Shwa

No, it doesn't matter what construct race is defined under insofar as employment equity is concerned, even though there might be elements of both constructs implied in their formal of informal terms.

I think her point is that the 'widely-held view' - that university education should lead to better employment opportunities - doesn't bear out with this or other studies. She says there could be reasons for this... However, I do agree that university education is not the only bar by which skills and experience are gained. I believe the author would hold the same opinion. At least I would hope she does! You will note that the definition shows that visible minority is a discretionary designation based upon the choice of the person themselves. Stats Can has many products and services that provide information so that people - politicians, social scientists and casual readers, etc. - can form opinions on social policy issues or support a social agenda that has already been decided on. But that is not the point is it? The point is about "institutionalized racism." One would think that if employment equity was actually "institutionalized racism" then it would have been noted by the good folks at Justice and would have been addressed as such. Not only have they not had any cause to take issue with employment equity, the terms and processes - they haven't found cause even in the suggested functional equivalence of "institutionalized racism" and the reason for that is because it simply is not true.

Right now I am an American-Canadian/Canadian-American, watching an American watching Canadians watching Americans who watch Canadians.

Yes, I agree. In the same post you quoted, I also mention getting outside, the "go out and play" ethic - whatever happened to that? All my kids got that and they are very healthy kids. I guess the commute, double income requirement for success nowadays comes into play. I really believe sports could be a primary component, but it doesn't have to be teams sports and it could include any game and activity. What is needed is cheap and easy accessiblity to facilities that are not hogged out by the elite sporting programs. One of the great things we have in out city is known as the neighbourhood sports association based around neighbourhood parks. They offer inexespensive organized house league type sports - soccer, hockey, softball. But regardless, organized sports is one thing, but simply getting out and moving around in a safe environment is very important.

It is inevitable. You are going to be accused of being a Canadian watching Americans watching Canadians. Wait for it...

Like I said Argie, hands down, you're one of the worst offenders of the very thing you complain about.

I think the MADD site in Canada says they started in 1990...

I suppose it depends on what you consider significant: (I did jump on Google for a gander since you got me curious dammit!) Do you see this as "overwhemling success?" Certainly MADD is part of the equation, but not all of it and there is still a significant amount of death and mayhem from DUI. Getting the information you have cancer generally is highly motivating. Yet morbidly obese people don't seem to get the same message, even though it is out there in as many forms as we can imagine. So maybe it is the information itself that is the problem. What do you suggest?

Hey, cool Saipan, you were trolling for me in this thread. Thanks! I like guns too, I wish I had more of them. Especially handguns. Guess I should make a New Year resolution ot get my license eh? Then shoot stuff... at the range.

I believe smoking pot is legal. It the possession where they get you. And yeah, I understand your point, but we are free to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol and watch scat porn - if you can get it. Regulating previously enjoyed food, tricky. How do you qualify "overwhelming success" for MADD? I still see DUI deaths and injuries, has their been a significant drop? Of course, if there is an quality information system showing you that MADD is overwhelmingly successful, do share. Fair enough. Is there information to force people to eat and exercise according to Health Canada ideals? I haven't seen it yet have you? Oh no, I was referring to obese, overweight, plump and chubby folks. The sheer amount of information accumulated and being added to at an exponential rate today, as I write this - targeted towards those channels - health, diet, exercise, special food, opinion, studies, research, specialty channels, radio programs, etc., etc is astounding. Health Canada's ideals have to compete with that.

Orphanages? Why not ghettos or "camps?" Then we can starve them because, well, they need to lose fat anyways. We'll save money on our taxes. Foucault had some interesting takes on the development of the mental institution in Western society. At one time, the crazy people were jesters and amusing, making up stories, talking to themselves, acting bizarre. But they were among us. Then once leprosy was more or less cured, they had to fill all those institutions. So off went the nutcases, those scary dangerous crazy people, talking to themselves, plotting and planning. One can't help think the jolly old fat person is next on this agenda for the curation of what ails society. I think once Islam becomes docile, attention will be turned the the obese, the chubby, the plump. You know what happens next: Run, Uter, Run! Ruuuuun!!!

This is where it gets tricky. I would make the advertisers responsible for their ads, but by and large, there is public pressure to modify snacks and fast food (less sodium, less trans fat, etc.) and the manufacturers are being responsible to a degree. After that, are we going to start removing freedoms from people to make them comply with an ideal? Perhaps MADD has done their bit, but locally there have been an increase in drunk driving charges and people still get maimed and killed by drunk drivers. Awareness is one thing - MADD does very well - but compliance is another. Are there good reasons to force people to eat and exercise according to Health Canada ideals? I am not talking about awareness campaigns like the 60 yr old Swede ads when I was a kid, but actually forcing people with laws and restrictions. I see all kinds of information about obesity and health in Canada and perhaps that is the crux of the problem - TOO much information...

I am undecided about the sarcasm, hence didn't feel the need. No, maybe some of them are prefectly happy with the way they are, pleasingly plump and all. I am not making a value judgment about them, other that they're fat. Maybe some of them are big boned? IMO, the "information system" that is working perfectly well are fast food TV ads. How about criticism for something working too good?

Yes, sport participation is declining and I wonder if there is a parallel statistic about computer gaming, Nintendo, xBox and the like. One of the interesting local developments - in Durham - is that a significant percentage of the stimulus grants were oriented toward athletic facilities and parks. I shudder at how badly fitness/recreational opportunities are served, now and in the future. How many kids now have a ball diamond, soccer field,bike path, swimming pool to which they have true access? They have enough money to get in the door; thier parents will allow them to go there and will assume they are safe, even without an adult attatched to them; they don't need someone to drive them; they don't have to belong to a league; abide by a schedule; own specialized equipment... etc. Physically active play is increasingly restricted to the well-to-do. Reductions in expectations will further erode access. From what I am seeing, most national and provincial sporting bodies are moving toward the Long Term Athletic Development model of 'Sport for Life.' However, some of the LTAD recommendations for sports focus on the elite athlete which is kind of backward in my view. Then again, the article says 'active time' and that doesn't mean just sports. It could also mean an hour at the park, playing hide and go seek, wandering around the creek, etc.

What "poor information systems?" Do you not watch TV, with all those snack food commercials? Other than the ads saying "we're fat" what more do you need? Proof? Go to Walmart and look around.

Your mistaken.

Note (typography) from Wikipedia I don't see it that way. Her argument boils down to "conventional wisdom says that skills and experience make you more employable" but the statistics presented here, and in other studies, do not show this to be true. She does present it as a contradiction - to the "widely held view." Everyone should have lunch. Agreed. Plus I am thinking that the gathering of such statistics has also changed too. Aboriginals is not the only demographic group included in non-visible-minorities. BTW - what race are white people anyways? Does it include very light skinned Chinese-Canadians? How about the child of a Metis and Caucasion? Etc. And this is relevant how? It's social science kimmy, not math. This is where we disagree and I think it is an important distinction to make with regard to affirmative action, at least in Canada. Discrimination is not always racism even though many people of varying shades find it convenient to say it is. In employment equity terms, there is no racism and I would think that if there were, it would have been successfully challenged in court - where sematics do count - as proof. Now, are you aware of any court challenges that have struck down employment equity programs as racist? I'm not. That isn't to say that indivdual cases haven't been examined, but not employment equity as a whole. Is affirmative action discriminatory? Sure it is, it even gets a little mention in our constitution. But making the statement that affirmative action is "institutionalized racism" is out to lunch because one has to completely ignore or misunderstand the actual terms and processes of affirmative action. Now we're talking. If the associations of engineers may be a part of the reason for that, perhaps it is because associations of engineers are an example of "institutionalized racism." If we ignore their terms of reference and certification processes, I am sure we can easily come to that conclusion. I mean, visible minorities likely make up an insignificant statistic of associations of engineers, so they are mostly white, university educated males. Any argument against that is mere semantics.

unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Says he who is one of the worse offenders of them all. If you can't take it Argie, then don't dish it out right? And don't bother to blame others for your own poor behaviour either, that is simply bad form. As for any heckling or mocking I give or receive, there is no seriousness to it - which is also in the rules btw, if you actually took the time ot read them. What are you going to do, insult my username on the Internet and expect me to feel bad or something? Really, you take yourself far more seriously than anyone else does and that is the attitude that causes the problems. Maybe you should lighten up a bit.

Or the David Mabeuses or Mobiuses or whatever the hell the guy is called. However, most of it is merely heckling and mocking and if someone can't deal with it, in this day and age, they need to get off the stage of the World Wide Web and perhaps take up knitting or something more serenity inducing. Candle making perhaps. No insults (or outsults) in the status updates. We were told, we obeyed. With some good natured mocking and heckling, which I don't think anyone was banned for. No, you get bent!

My apologies, the way you phrased your earlier response, it looked like you had a little of that old hidden Canadian shame going on. But seeing not, then let me re-phrase: Your shame at Canadians isn't relevant here.

Me dodging? LOFL! Let's review: You're the one that made the claim son and then has continually failed to back it up with proof, evidence, citation, research, common sense or even a modicum of credibility. Heck, you bailed after a few simple questions about terms of reference. If anyone has been dodging, it is you - and kind of clumsily too, I might add.

I presented it to the other poster as a sample of something that shows that affirmative action is not 'institutionalized racism' but asked him to point out the racism in the piece. As an overall example, it is typical of Stats Can scholarship I think - commentary from a social science POV. As social science, there is room for discussion. However, it is a piece aimed for an audience of a particular type - the bureaucrat or the casual interest. I don't beleive it isn't a full dissertation of the numbers. "Other studies have made similar observations." She then presents footnotes where you can do further digging if you wish. But again, to her is a "widely-held view" that doesn't stand up according to this and "other studies." I don't think it is her personal view that university degrees necessarily confer employment gains so she says that more "...research needs to be done to pinpoint the causes of the gaps in labour market outcomes..." "Foreign-born visible minority women go from first to last in employment rates" Do you have a source for this "satistically pretty minimal" statement that you conclude is "not a big issue?" Because when we are talking "race" it is a pretty big issue. Her case appears to be based on the rates of employability for recent immigrants, which she notes shows up as "gaps in labour market outcomes." She says, "The gap in labour market outcomes for foreign-born visible minorities may be related to incidents of discrimination or unfair treatment." But then goes on to say that more research is needed. The quarrel isn't whether affirmative action is designed to combat racial discrimination, there is no need to tip-toe around that fact at all. However, it does not necessarily follow that affirmative action is itself is "institutionalized racism" or is itself, racist. Neither do I. However, there is testing available to verify claims, I would hope. This is a really tough and controversial issue and in some quarters people want to willy-nilly accept foreign education credentials as a one-to-one equal to Canada. I have a problem with that, as I have a problem with work experience outside of Canada being thought of somehow equating to Canadian experience. If there were International Standards and international standards of verificiation, then I suspect that might counteract the requirement for faith.

"...if they chose to do so." Now you're getting it.

Well that is a nice point, but then you realized that by saying that Saipan "...pretty much said it all" you forgot to include women in the definition of Caucasion right?