turningrite

Only a day late, but pretty close. I wonder if she's ever heard about the incident cited in Canuck100's post a couple hours ago?

Ideally, the WTO regime needs to be reformed, however if that's not possible Western countries should withdraw from the WTO and form a new organization which others could join if they agree to the rules. China's ongoing "developing economy" status has rendered the WTO regime impractical. How can an economy that will soon be the world's largest be allowed to set its own rules and protect its own industries and markets while its major competitors can't do so? I don't think Trump understands much about economics but I think he does have a good read on the trade problem with China. A concerted Western effort to address the issue would I think have been more productive and useful. But if Trump can negotiate major concessions from China perhaps they will serve as a model for broader reforms and, ultimately, his approach might be faster. Our PM is hopeless and I doubt has any stomach for a trade battle with China, so let's see what Trump can do.

Who, exactly, is whining? Certainly not me, as Eyeball seems to imply, mainly I think because it's convenient for him to believe this. I think it's time to seize the opportunity to move on and get religion out of the public realm altogether.

1.) It might help your argument if you didn't make things up to justify your apparently inflammatory opinions. Simply observing that Christmas decorations are no longer put up in venues where they were once commonplace doesn't substantiate your world view. If you'd actually read and understood my comment, you'd see that I use the incident not to lament the loss of Christmas traditions but to encourage the adoption of secularism. We Westerners seem to be adapting quite well to our diminishing demographic and cultural dominance. It seems that many others, however, are quite insecure. Maybe you should read the comment posted by Canuck100 about an hour ago. 2.) Secularism is the only effective antidote to religious chauvinism. People can worship in whatever fashion they wish in private or in their own religious institutions. Otherwise, diversity requires a common public ethos in order to succeed and the only one available where religion is concerned is secularism.

I hadn't even heard about this incident until reading your post. And then I tried to find it online. There's international and American coverage but I couldn't find it on a single Canadian MSM site. It led me to wonder what the response would have been had a Christian religious leader made such a similarly inflammatory comment about acknowledging or accommodating, say, Islam? My guess is that it would have been a lead story on Canadian sites and prompted vociferous condemnation by the "diversity" crowd, including politicians. But comparing the use of the salutation 'Merry Christmas' to murder, or worse, seems to pass under the radar. Apologists will no doubt say that those who espouse such views in the name of religion are merely "evolving" and we shouldn't be worried. But it seems to me that we're allowing a dangerous form of cultural relativism to become entrenched. In my opinion, it provides more justification to adopt an explicit policy of official secularism.

American immigration is largely successful. One of the reasons is that immigrants are eligible for far fewer social benefits than is the case in many other Western immigrant receiving countries, including Canada. Immigrants who enter the U.S. quickly become net contributors to the tax base and by-and-large tend to enthusiastically integrate into the American mainstream. Also, on a per capita basis the U.S. accepts far fewer "regular" (i.e. legal) immigrants each year than does Canada. Were Canada to adjust its immigration intake to match the American level it would accept about two-thirds fewer immigrants than it does at present. Even after adjusting for higher Canadian emigration (those born in Canada who leave) and remigration (immigrants who leave) rates, our immigration intake would have to be cut roughly in half to match the American net regular migration level. Were Canada to adopt American-style immigration policies, "progressives" would no doubt be horrified: Reduced numbers would be met with cries of xenophobia. The expectation of integration would be cast as amounting to cultural brutality. The lack of broad access to publicly funded benefits, including health care, would be deemed inhumane. And the expectation that immigrants pay their own way essentially from arrival would no doubt be categorized as abominable. Well, you get the picture. American economists have every reason to tout the success of that country's immigration program. It attracts the most ambitious from around the world and offers them very little other than the opportunity to succeed on their own, which most do. Its intake levels are very modest (in comparison to Canada's) and respond to the country's actual economic conditions. It encourages integration into a society that considers itself a "melting pot" and expects overarching allegiance to American values. The main criticism, even among economists, is that American immigration is too heavily focused on family reunification and too little on skilled migrants. But its system is in many respects fundamentally different from those in Canada and several Western European countries. If we could adopt much of America's immigration strategy tomorrow, tweaking it to meet our own needs, mainly to facilitate the entry of specific categories of workers to match actual labour market needs, I and many other critics of our immigration system would view it as an improvement. But it won't happen unless we see major political change in Ottawa. Our current policies and practices are based on unicorns, lollipops, blithe assumptions and endless subsidies. Come back here and tout American immigration policy once our system has adopted its productive characteristics.

Nice try. But sorry to tell you that you've utterly misrepresented my position. I've noted that the real danger of the UN Compact for Migration is domestic, or regional in the case of the EU. Under international law, which has since the 17th century been governed by the "Westphalian sovereignty" principle, such pacts are voluntary and non-binding. Their efficacy rests on the willingness of signatory states to in good faith observe their provisions. The great powers, the U.S., China and Russia, routinely eschew any notion that their sovereignty be undermined and in this case gave the migration pact a big swerve. But some democracies, notably Australia and Italy, also refused to sign the thing, noting that its provisions were/are inconsistent with their policies and practices. Why be hypocritical, then, and sign something they have no intention of or interest in implementing? This brings us to Western democracies that did sign it. Merkel indicated in the Bundestag that Germany sees it as a mechanism to bring the broader EU, and particularly smaller and poorer states which have been reluctant to accept Germany's migration agenda, into compliance with Germany's immigration policies and practices. Once approved by a majority of states, she has stated, the pact's provisions will become "valid" throughout the EU. And countries like Sweden and Britain, which already accord migrants significant social benefits, no doubt want to see a reduction in the kind of "benefits shopping" which attracts migrants to their shores. But Canada? We already grant immigrants and refugees most of the benefits compelled by the pact, thus rendering our support for it more ideological than practical. An objective observer must sure be concerned as to whether the intent of the Lib government is to etch in stone its own immigration agenda. Other inherent risks, like that entailed in the pact's endorsement of censorship and propaganda in promoting its objectives, are chilling. But then, our "progressives" seem entirely comfortable with such anti-demographic 'ends justify means' shenanigans. "Deplatforming" and demonizing critics has become part of their repertoire. Should we be giving this kind of nonsense encouragement? Anybody who actually believes in democracy - a messy and inconvenient system, at best - has ample reason to be concerned.

Really? Please identify your sources. I think there's growing proof that economic orthodoxy on immigration isn't supported by evidence in relation to its impacts on post-industrial economies. The British economist and Oxford professor Sir Paul Collier has concluded that immigration doesn't in and of itself promote economic growth insofar as improvement in living standards is concerned. He's pointed out that there are winners and losers, with owners of capital benefiting from reduced wages and greater demand for the products and services they sell while those nearer the bottom of the economic scale suffer as a result of increased competition for employment, housing and access to public services. He also notes that large-scale immigration reduces social cohesion in developed economies as those who pay to support social programs lose interest in paying for services they don't access and in many cases are precluded from accessing. Australia, which has conducted a broad study of its immigration program, which was modeled on Canada's, has concluded that large-scale immigration offers no effective or realistic remedy for the so-called "demographic deficit" generated by falling fertility rates and increasing life expectancy. Canada, predictably, chooses to stick its head in the sand and listen to its bought-and-sold politicians recite babble about immigration that isn't grounded in evidence. We don't monitor economic outcomes for refugees much less subject our broader immigration program to objective analysis. Why bother when politicians can just sell blithe assumptions as good policy?

The systemic problems of modern capitalism are certainly worth discussing. That some governments, including our own, have become so enamored of a form of globalism that seeks the marginalize the ability of nation states to protect their own citizens should cause those who actually believe in democracy to shudder. One of the big concerns about modern capitalism is the decline of actual competition. Monopoly and oligopoly have become its goals. This trend is now being acknowledged by economic analysts in the developed world. Further, the rise of state-sponsored competition from the developing world is exacerbating the situation. I tend to apply Marxian methodology to my analyses of these issues and think it would be helpful were more academics to put aside their prejudices and do so as well. Understanding Marx's views on monopoly capitalism might lead us to find practical solutions to it as it did in the post WWII era when we adopted the mixed-market capitalist model. An incoherent neo-Marxian academic perspective, which I'm sure Marx would abhor, has emerged in the vacuum that since developed. We need to honestly, rationally and intellectually analyze the current economic model before it leads to its logical objective, which is to neutralize democracy.

Polling results have become confusing. While some put the Lib party marginally ahead, a recent poll suggests that Trudeau's personal popularity has declined significantly and now sits at a 35 percent favorable rating (lower than Trump's in the U.S.) compared to a 63 percent unfavorable rating. And let's not forget that several weeks prior to the 2015 election the NDP appeared poised to capture government while Trudeau's Libs looked to be headed back to their seats on the opposition side. In competition with a wooden, over-managed and uncomfortably smiling Mulcair, who hitherto had been one of the most effective opposition leaders since Diefenbaker, Trudeau's burnished, sunny image pushed his party into the lead. But now he's the guy with the baggage. How many voters can be fooled in 2019? It will in my opinion be a much more difficult task for the self-styled emperor with the famous name who has truly demonstrated that he has no clothes (although he does have costumes, as we've realized to our collective embarrassment) to run on image alone this time around. At least most should now understand that budgets don't balance themselves and "sunny ways" can't solve all problems. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/12/19/trudeau-approval-rating-poll_a_23622710/

Trudeau's most admired country, China, and its 'basic dictatorship', have certainly been a disappointment for him. He was snubbed when he traveled there in hopes of opening negotiations on a trade agreement and now he seems resistant to becoming overtly involved in fighting for the freedom of Canadian citizens jailed by the Chinese, likely in retaliation for the Meng extradition arrest. Reportedly, Trudeau did speak about the issue today, days after it became a matter of public concern but didn't seem to say much to reassure anyone a solution is forthcoming. Perhaps it's time that Trudeau admit his China strategy has failed and move on. But he doesn't seem the reflective type. Canada will get nowhere with China via bilateral negotiations. It will have to work closely with other Western countries to set new ground rules to govern the relationship between China and the rest of developed world. The spat over Meng is a sign of a larger problem and illustrates the basic reality that China, probably accurately, views Canada as an American client state, a circumstance that's unlikely to change. The world has changed a lot since Trudeau Sr.'s "North-South" initiative. JT doesn't have the gravitas to be taken seriously on such matters and in any case Canada is now a less influential country than it was in PET's day.

Apparently you don't live in Canada. If you did, you wouldn't have to ask why many people oppose JT. He obtained power in a triumph of image over substance. He tends to mindlessly mimic left-lib ideology without much reference to realities faced by ordinary people on the ground. He's from the elites but mouths his concerns about the struggles faced by the middle class without much detailed understanding or knowledge of those struggles. He's an ardent supporter of globalism without acknowledging its deeply deleterious impacts on developed economies, not the least of which are its impact on the very middle class he purports to favor. He thinks the system just needs a little tweaking, mainly in the form of subsidy programs, to work properly. He's promotes large-scale immigration without acknowledging that statistics strongly suggest the most recent generation of immigrants is underperforming in comparison to previous generations, likely due to that little globalism thing that has served to undermine wages. It's easier for him, however, to challenge concerns about immigration with accusations of racism and/or various phobias, a tactic that's become tiresome. But he soldiers on, repeating bromides about supposed labour shortages, despite stagnant wages, and the need for immigration to address a so-called "demographic deficit," both of which are highly speculative notions. And all of that is just for starters. Trudeau intensely and proudly lacks curiosity, admitting that he doesn't follow the news. His certainty emerges from a preconceived set of beliefs that he simply refuses to subject to criticism or objective analysis. And, to top it all off, he's a terrible communicator who can read prepared and rehearsed speeches but can't think on his feet or coherently speak extemporaneously. I think a more insightful question you might ask is why on earth many voters continue to support Trudeau?

I think you misstate and/or misunderstand his position. According to a recent report in the NP, (link below) a spokesman for Bernier's party made it clear that while Bernier believes in the existence of climate change the party will adopt no policy on the matter, in part because the leader has no expertise on the subject and, further, because he and the party believe actual solutions lie elsewhere, including in the private sector. In fact, centralized climate policy planning doesn't have a very good track record. Aside from setting broad targets during the pre-Trump era, and certainly without centrally imposed carbon taxes, the Americans have substantially left it to individual states to tailor emissions policies and it's my understanding that the American record is better overall than Canada's has been. And private sector actors aren't laggards either. Alberta's oil sands producers, for instance, have significantly reduced carbon emissions per barrel of production over the past couple decades and are on track for further improvement going forward. (See 2nd link, below.) You seem to be operating on the basis of a rather specious and chauvinistic "progressive" assumption that anyone who doesn't fully buy into climate change response orthodoxy is a denier. Perhaps you should broaden your horizons and realize that government cannot alone and by fiat resolve climate issues. https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/maxime-bernier-believes-in-climate-change-but-defends-argument-that-co2-is-just-food-for-plants https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2018/9/oilsands-ghg-intensity-dropping-track-continued-improvement-ihs-markit/

Who? Citation/link please.

To be a secularist doesn't necessarily equate with being an atheist. I was born and raised a Roman Catholic and although I'm not observant I still nominally consider myself to be a Catholic. (Actually, I believe that most Roman Catholics in the West are actually philosophical Protestants, but that's another discussion.) I think religious practice and belief should remain a personal matter. My concern has to do with the broader societal role and protection accorded religion and whether it serves any broadly beneficial purpose. The concept of religiously based "rights and freedoms" is highly problematic when viewed in a rational context. Religion is an institution created by humans and adherence to various strains of it arise from social custom and/or choice rather than out of any kind of biological imperative. In contrast, equality rights related to race, gender, sexual orientation and most forms of disability are grounded in biological or physical characteristics over which one has no choice. Thus, to me, there is no philosophically valid basis on which to justify the notion of religious rights and freedoms. An objective and diverse society should therefore abandon the idea. We should simply allow for freedom of personal conscience and private religious affiliation within the framework of a secular society. I think it would be much healthier to do this than to permit religion a broader and protected role.

PR has nothing to do with republicanism. For instance, forms of it exist under constitutional monarchy, as in Australia and Sweden. Both of these countries are thriving, stable democracies.

Sorry, but I think you've gone off-topic here.

I am a secularist, so I guess I'm the enemy. I think that as the human race evolves the logic and inherent humanity of secularism will increasingly become apparent and displace religious division, superstition and blind devotion. To paraphrase John Lennon, imagine a world without religion.... There'd be far less to kill and die for.

So, you favor the complete secularization of society where religious symbolism and observance is removed from the public sphere? I lean more in that direction as each day passes.

Merkel's and by extension Germany's position on the pact is quite interesting. According to Merkel's response to Hebner in the Bundestag, it appears all EU member states could be bound to recognize the pact's validity once a certain number of states have signed it. Germany has long fought for other EU states to shoulder a bigger share of the burden for accommodating migrants, so if it can work an end-around by means of promoting the Compact for Migration its position may in fact be less altruistic than might otherwise appear to be the case. Why Canada has signed the pact is less clear, other perhaps than for the fact that it largely reflects "progressive"-Lib ideology and, further, promotes the Trudeau government's rather radical (in comparison to most other Western countries) immigration/migration goals. The real concern should be that the main intent is to etch the prog-Lib immigration/migration agenda in stone, which if the case would render it even more problematic.

Who could effectively oppose Trudeau in the next election? At first glance, I thought this was a trick question. It certainly doesn't set a very high bar. But Trudeau is all about image and fluff and he has no equal on these fronts. Sunshine, unicorns and subsidies (i.e. "free" money) funded by endless deficits. What's not to like if you otherwise pay little attention to politics. The real question should be who can effectively attract low-information voters to abandon Trudeau in 2019?

Sorry, but I doubt that you have even the foggiest idea about international relations or international law. To argue that international law is definitionally non-binding, as is generally held to be the case, doesn't equate with the notion that international agreements, treaties and pacts are non-binding on signatory states. If a sovereign state agrees to the terms and conditions of an international pact, as Canada has (stupidly, in my opinion) done by signing the UN pact for migration, the general assumption would be that Canada has agreed to in good faith comply with the terms and conditions of the pact. You should read my posts on Westphalian sovereignty more closely. As for nothing "scary" being included in the UN pact for migration, I guess you're not concerned about the provision that promotes propaganda and censorship. MSM apologists have acknowledged that this stuff is unacceptable for a democracy but believe we can just ignore aspects of the pact that are, well, undemocratic. The clear and present danger, of course, is that the suppression of free speech is entirely consistent with the "progressive" left's preferred approach to achieving its ends. Are you equally as contemptuous of democracy?

And yet it's a system used in many very successful democracies. Democracies that don't use it, including the U.S., Britain and Canada, seem to have a more difficult time engaging voters, perhaps because many believe the mainstream parties offer very little real choice. I have no concerns with permitting a voice to what JT caustically described as "fringe" parties. It's a little thing called democracy, I guess, to which I remain attached. JT had no interest in electoral reform beyond perhaps considering one model, the ranked ballot, which some believe would have favored his party more than any other. Wishful thinking on your part perhaps? What do you know of his scientific literacy? His political acumen will be tested over the coming year. Scheer won the CPC leadership the old-fashioned way, by getting the support of special interests, including the dairy and social conservative lobbies. The latter, in particular, might end up dragging him down, in which case we might have to question his political acumen. Harper knew enough to keep the so-cons out of sight.

I attended a medical appointment earlier today and after so doing dropped into a large food court nearby for lunch. After my attendant, whom I require due to a serious mobility issue, brought my food tray to the table I asked if he noticed anything unusual.. He visually scanned the area and said the only thing he noticed was that we were among the few Caucasians in the room. I concurred, noting that the food court is astride a complex of provincial government offices thus rendering the demographic composition of the lunch crowd quite usual for that location based on my prior experience. But, I asked him, had he not noticed that there were absolutely no Christmas decorations in sight. "You're right," he responded with surprise, going on to wonder whether somebody had complained about them. After finishing lunch we went into a store adjacent to the food court and I asked the clerk why there weren't Christmas decorations in the vicinity and she said that she too was puzzled because this was the first time during her years working at that location that Christmas had gone unacknowledged. I'm not a particularly religious person and therefore not really offended by the absence of Christmas decor in such a location, but it made me wonder whether it's now the time to abolish all religious symbolism from the public sphere? If we can get by without Christmas, why do we bother allowing or acknowledging any other kind of religious tradition or symbolism? For the sake of diversity, maybe all religion needs to go.

The NDP would have blocked electoral reform? If you actually believe this, I think you're deeply deluded. The NDP has argued for some form of proportional representation for decades. My understanding is that Trudeau's Libs likely only favored one form of electoral reform, the ranked ballot, which didn't have the support of the other major parties nor broad public support. When its own preference wouldn't fly, the concept of electoral reform was unceremoniously tossed out the window. I refer to such behavior as an example of 'a Liberal promise'. As for Trudeau's view on deficits, we all know they balance themselves, right? That's what he said. Voters were willing to see the federal government run deficits in the short term. Now the Libs are admitting that deficit financing will continue for decades to come. We'll see how Bernier does. I think it much too early to judge his impact. Don't forget that according to polling only weeks before the last election the NDP looked to be sailing toward a majority government. Events and campaigns actually do attract the attention and changes the opinions of voters.