Migrant Workers Abused - Not Surprising

It’s no surprise that according to a new article, many migrant workers are abused here, both sexually and otherwise. The reason is pretty obvious. According to the laws in our country, many workers with temporary foreign worker status can only work for a sponsor and cannot shop around for a job elsewhere. The employer holds all the strings and can expel the worker at will. Hmm, let me think if this would create a bad situation for employees! They can only work in one place! If they don’t like it their only option is to go back to the terrible place they fled! It’s surprising no one could foresee this!

The whole economic theory about improvements in the workplace essentially hinge on the ability and legality of employees leaving and going elsewhere. Without this ability, workers power is dramatically reduced. C’mon Canada, fix this stupid problem! (By the way, the solution is more freedom).

Canadian Taxpayers Federation Goes After Small Potatoes Once Again!

I’m starting to think the so called Canadian “Taxpayers” Federation is being paid off by politicians or told to keep a low profile. They keep coming out with reports which basically amount to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

So today their BIG REPORT is about Gerry Byrne running for the provincial election while still an MP in Ottawa. So there’s a little bit of overlap somehow. I guess the theory is that if he’s running for politics here, he can’t do as much work as an MP as he normally would. *yawn* Big deal, politicians don’t do anything anyway. Here we are throwing billions of dollars at boondoggles and all the Taxpayers Federation notices is something this minor and insignificant?

In another article, they attacked NDP severance packages worth almost $700k *gasp*. What’s that? 0.01% of the budget?

C’mon Taxpayers Federation, find something of substance!

WHAT? The Liquor Corporation has unfair advantage??

This is news? The Liquor Corporation in Newfoundland and Labrador has an unfair advantage? Well, you don’t say! That’s according to this news report by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. But everyone knows this. The NLC has monopolized the market, they are the only ones allowed to sell many types of alcohol. Not only that, prices are exorbitant, often double or triple the market value. If you ever go to the states, just compare the prices, they are WAY higher here in Canada. And the benefits of this system as very dubious at best. For the most part, the higher prices just go to pay inflated salaries and a huge unnecessary bureaucracy. Free market pricing is the only thing that will do!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/nlc-has-unfair-advantage-over-small-business-cfib-1.3131641

 

CBC Victim-Blaming!

In our ultra-feminist world, telling a woman to be careful at night, go out with a partner, not to dress inappropriately, and other forms of sage advice in order to avoid being sexually assaulted is called blaming the victim. They say “don’t tell women not to do certain things, tell men not to r@pe!” (I use the @ to avoid having it picked up by the wrong system). But what if we applied this logic to other scenarios, where any advice is perceived as “blame” when we tell a potential victim how to stay safe. To bring this way of thinking to its logical conclusion, where telling anybody who could be victimized advice to avoid being a victim is considered victim-blaming let look at blatant examples of CBC Victim-Blaming:

 

Don’t tell people to watch out for car dealership scams, tell dealerships to stop scamming!

 

Don’t tell pedestrians to be careful around cars, tell drivers to stop hitting them!

 

Don’t tell people to be careful of high-risk offender, tell offender to stop being high-risk!

 

Don’t tell drivers to be careful when driving, tell roads not to be slippery!

Climate Change will affect EVERYTHING!

 

So apparently now climate change is a MEDICAL EMERGENCY! Cue the music of doom and gloom! The whole climate change industry reminds me some kind of infomercial for a new innovative product. “This product can do ANYTHING!”

 

“But that’s not all! Order now, and climate change can also be a national security threat and create terrorism!

 

 

I don’t think there are any articles too absurd about climate change that CBC won’t post. What’s next?

Climate change responsible for New York Yankees winning another World Series!

Climate change causing bald men to enjoy hockey well into June!!

 

People accuse “right-wing nut jobs” of coming up with crazy conspiracy theories, but somehow the wacky left-wing theories are considered normal and respectable. Both of these articles are from CBC and the Climate Change – Terrorism link was from Obama. It seems no theory is left unspoken when it comes to Climate Change.

 

 

Government needs to tell us how to eat

So according to Communist Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), the government should tell people how to eat. Not only that, cooking and sewing classes should be mandatory for kids from grades 5-12, because that’s what Japan does. And apparently that’s why Japanese people are skinny! Is there anything people don’t think the government should do???

 

Councillor wants to waste everyone's money on "free" WIFI

Socialist Councillor at Large in St. John’s Dave Lane who unfortunately has coercive power over many residents wants to use his power to force everyone to pay for downtown internet. Of course, he’s branding it as “free” internet, but as everyone knows, there is nothing free about another government boondoggle. Think about it. When the government, even the municipal one, wants to provide a “free” service, they have to raise the money through increased taxation. You can’t choose not to pay this tax. If you don’t pay it, you will either go to jail or receive a bad credit rating. You’ll be endlessly harassed and your life will be made more difficult.

With this kind of choice, the service you are forced to pay for should at the very least be essential. But it’s not, it’s internet. Why should I pay for someone else’s internet? If a business wants to provide this service, feel free. If customers want to pay roaming charges, again, feel free. But in a “free” society, we should not be forced to pay for someone else’s internet. At the very least someone needs a phone or laptop to use the internet. They had to pay for these, therefore they’re probably not starving. Plus, according to Lane, he wants this for travelers, especially business travelers. So someone can buy an airline ticket to come here, buy a computer or smart phone, and be here on business and therefore must pay for hotel accommodations, meals, etc. but somehow they can’t afford the $5 or $10 per day for internet charges in outside areas charged by Rogers, Telus, Bell or other providers. Also, most hotels offer free internet to begin with.

What about the argument that free internet will make St. John’s a “friendlier place” to do business? First of all, whether or not there is free internet will have zero impact on business travel to the province. What an absurd scenario: A businessperson is deciding on whether to come here. He does a bit of research on hotels, transportation, meals, various business costs, and it works out to $3500 for a week. But somehow the extra $50 (at most) makes the whole thing prohibitively expensive and he decides not to come? Does anyone really believe this?

This is just another stupid “program” to make the councillor look good, like he’s giving everyone something free. Most people won’t bother looking into the cost and will probably just say who cares. Most people will applaud this and say how advanced it makes us. Also, this is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. St. John’s isn’t really a serious place for business. Buildings can only be a few storeys high, everything is government run, and people drive about half the speed limit. Given the downtown area free internet won’t change anything except our municipal taxes.

Article here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/dave-lane-wants-free-wireless-internet-in-downtown-st-john-s-1.3125497

 

 

 

Potato Farmers Can't Run Their Own Businesses Apparently

So PEI potato farmers found some potatoes with metal or other objects within. Obviously a big problem. They believe the dangerous potatoes can be traced back to a single farm, but somehow they don’t know who did it and they are offering $100k to anyone who gives them proof of who it is.

 

Anyway, now the farmers want metal detectors to make sure there is nothing harmful in their potatoes, which will cost around $2 million. So this is a business expense. But unlike real businesses with real businesspeople, farmers want everyone else to pay for their stuff. Whether or not you eat potatoes, money will be forcibly stolen from you by the government and given to these people.

 

Should any company looking to make a safer product just appeal to the government? If a car company wants to test out new airbags, should the government pay for the testing? If a circular saw company wants to make one that’s safer, should the government pay for the innovation and quality control? Most people would say no. Yet farmers have some kind of special status. They get special privileges that other businesses don’t enjoy and we are all forced to pay.

 

Potatoes are already extremely cheap and tens of millions are sold annually. PEI produces around 2.6 billion pounds of potatoes per year. If the average potato weighs 0.25 pounds, they produce around 10 billion potatoes. Spreading the $2 million price tag for the metal detectors to over 10 billion potatoes would increase the price per potato by just 0.02 cents!

 

Potato farmers need to stop being whiny babies and start paying their own expenses!

Neil Macdonald - No Understanding of Gun Control

Neil Macdonald added his name to a large and growing list of people speaking out in favour of gun control. Somehow he believes his simple, linear thinking will solve the problem. I’m writing this from work where I don’t have access to the internet at large or many resources, so if you want specifics, ask me later. However the conventional liberal logic on guns goes like this:

1.       Guns are bad and guns kill people

2.       Make laws to stop people from using guns

3.       Fewer people will die.

Call the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, we have a serious contender!

Somehow this simplistic logic seems like a reasonable catch-all to the problem for liberals. An infallible solution to the issue. So much so, the proponents don’t even bother to explain how or why it would work. They don’t bother to show examples of their philosophy reducing gun violence or anything of the sort. It’s as if they are firmly convinced that by making stricter laws on guns, guns will evaporate and violence will disappear. I guess similar to how making drugs illegal makes them vanish and solves all problems related to drug addiction and the drug trade. Rarely is a specific policy suggestion even made. We just keep hearing a generic “we need more gun laws” mantra.

This “analysis” by Neil MacDonald has an incredibly patronizing tone. Anyone who disagrees with his evidence-free faith in gun control is a low-brow mouth-breathing Republ… I mean Neanderthal.

First the mischaracterizations. Neil MacDonald claims that anyone who doesn’t believe in gun control love guns more than protecting innocents. From the get-go Macdonald repeats the tired canard that people who believe in the right to keep and bear arms really don’t give a crap about people being killed. They’re far more interested in slamming down beer, playing country music, and buying the biggest baddest guns they can get their hands on, or whatever other stereotyping these “reporters” engage in.

Neil Macdonald doesn’t say specifically the types of laws he would want enacted. A total firearm ban including hunting rifles? A handgun ban only? The specifics don’t matter apparently, he’s just against guns in general.

I would advise people to look at the data themselves. Bill Clinton did a study back in the 1990s to find which gun laws would reduce crime. He asked the Centers for Disease Control to study over 100 studies done on the subject and not a single one showed more gun laws prevented gun crime. Perhaps counterintuitive, but worth a look for anyone who is actually serious about stopping gun violence. Also, three of the cities in the US with the highest gun violence rates – Washington DC, Los Angeles, and New York City – all have the strictest laws on guns. To those who say this is a mere coincidence, the rates of gun murder in these states increased at a faster rate than the national average AFTER gun laws were enacted. A similar occurrence seems to take place anywhere gun laws are introduced – crime goes up, not down.

Bottom line: All evidence on the subject shows that gun control laws in fact do not work. You may not like that, you may not understand that, but if you are serious about reducing gun murders, it’s worth looking into. But what liberals believe is not fact, but faith in this case. Government and reduced freedom is always the solution according to them. But back to the article.

One thing Neil Macdonald goes after several times is concealed carry laws, which is ironic since he admits himself that concealed carry is illegal in South Carolina. So his point doesn’t really make sense. It boils down to: this was a great tragedy, we need stricter laws such as banning concealed carry, even though in this state that’s already illegal…

Obama said this was a tragedy and then something along the lines that once again someone was able to get a gun too easily – implying the need for more (unspecified) gun control. Macdonald called the president’s response “civilized”. Perhaps it was, but it was also pointless.

According to Macdonald pretty much everyone wants gun control, but then the evil NRA steps in and spends millions of dollars convincing people that’s a bad idea. But this is clearly not the case. People just want the right to defend themselves and their families against violent criminals.

Macdonald mocks the idea that arming good people can stop bad people with guns. I would like to know his alternative suggestion. Make guns disappear? Guns are here to stay, whether legal or illegal. The only question is do you want only criminals to have them or for ordinary citizens to have that right also? The FBI has statistics on the huge number of crimes prevented because a good person had a gun. Again, I apologize for not having them here, I will try to provide them later.

The writer also implies that the governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley’s, tears are not genuine. He says “As for Haley, sobbing at a news conference, she announced that South Carolina's "heart and soul is broken." But she still evidently thinks Roof had a natural right to carry his gun around.” What a stupid comment. In Canada, a country for which I have data, there are more stabbing murders on average than gun murders even though guns are widely available here. Imagine substituting “gun” with “knife” in Macdonald’s silly assertion:

As for Haley, sobbing a news conference, she announced that South Carolina's "heart and soul is broken." But she still evidently thinks Roof had a natural right to have a knife.

Out of Canada’s murders in 2013, 131 were with a firearm, but 102 were by beatings. To bring the quote to an even greater level of absurdity, you could say: “As for Haley, sobbing a news conference, she announced that South Carolina's "heart and soul is broken." But she still evidently thinks Roof had a natural right to arms and legs.”

Sounds kind of stupid doesn’t it? Roof had a natural right to a weapon just as all people do. He does not, however, have a right to kill someone. Liberals like Macdonald seem to conflate gun ownership with killing people.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders, both anti-Islamists and free speech advocates were participating in a free speech event called “Draw Mohammed Contest”. It was lucky there were armed people there because 2 jihadists came to the event to kill as many people as they could with several high-powered weapons. Fortunately there were several armed security officers and off-duty police officers ready to protect them with guns. The two gunmen were themselves gunned down – good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns.  According to Macdonlad they would have been better off being sitting ducks. I suppose after the evil villains had perpetrated their crime, the cops could show up to possibly arrest them and ID the bodies of their victims.

I also notice Macdonald doesn’t recommend everyone be disarmed, just ordinary citizens. He still thinks cops should have guns. But if guns only cause murder, why should anyone be allowed to have them? Believing cops should be allowed to carry guns implies they can be beneficial.

Neil Macdonald has been a journalist for CBC for almost 30 years. Clearly he knows how to do a little bit of research, something completely lacking from his piece. Even though it’s called an “analysis”, that doesn’t mean it should be devoid of any data to support his claims. Macdonald knows this. But the problem is there in fact is no data to support his claims.

We want to do something whenever a tragedy occurs. It’s natural, it’s human. We feel sadness and compassion for the victims. But as John Lott, an expert in gun control laws, says, we can’t just operate on a gut-level without verifying if our hypotheses against reality. People should not be in favor of gun control, but rather in a reduction in gun violence. If that involves restricting guns less, as the evidence suggests, then honest liberals should pursue this.

Police Brutality in the US

So I watched a video yesterday online about a guy riding a horse in a desert-like area and the cop is chasing after him. Eventually he gets off the horse, gets on the ground, lies flat on his face, and puts his hands on his head. He is in a completely vulnerable position. Then the cop, and several other cops who join soon after, start kicking him repeatedly in the head, groin and other areas. Oh, this was after tasering him several times.

 

This is just one of dozens or hundreds of examples of police brutality that happen daily in the States. Absolutely unnecessary brutality. I then found a stat which said American cops killed more people in one month than British cops killed in the entire century so far! In fact, it was more than double. The actual stat was British cops killed around 50 people in the past 15 years, while American cops killed 111 in one month! In Canada, the number of people killed by cops is around 11 per year, which apparently is around 74 times less than the US per capita.

 

It’s important to keep all of this in mind when people are cheerleaders for police and the militarization of them!

Mandatory Voting?

So Justin Trudeau, the former part-time drama teacher, who feels it’s his obligation to be our ruler and is thus running in the election to be Prime Minister has recently announced that he is considering making voting mandatory if he becomes PM. He also wants to change the entire voting system. As it is right now, there are a little over 300 jurisdictions for the federal elections. Each district votes and whoever gets the most votes wins that district. Then whichever party wins the most districts forms the governing party.

 

But Trudeau wants to change it. They say the Conservatives only got 40% of the vote, why should they rule! I’m not sure the precise system he wants, but it’s something about representative vote. So if 40% of people vote for conservatives, 40% of seats will be held by them. Probably a stupid system because then the national vote is a general vote, and does not represent local areas very well.

 

Anyway, the craziest thing is forced voting. How exactly would this work? Would you be fined for not voting? I’m assuming this is the course of action they would take. We are already bombarded by fees and penalties all the time anyway. No one should be forced to vote against their will. Politicians shouldn’t have nearly as much power as they do, if they are even required at all. This is absolutely outrageous if this goes through!

Inquiry Costs 23.8 Times More Than Expenses Being Investigated

In a scenario so absurd it would require the government to do it, an investigation into $991,917 cost the auditor general $23.6 million to conduct! LOL, that’s 23.8 times the actual expenses being investigated.

 

Maybe we need an investigation into the inquiry and why it cost $24 million.

 

Also, according to the auditor general, they spend about 1000 hours PER senator on investigations. This sounds ridiculous to me! 1000 hours is more than the average number of work hours in a year. So basically there is more time spent investigating a senator than the actual amount of time he or she works in a year. How is this even possible??? Essentially you could have someone shadow each senator for every working hour analyzing everything the senator is doing to make sure it’s valid. Does this sound reasonable to anyone, even the most ardent statist?

 

Imagine an accounting company operating like this. Companies have expenses, and unlike the government it really matters if they are wasteful. Someone pays for that – someone could be fired. So imagine a company consults an accounting firm and asks how much it would cost to be audited. The company has 10 employees, and the accounting firm says it will cost $700,000 per year to audit the 10 employees. Obviously the owner will reject this offer.

 

But for argument’s sake, let’s say he accepts the offer. The company does its audit and finds $29,412 being improperly spent. So the owner looks at this and realizes he spent $700,000 to find out they misspent less than $30,000. Let’s just say they wouldn’t hire this organization in the future.

 

But we’re dealing with government here, not business. We all just pay taxes and except for a general sense of dissatisfaction, very few people do much about it. So we get hundreds of government departments spending money left, right and center. Then every so often, the auditor general comes out and tells us some money was misspent and we’re reassured they’re doing something about it. But this is all just meant to placate us. Nothing ever changes. Billions are spent as headlines are made about a couple thousand misspent. It’s all just meant to keep us from doing much.