kimmy

I think Tim was suggesting that humanity as a whole has benefited because all that labor that used to be required to produce food has been freed up to fuel other enterprises that will benefit society. But what, exactly? Pouring double-doubles? People have left the farms, moved to the cities, and ... now what? Is this, in itself, a great thing? I'm sure that the jobs-- those that haven't been replaced by technology, or outsourced to India, or permanently relocated to Asian factories, or filled by rent-a-Filipinos-- will come in all kinds. I think I read somewhere that the sector of the economy that's expanding fastest, and employing most younger workers, is the service industry. These aren't exactly jobs with big futures. I'm a little skeptical that jobs, on the average, will be "better" by most measures. -k

The marvels of modern-day productivity have freed people from menial labor to do ... uh... other menial labor. Are you reviving August's theory that having a YouTube channel will be a viable source of income? Sure, there are people money at it, and there are other people earning money writing Android games, or e-books, or webpages. The ratio of people who are earning money at it to the people attempting to earn money at it is miniscule. The hobo collecting cans in the dumpster in my parking lot right now has a bigger and more reliable revenue stream than the vast majority of Youtube videographers, bloggers, and Android app programmers. -k

Producing what? We have more and more people, but need less and less people to produce anything we need. Wandering around with your Google Glasses sounds mildly interesting, but I imagine the pay sucks, and the people of the Fuuuture will still need an income. -k

There's a lot of chatter about this in the status updates, so I thought I would start a thread for a more thorough discussion. Here's a news article about it. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_BIRTH_CONTROL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-06-30-10-19-15 Some of the key points: -this ruling only applies where the ownership is, essentially, an individual or small group: So this ruling won't apply to most large businesses. -it doesn't mean that every religious belief would be exempted in similar fashion. I'm not clear on why views on contraception should be accommodate while some other beliefs-- say, against blood transfusions-- wouldn't. -the authors of the majority decision suggested several work-arounds whereby the government could still ensure contraception is covered without violating Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs: -k

Maybe people are excited about this because they think that it only impacts forestry companies and pipelines, and haven't considered that there might be actual humans whose lives are changed by land claim settlements. Well, luckily the only property I own is here within the bounds of Kim City, where there's no chance of thousands of people being disrupted by a land claim settlement. I've been keeping an eye on rural real estate, but haven't yet got enough money saved to pull the trigger. And I guess I should be grateful that this ruling happened now. It might have spared me from making a mistake I'd regret for many years. It's still my dream, but maybe it doesn't happen in BC anymore. Maybe there's some place in Alberta or the US where I could have more confidence that I won't end up in some kind of legal nightmare. -k

I think he may have been trying to say that a tiny group has been given a piece of land that could have provided plenty of space for the population of a medium-sized city. -k

There was no precedent set here. That's one of the key points that people keep overlooking. The ruling The reason that no private property was affected by this ruling is that the Chilcotins chose not to claim any land that is private property. Therefore the Supreme Court decision had no opportunity to rule on what happens if Aboriginal Title and private title collide. Therefore we still don't have a precedent on that issue. The new precedent that we do have is that Aboriginal Title is now understood to apply not just to specific sites that tribes used, but to the whole region in which they lived-- "mountaintop to mountaintop" as one of their lawyers put it. It's a much broader interpretation of "traditional territory" than most people-- other than the natives, anyway-- had expected. The common belief used to be that "traditional territory" would be interpreted to mean specific sites-- the tribe set up camps at this lakeshore, and they migrated through that valley, so those are "traditional territory" but if your home is on this hillside then you'll be ok because the natives didn't use that hillside for any particular purpose. But the new interpretation holds that the whole region-- the lakeshore, the valley, the hillside, all of it-- "mountaintop to mountaintop" --is the traditional territory. That will cause a lot of people anxiety, people who until last week had assumed that their homes were well clear of what was considered "traditional territory". So it was certainly very considerate and neighborly of the Chilcotins to choose not to lay claim to any land that their non-native neighbors hold private title to. But it was just that: a choice. That was something the Chilcotins elected to do, not something that the Supreme Court established in this ruling. For land claims in more populated and less remote areas of the province, it will be much more difficult for land claims to be settled in a way that avoids private property. We still don't know what will happen. But based on the two rulings I posted yesterday, we do know two things. First off, both rulings explicitly state that private title does not overrule aboriginal title. Both forestry companies argued that since they had legal title to the land, it simply didn't matter what traditional use the natives might have had of the land. Both times that argument was shot down. Secondly, both rulings gave weight to preserving the land in a state suitable for what the natives' traditional use of the land was. In both disputes, the forestry companies were prevented from affecting their privately owned land in a way that would impact the traditional use of the land-- even though aboriginal title on the land had not even been established. So it appears obvious that having private title to a piece of land doesn't guarantee you won't be affected by an awarding of aboriginal title. And aboriginal title will potentially impact your use of your land even if it's not taken from you. We can see that from these two rulings where judges have had to decide how to balance aboriginal title with private title. So there *is* a precedent here, and it's a worrying one if you own rural land in BC. I have not heard any politicians attempting to exploit this issue to stir up anxieties for political gain. On the contrary, they haven't said-- as far as I know-- anything regarding the potential implications for private landowners in claimed areas. And that's one of the things that really annoys me about all of this. We've had the back-patting and self-high-fives about What A Great Day This Is for Canada and for All Canadians. And we've had some speculation about what it might mean for the Northern Gateway pipeline. But I've seem almost nothing written about what it might mean for rural Canadians. I think my posts yesterday morning contained more research into that question than I've read in any media article. -k

The impression I get from the media is that many Canadians would applaud just about anything the government might do to appease the natives. I think large numbers of Canadians are so upset about past injustices perpetuated against native people that they'd willingly support present-day injustice as a means of "making it right". Especially if it was just a relatively modest number of rural non-aboriginal people being displaced. "You gotta break a few eggs..." I exaggerate, but only slightly. I think you underestimate the amount of animosity and vitriol out there. "Willing buyer-willing seller" is a phrase I bumped into at least a dozen times yesterday reading various federal and provincial government websites, first nations websites, and press-releases from various government and first nations representatives seeking to reassure worried non-aboriginals. For the Algonquin claim, they obviously did not want to pick a fight with the large number of well-heeled recreational property owners in an area not far from Ottawa where the fight would be right under the nose of the national media. For the Chilcotin claim, it was easy to avoid the issue of private title because there isn't much private title in the area under claim, and they could easily be jigsawed out. But they won't all be like the Chilcotin claim. There are claims all over the province, in areas that are less remote and more populated with non-native people. There *will* be claims where the judge has no choice but to conclude that aboriginal title and private property exist on the same land, and we don't know what will happen. I think it would be incredibly naive to assume that natives will be content to settle all these claims in a manner where they get Aboriginal Title but don't actually get the land. But, leaving the possibility of expropriation aside, what else might happen in situations where it's ruled that aboriginal title and private property are in conflict? Yesterday I cited the two cases where the forestry companies were restricted in what they were able to do with their land because a judge found it conflicted with a potential aboriginal title. That seems like a precedent that could apply equally to somebody who wants to build a home or dig a well or cut down a tree. I could also picture some judge deciding that private property owners must make accommodations for native people where Aboriginal Title exists on private land. "Your property is on land that was used by the tribe as hunting territory, and for their annual smoke-hut ritual. Therefore you must accommodate tribe members who wish to access your property for tribe members who wish to hunt there or perform the smoke-hut ritual." And the next thing you know you've got native people wandering around your property with rifles 365 days a year, and a smoke-hut built on your front lawn, and smoke-hut celebrants camped out on your lawn all summer. And I could also picture a judge deciding that Aboriginal Title grants the natives the right to buy your property whenever you do decide to sell it. "We're not expropriating your property, but when you do decide to leave, you have to sell it to the natives." Which would be devastating to property values, obviously. -k

Well that's a whole lot of assumption. First off you're assuming that such decisions would be made by elected officials, rather than unelected, unaccountable judges, lawyers, and negotiators. Secondly, you're assuming it would be a major election issue. Given the current belief in the purportedly magical power of Reconciliation ™ with First Nations it might even be a popular move, at least with urban voters who comprise most of the electorate and are least likely to be adversely affected by any such decision. It isn't difficult to picture a scenario where some politician stands in front of a rally of urban voters and trumpets such an agreement as a great victory for Canada, bringing Reconciliation ™ and Healing ™ and allowing the country to Move Forward ™ in a Partnership ™ between First Nations and Canadians, with the evicted rural Canadians being nothing more than an afterthought. In fact I would expect to see urban enviro-weenie voters cheering as the government uses expropriation to "liberate" the "stolen land" from dirty white rural rednecks and restore it to it's rightful owners, the noble Stewards Of The Land, the heroic First Nations peoples whose spiritual beliefs will ensure that the land remains pure and pristine for all eternity. -k

There's a news article going around today with a headline that says "Aboriginal Title does not overrule Private Property": http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Aboriginal+title+does+overrule+private+property+limited+what+with+Crown+land+experts/9982642/story.html But what it actually says is this: “Whether it would trump private land interests is a question we don’t know the answer to,” said Rosanne Kyle, a Vancouver lawyer who practices aboriginal and environmental law. Regardless, courts have vast discretion to impose “remedies” on rulings, so that a judge could limit the impact of land title claims on private landowners, or order compensation. Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Aboriginal+title+does+overrule+private+property+limited+what+with+Crown+land+experts/9982642/story.html#ixzz35yyWTaUE The implication is obviously that awarding aboriginal title on land that's privately owned certainly could have drastic effect on land-owners that would have them seeking compensation or mitigation from a judge. Here are a couple more rulings about what happens when Aboriginal Title and private property collide: In this one, a tribunal ruled that the TimberWest forestry company could not implement a pesticide program on privately owned lands which the Cowichan Tribes (of Vancouver Island) claimed aboriginal title to. The title is not yet even established, but is deemed to be plausible, so the Cowichan claims were given weight. TimberWest is the owner of this land, but because the land might be subject to aboriginal title, and because the pesticide program was deemed to be contrary to aboriginal spiritual beliefs, TimberWest was prevented from implementing their pesticide program. Summary: http://www.eab.gov.bc.ca/pest/pestsm03.htm PDF: http://www.eab.gov.bc.ca/pest/2002pes008a.pdf And here's a case in which a judge ruled that a potential Aboriginal Title trumped the right of the land-owners to do with their privately owned land to do with as they wished. Weyerhauser forestry had received permission to sell a parcel of land to a company called Brascan who intended to remove the land from Tree Farm License. The BC ministry of forestry approved the agreement, but a first nation filed a lawsuit against the the deal. http://dogwoodinitiative.org/in-depth/hupacasath_win_WeyycoBrascan_rich Here's the government of Ontario web page about the Algonquin land claim: https://www.ontario.ca/aboriginal/algonquin-land-claim Note the phrasing here: they didn't say private land can't be expropriated. They've just said they've agreed not to. They also go on to assure readers again that: land will not be expropriated from private owners no one will lose access to cottages or private property no one will lose access to navigable waterways Here's another article about the Algonquin land claim... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/algonquin-land-claim-a-concern-for-ontario-hunters-1.1300960 This family has hunted on crown land from their camp since the 1920s, but that will come to an end. Although, the native assure them they'll allow a "transitional period". And, while I read a number of Indian Affairs webpages assuring people that expropriation can't be used to resolve land claims, as far as I can determine there should be a little asterisk beside that which says that it only applies to claims being settled by the Specific Claims Tribunal. As far as I can determine, the Specific Claims Tribunal Act of 2008 is the only place it where expropriation is specifically ruled out. -k

On the Temporary Foreign Worker issue, people were saying that it's in the best interest of the economy to bring in TFWs to flip burgers and pour coffee because without them restaurant prices would go up and tourism would suffer. Well, nothing is more destructive to tourism, or to the whole economy, than skyrocketing fuel prices. Just saying. -k

Not yet, but there's nothing that says it can't happen. In this instance, there were only a few homes in the affected area, around Alexis Creek, which were purposefully excluded from the claim. There's nothing to ensure that private homes won't be part of the next claim, and nothing to ensure that the government won't take peoples' homes and land if that's what it takes to settle a claim. -k

Personally I find the premise that people could be forced from their homes on the flimsiest historical pretext to be tremendously unfunny. -k

I think that industry will survive this. Corporations have managed to navigate their way through the banana republics of the third world, so dealing with First Nation bands shouldn't be the end of the world for them. They'll make things work somehow. Band council members at my local reserve drive around in brand new $60,000 pickup trucks. I imagine they'll soon be able to upgrade to Bentleys. I'm feeling a little stressed about what this means for the future. I suspect that a lot of bands who have settled claims in the past are looking at this new ruling and saying "We got ripped off!" and are probably lawyering up already. This new standard will also drastically affect land claims already in progress, and will probably launch a bunch more land claims too. The people celebrating this ruling claim it's a step on the way to settling land claims once and for all, but it might just open the floodgates to more land claims and litigation over claims that had already been settled. I worry about the sheer financial cost. The new standard for what constitutes traditional territory sounds extremely broad. It will probably mean that numerous major cities are built entirely within the traditional territory of some band or another. The federal government will probably be writing hundred-million dollar cheques left and right to compensate bands for cities being built on their "traditional territory". I also worry about what this means to private property owners. There will be situations where land claims conclude that peoples' homes are on "traditional lands". My dream is to live on property in the hills; I dread the possibility that someday somebody from Indian Affairs shows up at my door and says "sorry, your acreage is on land that's part of this land claim, and we're going to take it so that we can resolve this land claim." They could use eminent domain and write me some paltry cheque and evict me, for no reason other than that some native person's ancestor passed through 200 years ago. -k

Mighty! Are you ok? Have you suffered a blow to the head recently? I have to say that the "ancient aliens" theory for the origin of life on earth bugs me even more than the premise that an almighty god created us. Because first off it leaves us wondering why we find no evidence that ancient aliens were ever here, how they got here, why they came here, and so on. And secondly because it merely shifts the question to being about the origin of ancient aliens. It doesn't resolve the original question about the origin of life, and opens up a whole new set of questions as well. Not only is it not a useful theory, it is actually anti-useful. -k

So the reforms to the TFW program were announced on Friday. The TFW stream for low-skill workers will be phased out gradually by 2016. All of this sounds reasonable to me. -k

"protection of the environment that sustains them" I think everybody who has actually been to a reservation knows that this is a farce. Both the "protection" and the "sustains them" parts. Native activists in this country have promoted this image that natives are these devoted shepherds of the environment who follow their traditional values of living in harmony with nature. It's a convenient fiction they can whip out when they want to play this angle for political purposes. It doesn't resemble reality. "projects that affect their traditional lands" Every square centimeter of land in BC is claimed several times over by somebody or other as "their traditional land". The native population of BC must have been in the tens of millions back in the day for all of this to have been somebody's traditional land. A while back when Edmonton was upgrading the roads around the Walterdale bridge, some native leader discovered that the north foot of the bridge was on sacred lands, and that if they didn't receive compensation then the bridge would have to be moved. More recently some native people declared that the whole of southern Edmonton is built on native lands, and that they would require multiple billions of dollars in compensation for the use of their land. Or there's the native leader who demanded compensation for a wind power project that wasn't even on his reservation, because the winds belong to the natives and the white man is stealing his wind. At some point it just becomes impossible to take this stuff seriously anymore. -k

It's hard to be anything other than jaded when it comes to our first nations friends. -k

This week in Islam, Calgarians gone Jihadi: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/farah-mohamed-shirdon-of-calgary-fighting-for-islamic-state-of-iraq-and-syria-1.2680206 http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/damian-clairmont-killed-fighting-with-al-qaeda-linked-rebels-in-syria-1.2497513 -k

Now get ready for years of natives in costume beating tom-toms and chanting outside of legislative buildings, talking about their "traditions" being under attack, and playing this "faithful conservators of the land" role they play whenever they want their palms greased by any resources project. -k

I dabble, but have never earned a cent at it. -k

Well, the Wildlings outside the Wall were less an army than just a big migrating rabble. Stannis' army was smaller, but they were trained soldiers in full armor on horseback, and they didn't defeat the whole army, they cut off the head. Quality and tactics trumped sheer numbers. To me the more unrealistic part is what are they going to do with all those wildlings? He said they'd put them in chains, but that seems unlikely. As for why he took his army to the wall instead of attacking King's Landing again... I guess it's because he said he would. His Red Witch decided it was important, and he committed to it, and that's that. -k

The brawl between Brienne and the Hound was crazy! I was hoping that somehow they might stop before either of them died, but as it progressed from a sword fight to all-out animalistic life or death struggle, it became pretty clear that we were losing somebody. Poor old Sandor... he's been one of my favorites for a couple of years, and I hoped somehow things might turn out better for him. He was trying to taunt Arya into putting him out of his misery, and all he managed to do was make himself sad. I thought that Arya had some genuine affection for him, but I guess not. He taught her too well, I guess. The part where Melissandre was looking at Jon as if he were a meat popsicle is intriguing. I wonder if she knows something about his background or his destiny or something like that. So... Tywin Lannister gets shot to death while sitting on the toilet, just like Vincent Vega. I guess Shae's testimony against Tyrion was because she got a better offer. One wonders where this leaves the Lannisters in the future. Who'll be the lord of Casterly Rock? Seems obvious that Jaime and Cersei will both be staying in King's Landing from now on. With Tywin gone, it appears that Cersei will be the one guiding Tommen and tutoring him in the world of politics. That's probably bad news for everybody in Westeros. This season, all 3 of Tywin's children rebelled against him in their own way. The scene with Cersei and Tywin was pretty good. I gather that Cersei is having the mad scientist rebuild Gregor into some kind of Frankenstein monster? Not liking where this is heading. Odd that there's no fallout from the guy confessing to raping and murdering the Dornish princess in front of all those assembled nobles. Bran is now living in a cave under a tree with Gandalf and Tinkerbell. Interested to see what the old dude means by saying Bran will fly (I recall he already did that, with a little coaching from Jaime Lannister...) That Reed girl is pretty tough. She's just an adolescent, and she's out there smacking the crap out of the living dead with no fear. I assume Dany will be off to see How To Train Your Dragon 2 as soon as it arrives in Meereen theatres. -k