Most new jobs taken by migrants. And so?

The BBC reports that more than half of the jobs created since 1997 in the UK have been taken up by migrant workers. This won't be good news for the Government, who have enjoyed an immigration record that resembles a tragicomedy. This, however, is no big deal. There are still vacancies for Brits and if we have a look at the top 20 occupations (still by the BBC) the picture isn't bleak at all. Most new arrivals do jobs that many Brits frown upon, or wouldn't really want to do if benefits pay just fine.

These guys aren't really stealing your City jobs and the good-paying ones, are they? Those who are still young or of working age and complain might as well get into some education or training and get into those jobs where they won't face the migrants' competition. It's the "get going" stimulus. In extreme cases it is called "head extraction from backside" and it is a benefit to society.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7069779.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5273976.stm

Where's her brain?

One seriously wonders how Marois' neurons are wired, because despite being attacked from all sides and blatantly going against common sense she perseveres in her insanity, going head-on against Charest, claiming she isn't intolerant but a "democratic person" who wants to have that debate (on law 195).

Enough discussion on law 195. Pauline Marois is demonstrating a lack of commonsense and totalitarian apartheid-like tendencies that probably stem from some kind of frustration. If this is true, someone please send her some chocolate! She might have taken example from the wackos who showed up at the Bouchard-Taylor hearings suggesting only french-speakers should be entitled to free Quebec healthcare and other drivel.

This means she's going after the most unrecommendable bunch of voters there can be. This might win her a few seats but will be a catastrophe for a province that needs skilled immigration if it wants to survive at all.

StatsCan reports that the net outflow from Quebec is highest since the year of the sovereignty referendum. Please, someone in the PQ pop their head out, open their eyes and take the hint!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/10/29/qc-quebecmigration1029.html

Pauline, take a piece of advice. The group you are brown-nosing to is not a voter platform one can be proud of, let alone court. If anything parties should unite to inculcate some intelligence into those heads reverberating with dull and sinister hollowness. Have you still got anyone whose IQ is above 1 supporting you?

Please think. It's something you haven't been doing for a few days.

Communism stems from skin boils

Marx had a chronic skin condition with known psychological effects. A condition that causes scarring, inflammation, discomfort and pain. This caused ample frustration that Marx vented in his correspondence. I suppose he developed communism so he could lash out at the bourgeoisie without people getting bored of his rantings.

It is official: Communism is the result of vented frustration caused by skin boils. No wonder it's unworkable. And you thought it had anything to do with improving the condition of mankind?

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL3067539420071030?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Premier speaks, doesn't say enough.

In a somewhat unsurprising move Jean Charest intervened directly in the debate over reasonable accommodation, to salvage the salvageable bits of Quebec's reputation of tolerance and openness. The Bouchard-Taylor talking shop, better defined a circus by now, has been an unfathomable failure, providing a relief valve for many people's repressed bigotry, ignorance and hate of anything that's not like them. If anything, the commission's conclusion should be that the greatest problem aren't the immigrants but some Quebecers' heads.

For the sake of Quebec's reputation and everyone's mental health please pull the plug on that commission right now, or bring it to Montreal and then pull it.

Lashing out at law 195 comes a little late. As Premier he should have condemned such a proposal the very second Pauline Marois pulled it out of her backside. Rather than promoting a culture, this law creates a government-imposed one, with severe punishment (privation of rights) for those who do not accept it. Unless one comes from Cuba or North Korea I think anyone would shiver at the thought of such an aberration.

It sounds like the whole province is going nuts. Charest should know that there's no problem a cup of tea can't solve. However he mostly lashes out at the other parties for "fanning the flames". He's not completely wrong, but the letter becomes just another bit of fire and political machination. It's time to call a tea break in this acrimonious debate. Pull the BT commission, get rid of law 195 and just all shut up for a month, take the time to learn the lessons from this debacle and do some self-analysis. Then start over.

As a responsible Premier, Charest should have done just that. Instead, he produced just another half-baked invitation to be more polite and restrained.

PQ plus royaliste que le roi.

Some commonsense from those who are charged with overseeing French in Quebec: immigrants shouldn't be forced to learn French (CBC). Preserving a language can't be done through coercion and punitive laws. That's just a way to get the language hated and drive people away from Quebec. The PQ's dictatorial stance on this issue is unjustifiable, yet they still try to defend Bill 195 despite the failings in the French teaching system.

Personally I'd love to learn to speak French better, but I haven't got enough opportunities and time. Does this make me a bad student immigrant?

Come on, pequistes! The intelligent people in the province, all other political parties and even the language watchdog are against you. Plus royaliste que le roi, eh?

Viruses to cure cancer

Scientists have reported having engineered very potent viruses to target exclusively cancer cells and cause them to die (from the Globe and Mail). This is another demonstration of the power of biotechnology and the endless therapeutic opportunities it offers.

But I say tread carefully, for the world of viruses is very murky and they are darn smart and flexible beasts. Many of them can mutate very fast, so tight safety must be in place. Results are promising, but one shouldn't rush into human trials straight away, at least not before having ruled out the possibility of mutations that would make the virus deadly. Keep in mind it is a smallpox virus they're tinkering with. Some viruses can even act as carcinogenic agents themselves. There's a whole world out there and we've just peeked through a hole in the curtain.

Again, I will reiterate the essential role PR and communication play in science: this discovery could save lives, but it needs to be communicated and promoted openly and appropriately. Please spare us the company marketing of the sort we've seen with a completely different class of product, Gardasil.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/26/cancer-virus.html

Iraqi insurgents clash. No US victims. Good!

That's some good news at last: the bad guys in Iraq shoot the crap out of eachother. About time it started. Groups linked to Al-Qaeda were set on by Sunni insurgents and got their backsides kicked. And reports have it that some insurgent groups are actually cooperating with US forces with fighting against Qaedists. (Source: Reuters).

This is another show of the dis-unity of the insurgence and the different souls of Iraqi anti-US fighting. I don't know what the Pentagon strategists are planning, I would recommend a nice "divide and rule" approach. Let the insurgents nail the Qaedists, then have the various rival groups fight until both are too exhausted to oppose any resistance to the US Army. Surely any of these groups, when taken separately, would gladly throw grenades at any vehicle bearing the US flag. Why not let them use those grenades on eachother while watching from a distance munching popcorn?

Once an insurgent always an insurgent, at least don't risk US men when ridding Iraq of that plague. Dividi et Impera: worked for the Romans, will work again.

If discrimination doesn't pay let the market act!

Barbara Hall presents us in today's online Globe and Mail with a very interesting opinion on the nature of human rights and their importance. Despite agreeing with many of her points, I feel she places too much emphasis on legislation and not enough on the individual and the distinction between right and freedom.

While it is true that many episodes of intolerance stem from prejudice and stereotypes, the point Hall seems to be pursuing is the need for state legislation and its enforcement. I disagree. It is the duty of the State to promote a peaceful and cohese society through education and awareness campaigns, a.k.a information. It is not the duty of the State to dictate people's behavior. There is the justice system to deal with the infringement of people's rights such as harassment, racism, bullying and other kinds of physical, verbal or psychological violence.

A formal and legal hierarchy of rights is not the mistake Hall presents it as. It would merely be a statement that certain rights that everyone is entitled to override the freedoms that certain groups can claim. For instance demanding that the local school serve halal meals is a reasonable request, however there should be no imposition on the school to do so. Enrolment of the child in the school implied acceptance of the terms (i.e. the school doesnt serve halal), while prior to enrolment the parent can choose a school based on that criterion or choose to supply the child with a home-prepared lunch. This is an option that allows parents to prevent their children pigging out on unhealthy food in the school lunchroom.

The above is just an illustrative example of how the right of others to choose what to serve (and any other choices they may make) cannot be trumped by demands stemming from a privately held belief. Needless to say in a true choice system schools failing to meet customers' demands will see less enrolment from those particular groups.

Hall's further elucidation on equal treatment not resulting in equal opportunities contains a few fallacies as well. It is not true that a company's policy banning religious garments will deny opportunities to Muslim women who choose to wear headscarves. A company is a private institution, and as such has the right to impose any policy it wishes. Being employed by this company is a rational choice people make and implies acceptance of the rules. As much as employing a person is a decision which is entirely up to the boss. In a true free market system discriminatory bosses would exclude talented individuals from their company and ultimately be overwhelmed by more talented competition, or be boycotted by rights-conscious consumers.

In the public sector, in any case, equality must be strictly enforced because the State has no right to discriminate against those who pay taxes just like everyone else. This equality however cannot trump other people's rights and choices. This difficulty in balancing rights and freedoms is exactly why the public sector should be reduced as much as possible, leaving the maximum space for an efficient competitive market.

I am first in line saying that discrimination is evil and merit and equality should be valued. But I also believe the market is the best enforcer of equality because it drives uneconomic and unviable choices (such as discrimination) to open failure. If Quebec passes the ridiculous PQ law it will drive skilled immigrants to other provinces, thus draining skill from Quebec and leading the province to decline and the PQ to failure.

Human rights advocates, as Hall says, still have a long way to go before achieving the society they envision. However I propose their focus be on education and promotion of awareness rather than legislation. Let the market fail out the discriminators.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071026.wcomment1026/BNStory/National/home

It'll take longer, but don't give up!

As much as one can't spend his way out of trouble, there's no magic wand to fix any problem overnight. CBC reports Gen. Rick Hillier giving a longer timescale for building up an efficient Afghan army to protect the security of the most rebellious provinces and guaranteeing efficient government control over the whole territory.

This does not surprise me, although it will disappoint any optimists who still saw a successful end to the Afghanistan mission in the short term. The country has been torn by conflict for decades, and the transition from being a country at war to being a country at peace is usually difficult. Even in economic and social terms conflict is a powerful destroyer. A war society is likely to be founded on an individual's survival and present safety, with a more short-term focus. Long-term investment and faith in the future tend to be relegated to lower positions on the priority list. That's at least how I see it.

One of the duties of the mission (explicit or implied) was to begin helping people regain confidence in lasting absence of conflict and danger. Many of us, I suppose, would testify that for one to regain our lost trust is quite a difficult process. Imagine how hard it could be for an abstract notion such as "lack of conflict".

The loyalty structure of Afghan society, imho, doesn't help either. From my knowledge tribal and ethnic loyalties tend to be prioritized, possibly followed by local and individual ones. Rebuilding a functioning, present and trusted State in what decades of conflict and volatility turned into quite a civic wasteland will require decades, and training up an army is just the beginning.

Despite all difficulties, we have a duty towards the Afghans. We took up the call to come in and help them. Whatever defects some, and only some of them may display we cannot abandon them before being sure their country can run itself one way or another. Otherwise they'll once again be left alone in the face of greater dangerous power games.

The combat mission must end if this is the will of the Government and Parliament. However, I think Canada should not disengage from Afghanistan. Setting up a big military training centre in a safer area, beefing it up with training personnel and getting down to improving the throughput would be an excellent step in the right direction.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/10/25/hillier-afghan-mission.html?ref=rss

Throne Speech passes, Dion's time passes too.

With the Throne Speech passed and the Liberals scared of the election the Conservatives can now get all the legislation Canadians are positive about approved whether the Liberals want it or not. If Dion wants the government to fall on a bill then the Tories will be wise enough to push through these popular laws first and foremost, and fast if they don't want to allow the Liberals the time to regroup.

When it's time for the Liberals to call it quits it will definitely be on a bill which appeals to Conservative principles, on which the Tories are confident of winning over people's minds. Overall the Liberals' credibility is rock bottom, as is their integrity. I feel sorry for Stephane Dion because he might have bought his party some time, but he is not likely to receive thank-you cards anytime soon. Nor is he likely to become Prime Minister as he so adamantly admitted wanting to during his flip-flop speech on the motion. Nor is he likely to be remembered in history books or be cited as a great politician.

Stephen Harper, on the other hand, will probably be quoted as one of the greatest political strategists of the decade. Proud to support him!