.... but we invited them... we said come: keep your traditions so long as they are non-violent and don't infringe on the rights of others .... and now we want to say "EXCEPT" ... except Muslim women who choose a niqab.

This is not about oppression. If you are against the niqab because it symbolizes the forced submission of women ... then be against the niqab but you can't pick and choose and say it's fine for women to be subjected to oppression every day except when they are swearing an oath of citizenship.

If it is the garb of oppression, then be like France and get rid of it altogether... don't be wishy-washy and pretend we are enlightening anyone when in fact we are just subjecting them to OUR will instead of the will of their husband or culture ... either way they are not free, so why the moral indignation?

In the end we non-Muslims will never know the dynamic within families where this is the norm, but since many of our families are also messed up in so many different ways... are we really going to get in the way of people exercising their freedoms?

The niqab is not honour killings, it isn't FGM -- it isn't any of our business. If we are going to pick and choose the cultural or religious traditions of our immigrants, it should be in matters that affect the public or their potential safety. A woman wearing a niqab is disconcerting.... to us. Maybe women walking down the street topless is disconcerting to them but by law, we can. But the niqab is not, as some on my twitter feed have suggested, equivalent to chains or KKK robes.

If I was a Canadian, born to a culture where the niqab was expected or acceptable, and I was told that in order to be allowed to swear the oath of citizenship in our free country, my mother was stripped of her choice and her dignity and forced to submit to the will of the government, I might not think this was such a free country after all. I might in fact, choose a niqab as a form of political protest. By pushing back when people test the limits of our willingness to accommodate, we risk alienating the very people we hope will learn to embrace our values of inclusiveness, acceptance, understanding, diversity. It's a lose-lose and Harper should re-think his position.

*** Edited -- originally read burqa, Was corrected by commenters. I actually meant hijab.
canadianna

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Toronto Pylon Service

Can someone explain why, whenever there is construction, or stop light maintenance, at least one police officer, if not two, are needed to hover around the workers, chat a little, wear the neon vest and do nothing police-like?

I see it all the time, all over the city. For over week in York Region, on Yonge just north of Steeles, every weekday morning there has been at least one, sometimes two YRP cruisers on the west side of the street, acting as pylons (although there are traffic cones available and being used) while a Bell Canada service van is parked and the worker goes about his business.

Seriously... we talk about police budgets... who pays for this? Is Bell paying for their worker to be 'protected' for now seven weekdays? The first day I saw them I thought the poor guy had been pulled over in his work van. Now |I see that these police officers have been assigned to sit in their car and.... what exactly? Insanity.

Then, just a few minutes ago at Neilson and Ellesmere, workers are adjusting the traffic lights and two cops in glowing vests are standing chatting. The lights are working. No one is directing traffic. They're all standing on a sidewalk where the electrical box is. Who's paying for their 'services'?

This is a regular occurrence on just about every road construction site. Surely there is a more cost-effective way to have done whatever 'job' the police in question are supposed to be doing. I'd have taken pictures, but in each instance I've been driving and I'm not inclined to whip out my cell phone.

I haven't been paying much attention to the mayoral race, perhaps this is an issue that has been or should be addressed.

canadianna

Saturday, May 17, 2014

Liberal Confusion re: Nomination Process

According to the Toronto Star and other publications, Justin Trudeau says people seeking a Liberal nomination will be subject to questioning regarding conscience issues, and if they aren't in line with party thinking, they will be excluded from running in 2015:
Trudeau says that while the Liberal party has always tried to appeal across a broad range of the political spectrum when it comes to economics, he does not believe it’s too much to ask MPs to embrace the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is, in fact, part of the screening process for new candidates.
“We check on a number of issues: how do you feel about the Charter of Rights and freedoms, how do you feel about same-sex marriage, how do you feel about pro-choice, where are you on that?” Trudeau said.
“And we make sure that the people who are stepping forward are consistent with the Liberal Party as it is now, as it stands under my leadership and under the feedback we’re getting from Canadians across the country.”
This morning I had a twitter conversation with Gerard Butts, a close policy advisor of Trudeau's, who seemed to be unaware of this fact. He stated on Twitter that it is not what a person believes that matters, it's how they will vote on the issue in Parliament.


Although Butts has been active on Twitter since I posed the question to him (twice) about whether potential nominees could declare themselves pro-choice and still be allowed to run for nomination or serve as an MP in the Liberal Party, *crickets*.

Butts' original Tweet tagged the National  Post:
The has also been told, repeatedly, that the policy applies to votes in Parliament, not personal belief, but has ignored that.
So it seems clear in his opinion, that under this new Liberal edict, that a person may follow their conscience (in their private lives) so long as they are aware they must vote along party lines if it ever comes to a vote. When asked directly if that was the case, he simply ignored the question. I guess he isn't as sure as he seemed to be.

Perhaps Gerard Butts believed the question had been asked and answered, but when his position is at odds with that of the Liberal leader, the Liberal position is about as clear as mud.

Regardless, I believe abortion is a conscience, not a rights issue and that people should not have to check their brains at the door of the House of Commons. Some people do that anyway.

Canadianna

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Friday, April 12, 2013

Blatant Self Promotion

My book is finally published on kindle and kobo. It's a fiction. It's got politics, betrayal, love, fast cars, hockey and LOADS of Canadiana . . .  If you're at all interested, here are the links:

Kobo Edition                                                                                                      Kindle Edition



Maybe now it's finished and published, I'll find more time to post . . . but I feel like I've got another book in me.

canadianna

Monday, February 04, 2013

So . . . I wrote a book

Help?

Anyone out there in Blogging Toryland with experience epublishing, specifically for Kindle? Since investigating Kindle, I've learned Kobo also does the epublishing thing, and there may be other ways to go ... unfortunately, the only copy of my book was uploaded to Kindle Direct Publishing shortly before my computer died and I have no idea how to pull it off the site to rework it for some other publishing format.

So.... if anyone has any tips to offer, that would be great. The book has been sitting there for a year, waiting to go, but in my typical fashion, I keep putting off clicking the *publish* button. Fear of failure? Dunno.

Thank you in advance.

canadianna

Friday, April 20, 2012

Please tax banks and corporations

he OFL is brilliantly yammering for *fair* taxation.

That's gonna fix all of our problems.

Seriously. It will make Ontario the utopia it ought to be.


No.... listen . . . The rich will pay more taxes and the poor will be spared. Surely the banks won't pass their higher taxes onto us via hefty hikes in service fees and user fees .... no way corporations would be possessed to raise prices to defray the cost of their new higher taxes .... and of course, the government will lower little people taxes and everyone love each other and world peace.

Yay!

canadianna

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Anyone hiring? Lol

For four years, I've worked at a crappy, physically demanding, minimum wage job with no room for advancement, no prospect for more responsibility or more money . . . so, in December I applied for another job. It's a union job, government actually, same kind of thing as what I've been doing, only part-time and overnights. Not exactly what I want to be doing forever, but as with all government jobs, it would mean pay hike after six months and then get first crack at the opportunity to post out to grander things.

The day of the interview I was required to fill out an application. It said that I must put the name and contact information of my direct supervisor or my application would not be considered, but there was a box you could check that said *don't contact my present employer*.

The interview and testing went well. I know this, because a week ago Thursday, my present supervisor told me that the HR department at this government department called her to ask her opinion of me and my work. Ooops. So much for the box I checked. Anyway, my boss was none-too-pleased . . . I know this because my job is a five day/week job. During slow periods, occasionally a person will be put *on-call* meaning they needn't come in. It goes in a rotation so that no one person loses too much pay. My partner and I were on-call in December so we wouldn't be due for another off day until May or June this year. I was put on-call the Monday following my supervisor being asked to provide a reference. My partner was not. There are still other people who've yet to have an on-call day, and yet I was told it wasn't punishment. Right.

The fellow from the the government later called me and said he was having difficulty getting a hold of my other references, could I supply the phone numbers again or perhaps new references. It took me until Tuesday to provide two more references. I left their names and numbers on his voice mail. So far, these new references haven't heard from the HR guy. Neither have I, so I'm supposing I took too long, wasn't a fit ... whatever.

So, I came home from work on Thursday and was ill. I won't go into details, suffice to say, I don't call in sick often or unnecessarily, but Friday, I felt compelled to. My company doesn't have *sick days*. We lose a substantial amount of money if we miss a day, more than just a day's pay . . . we lose our driving bonus for the whole week and another allowance that is dependent on perfect attendance. Needless to say, as the sole provider in a household of six, I don't take this sort of thing lightly. My job requires that I drive up to 140 km/day and provide services in people's homes. Some of my clients are elderly and/or in frail health. Beyond my own feeling horrible and questioning how safe it would be for me to drive, I believed it unfair to go into customers' homes and possibly infect them. I suppose my boss must've figured I was going on a job interview . . . because suddenly I've been put on call this coming Monday.

I write this just to point out to those who will ask why people stay under-employed, this is why . . . sometimes it's just easier to stay where you are because trying to climb out just knocks you down. Hoping for better has now put my crappy job in jeopardy and obviously it wasn't worth it.

canadianna