For the sake of clarity, honesty and to dispel any homosexual trepidation I would like it to be known that I, a heterosexual male with a security clearance, had to provide information on my sexual preference and my partner by specifying that I was married and by providing my wife's name, the names of her parents, where she worked, where they worked etc, etc, ect.
Wake the fuck up people it's a security clearance not the pass-code to the McDonald's lounge area!
I hate this sort of journalistic deceit.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Ug...
Everything that has me pleased about the new status quo in federal politics fills me with dread at the prospect of Hudaguinty and the Consliberals sitting in Queens Park.
It's too bad, that as the article states the peoples desire for change is blind to the prospect of actual change. Now if Paul McKeever and the Freedom Party were the change du jour then I'd be one happy camper.
It's too bad, that as the article states the peoples desire for change is blind to the prospect of actual change. Now if Paul McKeever and the Freedom Party were the change du jour then I'd be one happy camper.
Unfair Labour Practices Pt 2
Etcetera:
I really have to agree with the tag line and the first 3 paragraphs of this article . The practical difference between the Liberals and Conservatives were few and far between, and this led to a parliament more interested (and focused) on throwing mud than really debating issues. As a result, as strange as it may seem, I am actually looking forward to this session of parliament and appreciative of this new diametric split in Canadian politics.
Having said that though, The only question the writer sees in this dispute is whether the worker has the right to withdraw his labour if he is unhappy with his employers offered wage, and in practice I agree, although not in the way the author would have me I think... You see, the last time I checked, and in my capitalism riddled mind I believe that indeed the worker does and should have that right, it is called quitting ones job. Which of course leads to the employer's corollary; the ability to terminate the employment of any worker who refuses to work for the wage offered. But that is not what the author of this article had in mind.
The Government's solution to this "job action" is an ideological about face and a warning to labour unions in this country. The conservatives have done what an employer, free of union coercion would do, basically establish a wage which he is willing to pay and allow anyone who doesn't like it, the reciprocal freedom to walk away.
Of course the real reason that this is an issue, is that government is involved in the provision of this service in the first place. Competition among independent postal services would ensure that workers and companies could only make, in wages and profits respectively, what the market would bear. There would be no way to blackmail an entire population with a cessation of the service because the people of the country would be free to take their money and their business elsewhere.
Why does the government system insist on one price to mail a simple letter anyway? It seems to me that were I to accept the idea that government should control the postal services (which I don't) that there ought to be a difference in the price of a letter depending on not only where it is going but where it is coming from.
Think about it. How much more in real terms does it cost the post office to pick up mail from or deliver it to Baffin Island than it does to pick it up from Toronto? In the city my taxes (set by government) are significantly higher than those in the country because of the services which are provided for me by the government (police, fire, garbage, water, sewage etc). If that sort of disparity is permitted by government then why should there be absolute equity when it comes to the price (set by government) of delivering a letter?
There is just so much wrong with this system and the current dispute, there is a solution though. End the monopoly, get government out of the service industry, restrict the government's mandate to the protection of individual rights and in all other aspects of our lives... laissez faire!
I really have to agree with the tag line and the first 3 paragraphs of this article . The practical difference between the Liberals and Conservatives were few and far between, and this led to a parliament more interested (and focused) on throwing mud than really debating issues. As a result, as strange as it may seem, I am actually looking forward to this session of parliament and appreciative of this new diametric split in Canadian politics.
Having said that though, The only question the writer sees in this dispute is whether the worker has the right to withdraw his labour if he is unhappy with his employers offered wage, and in practice I agree, although not in the way the author would have me I think... You see, the last time I checked, and in my capitalism riddled mind I believe that indeed the worker does and should have that right, it is called quitting ones job. Which of course leads to the employer's corollary; the ability to terminate the employment of any worker who refuses to work for the wage offered. But that is not what the author of this article had in mind.
The Government's solution to this "job action" is an ideological about face and a warning to labour unions in this country. The conservatives have done what an employer, free of union coercion would do, basically establish a wage which he is willing to pay and allow anyone who doesn't like it, the reciprocal freedom to walk away.
Of course the real reason that this is an issue, is that government is involved in the provision of this service in the first place. Competition among independent postal services would ensure that workers and companies could only make, in wages and profits respectively, what the market would bear. There would be no way to blackmail an entire population with a cessation of the service because the people of the country would be free to take their money and their business elsewhere.
Why does the government system insist on one price to mail a simple letter anyway? It seems to me that were I to accept the idea that government should control the postal services (which I don't) that there ought to be a difference in the price of a letter depending on not only where it is going but where it is coming from.
Think about it. How much more in real terms does it cost the post office to pick up mail from or deliver it to Baffin Island than it does to pick it up from Toronto? In the city my taxes (set by government) are significantly higher than those in the country because of the services which are provided for me by the government (police, fire, garbage, water, sewage etc). If that sort of disparity is permitted by government then why should there be absolute equity when it comes to the price (set by government) of delivering a letter?
There is just so much wrong with this system and the current dispute, there is a solution though. End the monopoly, get government out of the service industry, restrict the government's mandate to the protection of individual rights and in all other aspects of our lives... laissez faire!
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Unfair Labour Practices
The Canadian Government's treatment of Postal workers is unfair.
Actually the fact that the Canadian Government has anything to do with these workers is unfair. That is the only reason I can think of why an unskilled labourer (mail carrier) earns $51,466 dollars a year to deliver mail and is eligible for up to 6 weeks (30 days) of paid vacation a year. Not to mention the cushy allotment of sick, and family related leave that can be taken.
Show me a single equivalent package of entitlements for an unskilled manual labourer in the private sector...
Yup the Government's treatment of the postal workers is unfair... and in the interest of fairness they should all be fired and new ones hired at a suitable and sane market rate.
Actually the fact that the Canadian Government has anything to do with these workers is unfair. That is the only reason I can think of why an unskilled labourer (mail carrier) earns $51,466 dollars a year to deliver mail and is eligible for up to 6 weeks (30 days) of paid vacation a year. Not to mention the cushy allotment of sick, and family related leave that can be taken.
Show me a single equivalent package of entitlements for an unskilled manual labourer in the private sector...
Yup the Government's treatment of the postal workers is unfair... and in the interest of fairness they should all be fired and new ones hired at a suitable and sane market rate.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Selective Reasoning and the Modern Liberal Mind
The Mayor of Toronto is under fire for "skipping out" on that city's Gay Pride Parade. This article lambastes Mayor Ford for missing an opportunity to show his support of the Gay community in Toronto. The Mayor's excuse is that although the tradition of the Mayor to attend the parade during the Canada Day Weekend has gone on for 10 years, his family has one that supersedes and out dates that.
I have no problem with the Mayor's decision. He, and he alone, must decide how to best divide his time between being a public and a private individual. It's interesting to note that the people complaining about his missing the Gay Pride parade make no comment on the fact that he will also miss numerous Canada Day celebrations. Does that fact make the Mayor Anti-Canadian?
Of course it doesn't and no one is suggesting it does, but the modern liberal schism that makes certain groups in society more equal (by virtue of past injustices) than others allows them to suggest everything from wasted political opportunity to homophobia in the Mayors case.
I have no problem with the Mayor's decision. He, and he alone, must decide how to best divide his time between being a public and a private individual. It's interesting to note that the people complaining about his missing the Gay Pride parade make no comment on the fact that he will also miss numerous Canada Day celebrations. Does that fact make the Mayor Anti-Canadian?
Of course it doesn't and no one is suggesting it does, but the modern liberal schism that makes certain groups in society more equal (by virtue of past injustices) than others allows them to suggest everything from wasted political opportunity to homophobia in the Mayors case.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Reflections on Death
Recent events have me thinking about my own death, or more rightly about the ceremony and social norms surrounding death, and I've discovered I don't much care for them.
Watching a good friend be buried and watching the dynamic of two families each grieving in their own way and witnessing the inevitable conflict created by such raw emotions, and of contrasting traditions, ideals, beliefs and perceptions has brought me to a solitary salient point. I will not die without leaving specific and exacting instructions as to how I am to be laid to rest.
These instructions (which I will later formalize and place with my final Will and Testament) will be my final act of rational selfishness. I will design the service and procedures not only with absolute adherence to my beliefs and ideals, but also with an eye to lessening the suffering of those closest to me.
The friend we buried this week was the wife of my best friend, and I watched him go through the hell made up of our societies standard rituals of death and burial for five days. There was the viewing and the funeral, the burial and a reception, and from start to end a long procession of people showing up on his doorstep to offer their sympathies to "see how he was doing".
The entire process seemed to me to be a tortuous pouring of salt in a fresh wound. It demanded all his strength and all his attention, so that he might (perversely) stand straight and tall while people reminded him that he was hurting and that half of his life had been taken from him.
With this in mind I would save my loved ones such a drawn out process.
I would disallow any sort of visitation. I will not make my wife or children sit in the same room as my dead corpse while people wander past to do little more than convince themselves that I'm dead, or worse yet to satisfy a morbid fascination of seeing me so.
I would eliminate the funeral service. The useful parts of it will be handled during the burial and I see absolutely no reason to have someone who doesn't know me lead my friends and family in remembrances of my life.
At the funeral I will act (in absentia) as the one leading the ceremony though a chosen voice, most likely a close friend who will read my final statements. People will be asked to form a procession and say their goodbyes at this point over my grave and then the entire funeral party will retire to a selected location for areception party where I, through my eulogizer would encourage everyone to really, truly and irreverently celebrate my life/what I meant to them.
They say funerals are for the living, but from what I have seen they are certainly not for the dearly departed's closest survivors, but more for those people on the periphery. A death and all that surrounds it should, in my view, be a short, sharp, shock that will bring all the emotion to the surface, yet be over and done with as soon as practical.
Watching a good friend be buried and watching the dynamic of two families each grieving in their own way and witnessing the inevitable conflict created by such raw emotions, and of contrasting traditions, ideals, beliefs and perceptions has brought me to a solitary salient point. I will not die without leaving specific and exacting instructions as to how I am to be laid to rest.
These instructions (which I will later formalize and place with my final Will and Testament) will be my final act of rational selfishness. I will design the service and procedures not only with absolute adherence to my beliefs and ideals, but also with an eye to lessening the suffering of those closest to me.
The friend we buried this week was the wife of my best friend, and I watched him go through the hell made up of our societies standard rituals of death and burial for five days. There was the viewing and the funeral, the burial and a reception, and from start to end a long procession of people showing up on his doorstep to offer their sympathies to "see how he was doing".
The entire process seemed to me to be a tortuous pouring of salt in a fresh wound. It demanded all his strength and all his attention, so that he might (perversely) stand straight and tall while people reminded him that he was hurting and that half of his life had been taken from him.
With this in mind I would save my loved ones such a drawn out process.
I would disallow any sort of visitation. I will not make my wife or children sit in the same room as my dead corpse while people wander past to do little more than convince themselves that I'm dead, or worse yet to satisfy a morbid fascination of seeing me so.
I would eliminate the funeral service. The useful parts of it will be handled during the burial and I see absolutely no reason to have someone who doesn't know me lead my friends and family in remembrances of my life.
At the funeral I will act (in absentia) as the one leading the ceremony though a chosen voice, most likely a close friend who will read my final statements. People will be asked to form a procession and say their goodbyes at this point over my grave and then the entire funeral party will retire to a selected location for a
They say funerals are for the living, but from what I have seen they are certainly not for the dearly departed's closest survivors, but more for those people on the periphery. A death and all that surrounds it should, in my view, be a short, sharp, shock that will bring all the emotion to the surface, yet be over and done with as soon as practical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
