Thursday, May 19, 2011
He infected seven women, of which two died.
Although the murder verdict is to be welcomed - it's the first of its kind - one has to wonder what his girlfriends were thinking. Were they not aware of the risk they were taking? Or were they simply trying so hard not to be "racist" that they forgot to ask if he was, as many Sub-Saharan Africans are, HIV positive?
Still, he is removed from the general populace now and is, at least in theory, no longer a threat to society.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
The essence of the piece is that immigration is more costly than beneficial to Canada, and that certain policies need to be changed to redress this.
On Tuesday, this one was published. Saying much the same thing. According to the authors of a Fraser Institute report,
there are "popular propositions" about the benefits of immigration: Young immigrants pay taxes that support social services for Canada's aging population; immigrants fill the low-paying jobs that others do not seem to want; Canadians are ennobled by allowing people to share in the country's economic riches; immigration enriches the cultural life of Canadians, and future generations end up repaying their parents' debt by earning an average or above-average living in the long run.
Mr. Grubel and economic consultant Patrick Grady argue, however, that these benefits either do not hold up to close scrutiny or that they are simply not worth the economic cost.
Never a truer word, etc.
It's surprising how persistent some myths are. Yes, young immigrants help out, but they get older. And their parents and grandparents, already of the age to begin draining the system, often follow them.
They work low-paying jobs, but many Canadians are unemplyed, so it's not that nobody in Canada is available to do them.
It's a form of 'charity' to allow people to live in Canada? Yes, it is. But such generosity needs limits, or else it becomes a drain on people's goodwill, and creates resentments that should not be there.
Immigration enriches Canadian culture? Well, that's highly subjective. Sometimes it does, often it doesn't. I wonder how I am an 'enriching' Canada at times. By being an English-speaking pro-democracy, pro-freedom taxpaying citizen I guess. But culturally? not really.
The best part of the article is a quote from a Douglas Cannon, a "prominent BC based immigration lawyer" (ha! no conflict of interest there, then), who says:
"Immigration is, in the end, about people and their futures, their dreams, their hopes -- how can you put a dollar amount on that?" he said. "It's about continuing to make Canada a place of opportunity."
Well, he clearly puts a dollar amount on it - unless he works for free (hahahahahahahahahaha).
I'm all for Canada being a place for people to fulfill their dreams, unless of course those dreams include living off other people's hard-earned taxes, spreading medieval beliefs and practices to an unsuspecting populace, or committing crimes and violence against the very Canadians who have opened their arms to newcomers.
The smartest suggestion from the FI report is undoubtedly the recommendation that:
Immigrants may have their parents and grandparents join them as landed immigrants in Canada only after posting a bond to cover payments for health care and other social benefits.Simple, yet genius.
This has been doing the rounds!
As I commented at one site:
It's so important to have these interviews, both for people like Luan who need to have their insane ideas exposed to the real world to see the reactions from normal people, and also for normal people to see what kind of beliefs are 'trendy' at our higher institutions of learning.
She seemed far more interested in getting Brian to accept her definition of words than to actually argue her case. Says it all really - vacuous nonsense.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Denmark becomes a model for European immigration law.
the country has cracked down on people using marriage as a means of gaining access to Denmark.
Laws now stipulate that for marriages involving a Dane and a non-EU or non-Nordic citizen both parties have to be aged over 24 and the Dane must be independent of government aid.
All this has led to the number of asylum seekers in Denmark falling by two-thirds in the last five years.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Hari is very much of the "Western policy creates jihadism" school of "thought" and isn't shy about saying so.
"The West reacted to 9/11 by giving Bin Laden precisely what he wanted. We tossed aside our best values. And each time we did it, the number of jihadis grew."When your enemy wants to be martyred for his vile cause, it is only a pleasure to give him precisely what he wants. But nevermind.
He is circumspect about Bin Laden's death:
The operation wasn't perfect: I would much rather Bin Laden had been taken alive and put on trial. But it was a precise raid. It took real risks to minimise civilian deaths. Most people in the world can support an action such as this.Which is an acceptable enough opinion - leaving aside the pious, left-wing platitude in bold.
Hari readily accepts the words of Bin Laden's son, who parrots the favourite (and false) left wing opinion that,
"my father was so happy. This is the kind of president he needs, one who will attack and spend money and break [his own] country".Which is outright nonsense. I remember George W. Bush's election campaign - his platform was one of the most non-interventionist in living memory. Wikipedia quotes him as saying:
"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."And he would have done, were it not for 9/11. So, while Bin Laden "succeeded" in reversing this policy, it is Bush who is responsible for the ensuing aggression?
Who exactly was it who awakened the sleeping giant?
At this point I should add that I am in favour of the scalpel over the sledgehammer, but for pragmatic, not moral reasons. I would like each and every dictator on the planet trembling in his boots at the thought of a scud missile dropping on his head over breakfast, rather than having time to construct and elaborate system of human shields and underground bunkers.
Nonintervention with the explicit threat of quick and excruciatingly painful intervention would be a far more cost-effective strategy for the West, and strategic assassination is something everybody can get on board with.
So, Hari is partly right, even though he doesn't quite "get it":
"For the past decade, right-wingers have been chest-thumping about being tough on jihadism, while promoting policies that create far more jihadis."
Jihadis create jihadis. These are people who commit murder over cartoons. Over events in countries they've never been to. They burn flags of countries they've never heard of. They are not experts on U.S. foreign policy.
"If you really hate jihadism," he continues (without adding whether or not he does) "then you need to search for the policies that actually undermine it."
Mines spring to mind. Then comes the money quote:
"The single most important thing we can do is to make a key structural change in our societies,"
Ahh. Yes, if only we weren't the way we are, the jihadists would leave us alone. After all, they've just defending themselves, right? So what is this key structural change?
"breaking our addiction to oil. Today, we need the petrol from the Middle East to keep the wheels of our civilisation turning and that sets up an inevitable conflict."
He is again partly right. But for the wrong reason. Yes our need for ME oil is bad, because it concentrates wealth in the sandier parts of the Islamic world, and let's the jihadist tail wag the Muslim dog.
Why "inevitable conflict"? we relied on Japan for our cars and TVs for years with no conflict. Without recognising jihadism as the problem, Hari is doomed to see Western policy as the instigator of all Islamic ills. Indeed, he is left with the following conclusion:
"If we follow instead a path of precisely targeting the jihadis while being generous and open to the rest of the world, they will wither."Is that a promise?
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Other are less so, however. Exhibit A is my favourite bunch of mad Marxists, those folks at Rabble.ca
One article has the dazzlingly stupid headline:
"Canada has fallen into the hands of Harper majority government. It is hard to imagine a worse outcome for the 2011 election, over-shadowing the magnificent victory of the NDP in Quebec where 59 New Democrats were elected (out of a total of 75)."Oh how terrible! People voted and got the government they wanted! Left wing contempt for ordinary voters still knows no bounds, clearly.
More scaremongering comes from another rabbler, whose article "Raise a Little Hell" tells us:
I am filled with fear by what a Conservative majority will mean for the issues I care about. The hopes of passing legislation on a tanker ban, on close containment fish farms, on trans* rights, and on climate change have been dashed. Instead we are faced with an uncertain future for national icons like the CBC, our public health-care system, and for the status of women.It's always worth gloating at moments like these, but also sitting back and surveying the ignorance on display.
Judy Rebick says:
True an NDP opposition is a major improvement over a Liberal opposition but a majority government that barely listened to the Opposition when it was in the minority will ignore the Opposition in majority.Yes, the party that bent over backwards to gain the support of the opposition, and got a stab in the back for its troubles, is now free to tell them to take a hike. And yet, in victory, Harper still found the resolve and the goodwill to offer the olive branch to his losing opponents - or at least their voters. Would the NDP have done the same?
"Jack Layton and much of his caucus are strong feminists."In the light of revelations about Mr.Layton's choice of massage parlour, it may be true that he believes women should have a stronger hand in government.
And the Babblers (i.e. the various sociopathic loons who hang around on Rabble.ca's discussion forum)?
The only one I'm going to comment on is this one:
"and remember the cons only got 40% of 61 % of votes"Which is, for a Leftie, unusually true, except that it can be argued, imho, that to not vote is always to vote with the majority. That 40% is a 79% - sorry, but if you don't vote, you cast yours in silence.
Here are some of their "thoughts":
"A culture of resistance is now what is needed."
"ashamed of my country."
"I'm so disgusted with my neighbours right now..."
"Serious subversion is called for. Sneaky and smart. Switchgrass roots."
"I'm ashamed of my province"
"armed demonstrations might be the way to go."
"Waiting til 2015 to vote the Tories out of office is a recipe for demoralization and defeat. We need to start mobilizing resolute opposition in the streets, in workplaces, on campuses -- not rely on the NDP in the House of Commons with their "leave it to us" stance.
To fight the Tories, we need a left that sees collective action in struggle as essential and doesn't reduce politics to elections."
Murray Dobbin's malicious rant borders on the libellous:It remains to be seen whether or not Harper actually wants to stay around for another election to win it (and therefore not go too far in a first term), and solidify the dominance of his party as the new "natural governing party." Or whether, as his personality disorder would suggest, he will in a spirit of vengeance against the country he detests, dismantle as much of the post-war social contract he can in four years of virtually absolute power.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Modern liberalism thrives by using America’s past hypocrisies as leverage against the timeless principles of freedom today. It is a liberalism of “moral” leverage and muscle, not a discipline of principle. It bullies freedom with the idea of an impossible innocence. Yet it takes its fire from one idea above all others: that it is the answer to America’s characterological evil. But neither evil nor innocence is the whole American truth. The civil rights movement did not succeed because America finally became innocent; it succeeded because America finally became principled.