To aid or not to aid…

In the latest issue of Saint Mary’s University student newspaper The Journal, the age old feel-good issue of sending aid to Africa appears to be alive and well:

So what should Canada be doing to keep its promise? … to increase and provide more effective aid to developing countries, implement debt relief, and fairer trade rules in advance of 2015… In order for Canada to do its part and provide effective foreign aid, the government must reach the UN target of giving 0.7% of the national income (GNI) to foreign aid, and enact BillC-293 to make ending poverty the exclusive goal of Canadian foreign aid.

The issue normally brought up is whether or not this aid will actually work. According to some, aid sent to Africa will not only fail to work, but will actually make things worse:

[E]vidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that aid to Africa has made the poor poorer, and the growth slower. The insidious aid culture has left African countries more debt-laden, more inflation-prone, more vulnerable to the vagaries of the currency markets and more unattractive to higher-quality investment.

Government corruption and the existence of totalitarian regimes in Africa are the root cause:

The most obvious criticism of aid is its links to rampant corruption. Aid flows destined to help the average African end up supporting bloated bureaucracies in the form of the poor-country governments and donor-funded non-governmental organizations.

The article lists many disturbing examples of corruption and failure, and I urge everybody to read them all. Unfortunately there are too many to list without copy-and-pasting the entire article.

On a side note, does anyone remember the One Laptop Per Child campaign? Yuck. The Dalhousie University student newspaper The Gazette recently had an opinion editorial on the campaign and its failure:

I imagine that brightly coloured laptops sit in a small closet in rural Africa and slowly collect dust as the days pass. The school that owns them cannot secure power to recharge their batteries, the broken dreams of a grand philanthropist idea that was supposed to revolutionize the world.

Read Full Post »

Free speech takes a hit in B.C.

Recently I was browsing through the Halifax Metro newspaper, and was disappointed to read this short little article:

What’s beyond belief is that this is a news story to begin with. For one, it’s sad that a B.C. chief is picking on a blogger. What’s more sad is that his words are considered “inflammatory and discriminatory” to aboriginal people.

Apparently it’s a “slap in the face of First Nations people” to list off some of the many things the Europeans brought to Canada. Let me be the first to support Rachel Marsden – for free speech, and for being right.

Read Full Post »

So a seal walks into a club…

So the star of one of my guilty pleasures is creating a hubbub about the seal hunt. Barf. Fortunately someone isn’t so naive:

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Gail Shea called Anderson’s remarks disappointing and suggested she spend time with East Coast sealers to understand the hunt’s importance.

“Hollywood celebrities are not going to dictate policy in Canada because we make decisions that are based on science and consultation with Canadians,” Shea said in a telephone interview.

One of the biggest arguments I hear from hippies that vehemently oppose the seal hunt is that they are cute and that they kill baby seals. In the world of make-believe, even facts don’t take the hysteria out of their argument.

Anderson said baby seals are bludgeoned in front of their mothers before they have their first swim, but Shea said the killing of baby seals hasn’t been practised in Canada since the early ’80s. Activists focus on it because it tugs at the heart strings, Shea said.

I love you Pam, but you’re not exactly the sharpest Crayon in the box.

Read Full Post »

SMU Professor calls to repeal section 13

In the latest issue of the Saint Mary’s University student newspaper The Journal, professor Mark Mercer writes about the current censorship issue in Canada; in particular, section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The article outlines recent happenings surrounding the unpopular section, and the problems that come with reforming or revising section 13. Mr. Mercer instead suggests repealing it, as many are advocating:

Improved censorship is still censorship; improved censorship will no more serve the interests of society’s marginal or vulnerable than the old censorship did; improved censorship will still be the enemy of discussion, candour, and autonomy; improved censorship will still be the friend of identity politics and the cult of victimization.

Similar to the call by Blazing Cat Fur, Mr. Mercer prescribes the most effective way to win the battle of free speech in Canada:

Canadians must present to their elected representatives the case for making Canada a free and open society, The justice committee of the House of Commons began meetings on [October 5] to consider section 13. The wicked are eager to embrace revisions and reforms. In response, we must press our members of parliament to delete the section entirely and put the censors out of business for good.

It’s also worth mentioning the amazing speeches by Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, located here. Watch or listen to a very well crafted argument and be prepared to be either reassured or converted into a soldier of free speech!

Read Full Post »

New smoking ban is absurd

It started with the ban on smoking in bars and taverns, followed by the ban on smoking within 10 meters of buildings. Now you’re not even allowed to smoke in open spaces. I highlighted the important parts of this article and they really do speak for themselves – no commentary is necessary.

Halifax Regional Council voted to ban smoking in hundreds of new outdoor areas across the Halifax Regional Municipality last night.

It was done to protect children from second-hand smoke, though kids don’t need to be present at the time.

Council chose to enact the new ban through a policy rather than a bylaw. That means it is implemented immediately without public consultation.

Many councillors said they’d like to go even further, with Debbie Hum (Rockingham-Wentworth) saying she’d like to ban smoking altogether.

Staff admitted rigorous enforcement of the new policy wouldn’t be possible and it would instead depend on public education.

A TV report on the ban today showed a parent at a park with her child, saying that she doesn’t like people at the park “blowing smoke in their children’s face”, and that before she couldn’t do anything about it. She then exlaims “But now I can!”. The amount of things wrong with this astounds me.

First of all, unless there is absolutely no breeze, your child is not going to be breathing in smoke. Besides the fact that smoke rises, an adult is much taller than a child. Is the smoke going to drift downward somehow?

Secondly, she’s clearly depending on the government to do the parenting for her. You don’t need a new policy to speak your mind to people around you: if you don’t like smokers in the area so much, ask them to smoke elsewhere. In any case, if someone was purposely blowing smoke in my child’s face – well, let’s just say they wouldn’t be smoking near children again any time soon. People need to learn some personal responsibility.

For more smoking absurdities, check out my previous posts on the subject:

September 1, 2009: Some laws just don’t make sense

September 2, 2009: Smoke up, Johnny! Signed, the government.

September 3, 2009: Maclean’s mentions the cover up

Read Full Post »

Hippies at it again

From the Financial Post:

EDMONTON – Greenpeace activists who stopped two huge conveyor belts that feed a Suncor upgrader on Wednesday breached the site north of Fort McMurray by floating down the Athabasca River.

…

A few weeks ago Greenpeace protesters chained themselves to heavy machinery at Shell’s Muskeg River oilsands mine for 30 hours.

I have to say, Pat Nelson sums up my thoughts quite well:

Last week, Pat Nelson, a former Alberta energy minister who now is vice-chairwoman of the In Situ Oil Sands Alliance, told an oilsands conference in Edmonton that the Greenpeace incursion at Shell was “an act of violence against our livelihoods and reputation, and our future. And a total disregard for the laws of Alberta, all for the sole purpose of making headlines.”

In other news, the Denmark Greenpeace organization have recently got themselves into legal trouble:

In a court verdict on Friday, 10 June, the environmental organisation Greenpeace Nordic was sentenced to pay 30.000 Danish kroner (4.000 €) for being the responsible organisation behind a group of activists, who had climbed to the top of the headquarters of the Danish Agriculture Council in the centre of Copenhagen on 13 October 2003. Having barricaded the entrance with heavy chains and locks they hoisted a banner denouncing the use of GMO food.

Even though they clearly violated private property rights, Greenpeace seems baffled and appaled at the verdict:

“The fine is big for an organisation like ours, who only funds our work through voluntary contributions from individuals. This verdict shows with great clarity that the politicians and others, who expressed concern that the terror law could also be used to other things than to deal with international terrorism, were right. The verdict is a break with the fundamental principals in a democratic society where the individual is responsible for their own actions. This case means that collective punishment have been introduced in Denmark.”

Read Full Post »

The thought monopoly of Academia

This short and sweet post by Big Blue Wave got me thinking about the unfortunate ruling of academia by the left, and the stifling effects on the diversity of thought. Many times I have made posters and fliers asking for the help of students to create a conservative society at my university, but in the end didn’t post them up as I had hoped. It’s not that I’m particularly lazy or apathetic, but the pointlessness of even trying to promote conservatism at a university always gets to me.

I can’t say for certain, but I honestly believe if I posted conservative related fliers around campus, they would be torn down in no time. Although it would be the students doing it, I guarantee no professor would stop it. That being said, posting more controversial things such as anti-abortion fliers would create a lot more fuss than I care for (I don’t feel like getting expelled, or my genitals cut off by the feminists for that matter). I can honestly say I haven’t ever seen a flier even resembling being written by a conservative. Even pro-Israel posters don’t exist at my school, although pro-Palestine posters are everywhere. Surprised? Me neither.

At the society expo this year, the only political group that bothered with it was the Young New Democrats. I’ve never seen or heard of any conservative society at SMU (and this is my third year), so it wasn’t a surprise to not see the PC Party or the federal Conservative Party being represented. Students aren’t even into the Liberals that much apparently, as they weren’t there this year either. To me this furthers my belief that the only political activists that are able to voice their ideals without persecution is the far-left; even the centre-left seems to have given up. As Big Blue Wave pointed out, to the elite of academia, being “educated” equals believing in the dogma of the left: progressivism.

Of course, progressivism includes the belief that the environment is superior to humanity, that abortion is the greatest thing since sliced bread, that Islam is the greatest religion, and that mediocrity should be strived for, among other things.

In an institution meant to educate people, no one wants to seem “uneducated”, so no one wants to be conservative. It’s a ridiculous statement that somehow still rings true in my head, but I guess that shouldn’t surprise anyone – I’m “unedcuated” after all.

For those who share my thoughts, I suggest watching the wonderful documentary called “Indoctrinate U“. The film explores the strange thought-monopoly that has been plaguing our universities and colleges and I have to say, it’s very well done and very thought provoking. Check it out!

Read Full Post »

Anarchism & Education

In February 2007 I published a small magazine of current affairs opinion pieces, mostly for the experience as well as getting my ideas out to those I could reach. Although I forget the number now, I would estimate about 50 copies were made. Most of those copies were given to family, friends, and the Civitas conference that happened to be in Halifax in May 2007.

I have published a couple articles from this magazine and the LPC newsletter already, but here are a couple scans I thought were still at least decent. The rest is unfortunately anti-conservative at times, but hey, you have to start somewhere! It must be said that the second article is not written by me, however I agree with the overall message that the whole public school system is so rigid that creativity, intellect, and intelligence is no longer rewarded. Sometimes, it’s even punishable behavior. Hooray for progressivism!

The first article is essentially a rant about the comparison of anarchism and libertarianism. Someday I will write about the fact that anarchism is essentially more left-wing than even communism, but in the meantime I would love to hear hear my fellow conservatives’ opinion on both of these (old) articles.

Here is the article written by an at-the-time high school student named Josh Poulain, who actually has described himself as left-wing the last time I spoke with him; if you have issues with the public school system, you must have some conservatism, if you ask me.

Read Full Post »

Maclean’s mentions the cover up

Although I hate beating a dead horse, the latest issue of Maclean’s magazine happens to mention the very issue I have been discussing the last few days. Below is a scan from the “Mail Bag” section:

And a nice little photo with caption to go with it:

As well, there is some great discussion going on here and here, so come join in!

Read Full Post »

Some laws just don’t make sense

Another interesting little fact I forgot to bring up in the last post is that of the government forcing retailers to cover up their cigarettes, which has been in effect in Nova Scotia for the last couple of years. Basically, if you sell cigarettes, you have to put them away in a slide-out shelf and hope your customers know what they want already. It’s not the end of the world, but it’s a disadvantage for both the retailer and the customer. Do they sell cigarettes? Do they sell the brand I want? These are questions smokers never had to bother asking before, and it would be pretty ridiculous if a store did this with any other product.

The idea is to “protect” kids somehow by attempting to fool them into thinking their local convenience store or gas station only sells politically correct products. We may know more than kids, but most kids are not stupid; they know adults get cigarettes from stores, and they know what a pack looks like. What difference does it make if they come into a corner store for a chocolate bar and see cigarettes on the wall behind the cashier? It’s not like the cashier will sell them to the kid (for moral and legal reasons), so who exactly is this law protecting?

Simple answer: the government. It protects their image as a progressive, politically correct administration, and this idea transcends partisan boundaries. These type of laws only still exist because it’s hard to stop or hinder politically correct policies – if a politician suggests reversing these laws, they will be labeled as pro-smoking and therefore “against” the canadian people. Do the majority of Nova Scotians actually think hiding cigarettes and taxing them to death is good for well, anybody? Finally, it’s funny how blunt wraps (which unfortunately Harper wishes to be illegal) are allowed to be shown in stores but cigarettes aren’t. For one they are made out of tobacco just like cigarettes, and secondly let’s just say they’re not generally used for rolling plain old cigars.

Even as someone who often describes himself as a social conservative, I believe stores should be able to sell anything they wish providing it doesn’t harm the public. Some may think showing cigarettes or blunt wraps will hurt the business, but that’s their decision to make, not ours, and certainly not the government’s. That being said, I really cannot think of any real threat those products pose for children in terms of being in plain sight; if anything, these silly laws make tobacco more appealing to rebellious kids, as they are becoming less and less socially acceptable. Apparently, simple logic doesn’t count for much anymore.

Read Full Post »