Canada ranks higher than 10 other developed nations in scientific literacy, or the ability of citizens to read and fully comprehend a lengthy article about science in a newspaper, according to a report released Thursday by the Council of Canadian Academies.
The report said 42 per cent of Canadians “grasp basic concepts and understand general media coverage of scientific issues.”
That is higher than Sweden at 35 per cent and the U.S. at just under 30 per cent. Japan was last at about five per cent, it said.
DanHibiki on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Japan was last? Behind the US? Significantly behind the US?
Wild.
+1
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
I'm skeptical of those results.
The data was not all conducted at the same time. The data on Japan was collected in 2001, the European data in 2005, and as science literacy has been increasing generally all over the world in the past decade, these rankings may not be perfect, said Arthur Carty, chair of an expert panel involved in the report and executive director of the Waterloo Institute for Nanotechnology.
Whereas the data on Canada was collected last year. I don't know about anyone else, I know I'm more comprehending of scientific information now than I was thirteen years ago, and that's primarily due to greater availability of layman level information on the internet.
Japan was last? Behind the US? Significantly behind the US?
Wild.
Not too sure about the literacy part (might be some cultural differences at play) but their trust of science is understandably low(the utter fumbling of the Fukushima disaster) although still higher then the US.
DanHibiki on
0
Options
Sir FabulousMalevolent Squid GodRegistered Userregular
Japan was last? Behind the US? Significantly behind the US?
Wild.
Not too sure about the literacy part (might be some cultural differences at play) but their trust of science is understandably low(the utter fumbling of the Fukushima disaster) although still higher then the US.
Except the article states that the Japanese data was collected in 2001.
So it looks like Toronto's on the cusp of reelecting Rob Ford to Mayor, who is polling at 31% just behind John Tory at 35%. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
The thing about Rob Ford that baffles me is that people continue to support him despite his shockingly poor conduct (Drug use, associating with a violent drug gang, public intoxication, use of slurs, shunning a major cultural event, hostility with the press, crude remarks directed at the chief of police calling the cops on THH22M ect.) as though he had some magic power to save people money, like there was no other fiscal conservative anywhere in the GTA who could do this job.
The worst part is he's not even really saving any money. His idea of saving money is to just vote no for every council proposal, including much needed transit development projects, and then make up numbers to yell about the money he saves.
The worst part is he's not even really saving any money. His idea of saving money is to just vote no for every council proposal, including much needed transit development projects, and then make up numbers to yell about the money he saves.
Well technically if you aren't spending any money then by default you must be either revenue neutral or saving it.
This does not change the fact that when you run the third largest city in North America you need to spend money on everything from transit (to keep people moving through and around the city) to events (carribana and gay pride are as much about getting people to spend money as they are about celebrating the associated communities) to maintaining parks (nobody wants to spend time in an ugly city and if they aren't spending time there then they aren't spending money there) to basic government luxuries (Libraries are wonderful since they provide free information and entertainment).
But hey as long as cars can go vroom vroom wherever without having to worry about bikes or streetcars then who cares right?
What sets Rob Ford apart from his conservative peers is his complete inability to understand that actions have consequences, which is the direct cause of his inability to feel shame.
You mentioned Caribana. You may recall that Ford was seen having a blast at Caribana. Every year, Caribana (among other festivals and the like) are funded via a cultural grant, which Ford has voted against every single time since he's been a councillor. Ford is almost always alone in these kinds of votes, occasionally joined by a councillor or his brother. Every other councillor, whether they're progressive or liberal or conservative or whatever understands that these grants are used to fund the things that we enjoy in the city. There are two things going on here.
Typically, even the most conservative of councillors will vote for funding for improvements in their own wards, getting community centres and parks and such built. Then they can show up at the opening and get photos taken. These people understand that money is needed to build these things. Ford votes against these things and still shows up. He doesn't, or refuses to, understand how his vote meant that he tried to stop the park from happening.
Which leads to the other thing: things are still getting funded and built. Ford has identified a bunch of stuff that he thinks will save the city big money, but he is never able to get other councillors to actually vote for it. The number of lone dissenting votes he's cast is a part of his brand. So a big reason he doesn't actually save any money is because council doesn't let him. It happens every meeting.
If you look at what little policy Ford has announced this election, you'll find it's pretty much his 2010 platform because council wouldn't let most of his insane, stupid ideas pass. What little of Ford's platform did get passed this term was because of other conservatives doing the work of securing votes or council just descending into chaos.
This is all... over-analysis on everybody's part, IMO. Rob Ford's success can be attributed largely to a single factor:
People who are uninformed pop their heads out of the hole every few years, then listen to what politicians say and believe them, because they have no information to the contrary.
Rob Ford appeals to these people because he is the most unabashed unapologetic boaster/liar.
+8
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
This is all... over-analysis on everybody's part, IMO. Rob Ford's success can be attributed largely to a single factor:
People who are uninformed pop their heads out of the hole every few years, then listen to what politicians say and believe them, because they have no information to the contrary.
Rob Ford appeals to these people because he is the most unabashed unapologetic boaster/liar.
Also, he won't raise taxes. Something that some people see as the only thing they really care about from a lawmaker.
Why isn't there someone running for mayor whose platform is literally "I will do everything Rob Ford would have done but I will do it without the crack, drunken stupors, lewd comments etc...." I have no idea why, but all that garbage does nothing but add to Rob Ford's cult of personality. He appeals to a very base emotion in alot of people that don't really pay much attention to politics or facts or silly things like that.
This is all... over-analysis on everybody's part, IMO. Rob Ford's success can be attributed largely to a single factor:
People who are uninformed pop their heads out of the hole every few years, then listen to what politicians say and believe them, because they have no information to the contrary.
Rob Ford appeals to these people because he is the most unabashed unapologetic boaster/liar.
Also, he won't raise taxes. Something that some people see as the only thing they really care about from a lawmaker.
He has raised taxes. He just says he won't raise taxes.
This is all... over-analysis on everybody's part, IMO. Rob Ford's success can be attributed largely to a single factor:
People who are uninformed pop their heads out of the hole every few years, then listen to what politicians say and believe them, because they have no information to the contrary.
Rob Ford appeals to these people because he is the most unabashed unapologetic boaster/liar.
Sorry @hippofant, but you're guilty of overthinking this as well.
Let's face it folks, Rob Ford is nothing short of a genius, a visionary, and a modern day political pioneer, being the first politician to tap into the ever-neglected vote of the "crack user" demographic.
He is reshaping the future landscape of Canadian politics.
My hope is that the younger generations of quebeckers recognize how bad separation would be for them.
Something being bad economically never stopped people from doing things for the sake of nationalism.
Look, if the Rest of Canada keeps voting conservative, I don't care what the "economic consequences" are, I'm going separatist.
I don't want of a system that bankrupts university students; I don't want of a system that muzzles its scientists; I don't want of a system that's afraid of the stranger; I don't want of a system that enslaves rather than rehabilitates; I don't want of a system that's for little taxes but great disparity; I don't want of a system that doesn't care for the state of the Earth; I don't want of a system that allows greed to dictate terms rather than compassion; I don't want of a system that spends more on weapons than on caring for the needy; in short, I want to love, rather than count. I want to help, rather than profit. Those are my principles, and I know there's a whole nation who'll stand with me.
Now, we may be poorer going independent, but at least we'll be happier: At least we will have a clean conscience.
My hope is that the younger generations of quebeckers recognize how bad separation would be for them.
Something being bad economically never stopped people from doing things for the sake of nationalism.
Look, if the Rest of Canada keeps voting conservative, I don't care what the "economic consequences" are, I'm going separatist.
I don't want of a system that bankrupts university students; I don't want of a system that muzzles its scientists; I don't want of a system that's afraid of the stranger; I don't want of a system that enslaves rather than rehabilitates; I don't want of a system that's for little taxes but great disparity; I don't want of a system that doesn't care for the state of the Earth; I don't want of a system that allows greed to dictate terms rather than compassion; I don't want of a system that spends more on weapons than on caring for the needy; in short, I want to love, rather than count. I want to help, rather than profit. Those are my principles, and I know there's a whole nation who'll stand with me.
Now, we may be poorer going independent, but at least we'll be happier: At least we will have a clean conscience.
Dude, the most recent pro-separatist government in Quebec cut university funding, tried to pass an extremely xenophobic and somewhat racist charter, and tried to block a clean energy initiative between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, among other things.
Also, Quebec wouldn't be 'poorer' if it separated. It would crash and burn. The same goes for any other province. Threatening to take your ball and go home just because current politics aren't the way you want 'em is extremely selfish and short-sighted. Not to mention, the big ol' boogieman known as the 'rest of Canada' has never voted in the majority for the CPC, and recent polls show that they're currently running second or third in every province except for Alberta (not even getting into the fact that the 'rest of Canada' isn't one big monolithic hivemind. You think Quebec is the only part of the country that has ever had an issue with what another part of the country is doing?).
Seriously. I'm French Canadian (Acadian specifically). I personally know people who have dealt with marginalization and inequality in the past because of that. Rather than saying 'we don't like how things are, so we're leaving', they worked to improve things. It wasn't easy. In fact, it was extremely challenging and discouraging at times. They stuck it out though, and things now are infinitely better than they were.
The whole 'separatist' thing just irritates me to no end. It spits in the face of progress French Canadians have made throughout this country. It's shortsighted, childish, and just outright delusional.
Yes, Harper is the worst Prime Minister this country has ever had, his government has been very destructive, and he needs to go. That's why it's so important for people to focus on voting him out in the next election (and we have a pretty good chance of doing so).
My hope is that the younger generations of quebeckers recognize how bad separation would be for them.
Something being bad economically never stopped people from doing things for the sake of nationalism.
Look, if the Rest of Canada keeps voting conservative, I don't care what the "economic consequences" are, I'm going separatist.
I don't want of a system that bankrupts university students; I don't want of a system that muzzles its scientists; I don't want of a system that's afraid of the stranger; I don't want of a system that enslaves rather than rehabilitates; I don't want of a system that's for little taxes but great disparity; I don't want of a system that doesn't care for the state of the Earth; I don't want of a system that allows greed to dictate terms rather than compassion; I don't want of a system that spends more on weapons than on caring for the needy; in short, I want to love, rather than count. I want to help, rather than profit. Those are my principles, and I know there's a whole nation who'll stand with me.
Now, we may be poorer going independent, but at least we'll be happier: At least we will have a clean conscience.
Look, I hit the agree button, but get this, I am on the other side of the country, over here in BC. Its not like you are alone in wanting those things and loathe what Harper & Cons are doing.
There has to be a better way, I wouldn't want to lose your conscience from my political landscape, I hope that makes sense.
CanadianWolverine on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Deciding to separate over ideological purity is ridiculous. I don't care how right or left wing anyone is, ideological purity is an opiate for the masses. It relies on ignorance and mistrust. It is based on suspicion of anyone different from you. Declaring all conservatives as the enemy makes you sound like an ideologue. Instead of ripping my country apart because you don't like it, how's about you join in the effort to make things better?
Somedays, I just don't want to live in this country anymore
I always say, economists are hacks. If anybody should be muzzled between scientists and economists, it should be the economists. They write stupid position papers that are ungrounded in reality and poison the political discourse with their conflicting conclusions and rampant bullshit.
Note how scientists are divided into their specific areas of specialty, like astrophysicist or evolutionary ecologist, whereas economists are divided by their ideologies, like Austrian or Keynesian. Hey, at least we agree on climate change. You guys can't even agree on the LCBO.
hippofant on
0
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
That guy has also written on his blog about how oil spills may be kind of good for the economy (by creating jobs), but also wrote complaining that people (he cites David Suzuki) keep saying economists only care about the GDP.
Somedays, I just don't want to live in this country anymore
I always say, economists are hacks. If anybody should be muzzled between scientists and economists, it should be the economists. They write stupid position papers that are ungrounded in reality and poison the political discourse with their conflicting conclusions and rampant bullshit.
Note how scientists are divided into their specific areas of specialty, like astrophysicist or evolutionary ecologist, whereas economists are divided by their ideologies, like Austrian or Keynesian. Hey, at least we agree on climate change. You guys can't even agree on the LCBO.
This is a terrible position to take, if anything we should allow all individuals (economist, scientist or otherwise) to try and justify their senseless and stupid position. I also don't think that muzzling scientists is necessarily a conservative (small-caps) position to take. It's just a consequence of the totalitarian control Harper likes to have.
My hope is that the younger generations of quebeckers recognize how bad separation would be for them.
Something being bad economically never stopped people from doing things for the sake of nationalism.
Look, if the Rest of Canada keeps voting conservative, I don't care what the "economic consequences" are, I'm going separatist.
I don't want of a system that bankrupts university students; I don't want of a system that muzzles its scientists; I don't want of a system that's afraid of the stranger; I don't want of a system that enslaves rather than rehabilitates; I don't want of a system that's for little taxes but great disparity; I don't want of a system that doesn't care for the state of the Earth; I don't want of a system that allows greed to dictate terms rather than compassion; I don't want of a system that spends more on weapons than on caring for the needy; in short, I want to love, rather than count. I want to help, rather than profit. Those are my principles, and I know there's a whole nation who'll stand with me.
Now, we may be poorer going independent, but at least we'll be happier: At least we will have a clean conscience.
Dude, the most recent pro-separatist government in Quebec cut university funding, tried to pass an extremely xenophobic and somewhat racist charter, and tried to block a clean energy initiative between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, among other things.
Also, Quebec wouldn't be 'poorer' if it separated. It would crash and burn. The same goes for any other province. Threatening to take your ball and go home just because current politics aren't the way you want 'em is extremely selfish and short-sighted. Not to mention, the big ol' boogieman known as the 'rest of Canada' has never voted in the majority for the CPC, and recent polls show that they're currently running second or third in every province except for Alberta (not even getting into the fact that the 'rest of Canada' isn't one big monolithic hivemind. You think Quebec is the only part of the country that has ever had an issue with what another part of the country is doing?).
Seriously. I'm French Canadian (Acadian specifically). I personally know people who have dealt with marginalization and inequality in the past because of that. Rather than saying 'we don't like how things are, so we're leaving', they worked to improve things. It wasn't easy. In fact, it was extremely challenging and discouraging at times. They stuck it out though, and things now are infinitely better than they were.
The whole 'separatist' thing just irritates me to no end. It spits in the face of progress French Canadians have made throughout this country. It's shortsighted, childish, and just outright delusional.
Yes, Harper is the worst Prime Minister this country has ever had, his government has been very destructive, and he needs to go. That's why it's so important for people to focus on voting him out in the next election (and we have a pretty good chance of doing so).
While I agree with your post, I feel I should address the bolded. As far as elected seats go, that's not true based on last election's result:
EDIT: Just to be clear, I agree with your comment, because that is not a trend representative of our federal elections, at all, but the statement "the RoC elected the conservatives", while an oversimplification, is still pretty much accurate as far as 2011 is concerned. The fear for many in Quebec, is/was that last election's result marked the beginning of an ideological divide between Quebec and a large enough majority of other provinces. Of course, so far this is just a one time thing, and current electoral trends show that (hopefully) the CP will be out of power next election. But in a worst case scenario where 2011's results would become the new norm, I think Elaror's view would be shared by many.
Pretty sure @TubularLuggage meant by popular vote. As in, he was talking about, you know, actual people.
No party has won the popular vote since the 50s. I think the Conservatives reached 50% in 1984 but that would be the closest since then. Results are what matter as far most people's stance on election results lies, I edited my post above to reflect the view I was addressing.* One hundred years of darkness Conservative majority governments wouldn't somehow be made more tolerable by them having gathered 40% of the electoral vote instead of 50%+. Thank our electoral system for that.
*EDIT: Basically, Elaro's (correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation) comment reflect a fear that the 2011 election result was the beginning of the CP as the new natural ruling party. No matter what the popular vote is, it's the number of seats that matter as far as this trend would go. I don't agree that the 2011 results are in any way significant of a trend, but I heard many people express those worries.
Somedays, I just don't want to live in this country anymore
I always say, economists are hacks. If anybody should be muzzled between scientists and economists, it should be the economists. They write stupid position papers that are ungrounded in reality and poison the political discourse with their conflicting conclusions and rampant bullshit.
Note how scientists are divided into their specific areas of specialty, like astrophysicist or evolutionary ecologist, whereas economists are divided by their ideologies, like Austrian or Keynesian. Hey, at least we agree on climate change. You guys can't even agree on the LCBO.
That's why whenever I hear my local paper trumpet the findings of the Fraiser Institute, about how we should cut social spending, cut taxes to bare bone levels, that teachers are making too much money, oil sands are great for the environment, but wind farms are not, my eyes glaze over. It's like saying "The KKK organization has come out with a study stating that there's sociological issues causing aboriginal women going missing or being killed"
Somedays, I just don't want to live in this country anymore
I always say, economists are hacks. If anybody should be muzzled between scientists and economists, it should be the economists. They write stupid position papers that are ungrounded in reality and poison the political discourse with their conflicting conclusions and rampant bullshit.
Note how scientists are divided into their specific areas of specialty, like astrophysicist or evolutionary ecologist, whereas economists are divided by their ideologies, like Austrian or Keynesian. Hey, at least we agree on climate change. You guys can't even agree on the LCBO.
This is a rather stupid position to take and entirely based in ignorance of the field of economics.
Economists, like scientists, are divided by specialty and theories and models they believe are the most correct. It's just much more difficult to prove economic theories incorrect and, since economics has far more policy implications, there's allot more cranks and mercenaries.
Pretty sure @TubularLuggage meant by popular vote. As in, he was talking about, you know, actual people.
No party has won the popular vote since the 50s. I think the Conservatives reached 50% in 1984 but that would be the closest since then. Results are what matter as far most people's stance on election results lies, I edited my post above to reflect the view I was addressing.* One hundred years of darkness Conservative majority governments wouldn't somehow be made more tolerable by them having gathered 40% of the electoral vote instead of 50%+. Thank our electoral system for that.
*EDIT: Basically, Elaro's (correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation) comment reflect a fear that the 2011 election result was the beginning of the CP as the new natural ruling party. No matter what the popular vote is, it's the number of seats that matter as far as this trend would go. I don't agree that the 2011 results are in any way significant of a trend, but I heard many people express those worries.
It certainly doesn't help much to call shenanigans against fellow Canadian voters on the riding's results when there has been been some electoral fraud (financial and ballot box information) going on either. That's enough of a wedge of doubt to say the elected MPs represent your fellow Canadians political leanings.
And then we explore the dropping voter turn out numbers ... and surprise, surprise, that also benefits the Cons.
Canadian tradesmen from a huge oilsands construction project are waving a red flag about safety hazards and near misses, which they blame on the use of foreign workers who aren't qualified and can't speak English.
"When you bring in a bunch of workers who are unqualified to do this job it's only a matter of time before you kill someone,"
Its too bad the article only focuses on the oil sands. I am a journeyman Refrigeration Technician, and I work in a lot of the food processing plants in Southern Alberta, and I have seen too many of these foreign workers brought in for maintenance positions. Safety standards are too low, and one of these days I know that I will be hurt by their incompetence.
Canadian tradesmen from a huge oilsands construction project are waving a red flag about safety hazards and near misses, which they blame on the use of foreign workers who aren't qualified and can't speak English.
"When you bring in a bunch of workers who are unqualified to do this job it's only a matter of time before you kill someone,"
Its too bad the article only focuses on the oil sands. I am a journeyman Refrigeration Technician, and I work in a lot of the food processing plants in Southern Alberta, and I have seen too many of these foreign workers brought in for maintenance positions. Safety standards are too low, and one of these days I know that I will be hurt by their incompetence.
But employers get to pay them less, so they can fire large parts of their Canadian workforce and replace them by these inexpensive underqualified foreign workers and pocket the savings while our welfare numbers and government spending goes up and our quality of life goes down. That's called being "good for the economy"!
Invectivus, from your experience are the foreign workers being brought in to replace workers or to supplement the available work force?
Does that really matter? It's replacing pre-existing workers or replacing would-be workers. Either way, it's a job position that would go to an otherwise unemployed Canadian....
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Invectivus, from your experience are the foreign workers being brought in to replace workers or to supplement the available work force?
Does that really matter? It's replacing pre-existing workers or replacing would-be workers. Either way, it's a job position that would go to an otherwise unemployed Canadian....
Is it? Because I'm not convinced that's how it works.
Invectivus, from your experience are the foreign workers being brought in to replace workers or to supplement the available work force?
They are being brought in to BE the workforce. They claim that they "cannot" find any skilled workers, so they look at "outsourcing". So they send these people to Toronto and pay for their Journeyman ticket. Apparently they are given a test for equivalency and somehow they are all journeymen......who cannot connect two wires together properly...........
Invectivus, from your experience are the foreign workers being brought in to replace workers or to supplement the available work force?
Does that really matter? It's replacing pre-existing workers or replacing would-be workers. Either way, it's a job position that would go to an otherwise unemployed Canadian....
Is it? Because I'm not convinced that's how it works.
I think that it is more pay dodging than hiring properly trained people. Less money spent on qualified people = more profits.......except when they turn the water off and blow the relief valve, releasing 10,000 pounds of Ammonia into a residential neighborhood. But Ammonia is a healthy, non-life threatening chemical that it won't effect anyone on....wait , what?....................God dammit
Invectivus, from your experience are the foreign workers being brought in to replace workers or to supplement the available work force?
Does that really matter? It's replacing pre-existing workers or replacing would-be workers. Either way, it's a job position that would go to an otherwise unemployed Canadian....
Is it? Because I'm not convinced that's how it works.
Invectivus, from your experience are the foreign workers being brought in to replace workers or to supplement the available work force?
Does that really matter? It's replacing pre-existing workers or replacing would-be workers. Either way, it's a job position that would go to an otherwise unemployed Canadian....
Is it? Because I'm not convinced that's how it works.
There's no meaningful distinction. Because it remains an open loophole for anybody who wants to exploit it: company hires 40 people to "increase" their workforce, then fires 40 workers in response to whateverthefuckreasontheywant. Laws should protect against the worst case, not hope for the best case.
hippofant on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I just don't see the difference between this and saying that immigration needs to be stopped because foreigners are taking our jobs. We mock one as ridiculous. And yet the other is perfectly valid? Bullshit.
I just don't see the difference between this and saying that immigration needs to be stopped because foreigners are taking our jobs. We mock one as ridiculous. And yet the other is perfectly valid? Bullshit.
From an immigrant's perspective, I hold fast to my position on this one. If these people were immigrating here, it'd be different in a number of ways. In 2011, there were 248,748 immigrants to Canada. In 2012, there were ~500 000 temporary foreign workers in Canada.*
Also, coincidentally - this is off memory since I can't find the sources right now - temporary foreign worker visas also expire after 4 years. Which is 1 year shorter than you need to qualify for PR now.
Even if these TFWs were getting to stay and get PR, I'd be pissed off if I was in the immigration queue coming here. So what, because I'm not willing to work for low wages and to be exploited by a Canadian company, I get leapfrogged by all these workers who are willing to be? And to be clear, we're exploiting them too. My feelings on that, as an immigrant, are complex and confused, so I won't get into it, but even if I divorce myself of my Canadian-ness and whatever nationalist/patriotic/protectionist sentiments I have, I still see the program as being abusive and exploitative.
* Obviously, TFWs in 2012 can't be granted PR in 2011, but I don't think we'll see our immigration numbers increase by 200% over the regular rate in 2016.
I just don't see the difference between this and saying that immigration needs to be stopped because foreigners are taking our jobs. We mock one as ridiculous. And yet the other is perfectly valid? Bullshit.
Nova, I think that the problem comes down to companies abusing the system in order to get ahead. I am for immigration, bringing in qualified people who can do the job, and who come here using the proper method. But with the Foreign Workers coming in, who don't know what they are doing, who can't even pass our basic Immigration tests, they are the ones that are hurting the system and are pissing people off. Who can we report it to though, is the big question. Most labor boards can't enforce their own decisions, and the government is certainly not helping. The only way for some people to work safe is to quit their job, and that just perpetuates a cycle of "well, we can't find anyone to work, so we need another TFW." This is what I have been noticing on the construction/maintenance side of the coin, it might be different from the office side.
My friend is trying to immigrate here from France. She has several university degrees in engineering and food industry manufacturing, but she is constantly being fucked over by Immigration Canada, who have lost her paperwork twice in the last 5 years, so she has to start the whole procedure over again. How is that fair. Someone, who has the education, has the want to come to Canada, is being told loltryagain, while someone who can't speak, write english or french is being ushered to the front of the line. My friend is being able to do her job because her company has hired her on a contract basis, because she is damn good at her job.
Posts
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/08/28/canada_tops_in_key_measures_of_scientific_literacy.html
Wild.
Whereas the data on Canada was collected last year. I don't know about anyone else, I know I'm more comprehending of scientific information now than I was thirteen years ago, and that's primarily due to greater availability of layman level information on the internet.
Not too sure about the literacy part (might be some cultural differences at play) but their trust of science is understandably low(the utter fumbling of the Fukushima disaster) although still higher then the US.
Except the article states that the Japanese data was collected in 2001.
10 years before Fukushima.
Switch Friend Code: SW-1406-1275-7906
Well technically if you aren't spending any money then by default you must be either revenue neutral or saving it.
This does not change the fact that when you run the third largest city in North America you need to spend money on everything from transit (to keep people moving through and around the city) to events (carribana and gay pride are as much about getting people to spend money as they are about celebrating the associated communities) to maintaining parks (nobody wants to spend time in an ugly city and if they aren't spending time there then they aren't spending money there) to basic government luxuries (Libraries are wonderful since they provide free information and entertainment).
But hey as long as cars can go vroom vroom wherever without having to worry about bikes or streetcars then who cares right?
You mentioned Caribana. You may recall that Ford was seen having a blast at Caribana. Every year, Caribana (among other festivals and the like) are funded via a cultural grant, which Ford has voted against every single time since he's been a councillor. Ford is almost always alone in these kinds of votes, occasionally joined by a councillor or his brother. Every other councillor, whether they're progressive or liberal or conservative or whatever understands that these grants are used to fund the things that we enjoy in the city. There are two things going on here.
Typically, even the most conservative of councillors will vote for funding for improvements in their own wards, getting community centres and parks and such built. Then they can show up at the opening and get photos taken. These people understand that money is needed to build these things. Ford votes against these things and still shows up. He doesn't, or refuses to, understand how his vote meant that he tried to stop the park from happening.
Which leads to the other thing: things are still getting funded and built. Ford has identified a bunch of stuff that he thinks will save the city big money, but he is never able to get other councillors to actually vote for it. The number of lone dissenting votes he's cast is a part of his brand. So a big reason he doesn't actually save any money is because council doesn't let him. It happens every meeting.
If you look at what little policy Ford has announced this election, you'll find it's pretty much his 2010 platform because council wouldn't let most of his insane, stupid ideas pass. What little of Ford's platform did get passed this term was because of other conservatives doing the work of securing votes or council just descending into chaos.
People who are uninformed pop their heads out of the hole every few years, then listen to what politicians say and believe them, because they have no information to the contrary.
Rob Ford appeals to these people because he is the most unabashed unapologetic boaster/liar.
Also, he won't raise taxes. Something that some people see as the only thing they really care about from a lawmaker.
People are frustrating.
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
He has raised taxes. He just says he won't raise taxes.
Sorry @hippofant, but you're guilty of overthinking this as well.
Let's face it folks, Rob Ford is nothing short of a genius, a visionary, and a modern day political pioneer, being the first politician to tap into the ever-neglected vote of the "crack user" demographic.
He is reshaping the future landscape of Canadian politics.
Look, if the Rest of Canada keeps voting conservative, I don't care what the "economic consequences" are, I'm going separatist.
I don't want of a system that bankrupts university students; I don't want of a system that muzzles its scientists; I don't want of a system that's afraid of the stranger; I don't want of a system that enslaves rather than rehabilitates; I don't want of a system that's for little taxes but great disparity; I don't want of a system that doesn't care for the state of the Earth; I don't want of a system that allows greed to dictate terms rather than compassion; I don't want of a system that spends more on weapons than on caring for the needy; in short, I want to love, rather than count. I want to help, rather than profit. Those are my principles, and I know there's a whole nation who'll stand with me.
Now, we may be poorer going independent, but at least we'll be happier: At least we will have a clean conscience.
Somedays, I just don't want to live in this country anymore
Also, Quebec wouldn't be 'poorer' if it separated. It would crash and burn. The same goes for any other province. Threatening to take your ball and go home just because current politics aren't the way you want 'em is extremely selfish and short-sighted. Not to mention, the big ol' boogieman known as the 'rest of Canada' has never voted in the majority for the CPC, and recent polls show that they're currently running second or third in every province except for Alberta (not even getting into the fact that the 'rest of Canada' isn't one big monolithic hivemind. You think Quebec is the only part of the country that has ever had an issue with what another part of the country is doing?).
Seriously. I'm French Canadian (Acadian specifically). I personally know people who have dealt with marginalization and inequality in the past because of that. Rather than saying 'we don't like how things are, so we're leaving', they worked to improve things. It wasn't easy. In fact, it was extremely challenging and discouraging at times. They stuck it out though, and things now are infinitely better than they were.
The whole 'separatist' thing just irritates me to no end. It spits in the face of progress French Canadians have made throughout this country. It's shortsighted, childish, and just outright delusional.
Yes, Harper is the worst Prime Minister this country has ever had, his government has been very destructive, and he needs to go. That's why it's so important for people to focus on voting him out in the next election (and we have a pretty good chance of doing so).
Look, I hit the agree button, but get this, I am on the other side of the country, over here in BC. Its not like you are alone in wanting those things and loathe what Harper & Cons are doing.
There has to be a better way, I wouldn't want to lose your conscience from my political landscape, I hope that makes sense.
I always say, economists are hacks. If anybody should be muzzled between scientists and economists, it should be the economists. They write stupid position papers that are ungrounded in reality and poison the political discourse with their conflicting conclusions and rampant bullshit.
Note how scientists are divided into their specific areas of specialty, like astrophysicist or evolutionary ecologist, whereas economists are divided by their ideologies, like Austrian or Keynesian. Hey, at least we agree on climate change. You guys can't even agree on the LCBO.
This is a terrible position to take, if anything we should allow all individuals (economist, scientist or otherwise) to try and justify their senseless and stupid position. I also don't think that muzzling scientists is necessarily a conservative (small-caps) position to take. It's just a consequence of the totalitarian control Harper likes to have.
Steam: CavilatRest
While I agree with your post, I feel I should address the bolded. As far as elected seats go, that's not true based on last election's result:
EDIT: Just to be clear, I agree with your comment, because that is not a trend representative of our federal elections, at all, but the statement "the RoC elected the conservatives", while an oversimplification, is still pretty much accurate as far as 2011 is concerned. The fear for many in Quebec, is/was that last election's result marked the beginning of an ideological divide between Quebec and a large enough majority of other provinces. Of course, so far this is just a one time thing, and current electoral trends show that (hopefully) the CP will be out of power next election. But in a worst case scenario where 2011's results would become the new norm, I think Elaror's view would be shared by many.
No party has won the popular vote since the 50s. I think the Conservatives reached 50% in 1984 but that would be the closest since then. Results are what matter as far most people's stance on election results lies, I edited my post above to reflect the view I was addressing.* One hundred years of darkness Conservative majority governments wouldn't somehow be made more tolerable by them having gathered 40% of the electoral vote instead of 50%+. Thank our electoral system for that.
*EDIT: Basically, Elaro's (correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation) comment reflect a fear that the 2011 election result was the beginning of the CP as the new natural ruling party. No matter what the popular vote is, it's the number of seats that matter as far as this trend would go. I don't agree that the 2011 results are in any way significant of a trend, but I heard many people express those worries.
Ah, Sun Media..... It's like you're a combination of Fox News and Daily Mail.
That's why whenever I hear my local paper trumpet the findings of the Fraiser Institute, about how we should cut social spending, cut taxes to bare bone levels, that teachers are making too much money, oil sands are great for the environment, but wind farms are not, my eyes glaze over. It's like saying "The KKK organization has come out with a study stating that there's sociological issues causing aboriginal women going missing or being killed"
WoW
Dear Satan.....
This is a rather stupid position to take and entirely based in ignorance of the field of economics.
Economists, like scientists, are divided by specialty and theories and models they believe are the most correct. It's just much more difficult to prove economic theories incorrect and, since economics has far more policy implications, there's allot more cranks and mercenaries.
It certainly doesn't help much to call shenanigans against fellow Canadian voters on the riding's results when there has been been some electoral fraud (financial and ballot box information) going on either. That's enough of a wedge of doubt to say the elected MPs represent your fellow Canadians political leanings.
And then we explore the dropping voter turn out numbers ... and surprise, surprise, that also benefits the Cons.
First Past The Post is fucked.
Its too bad the article only focuses on the oil sands. I am a journeyman Refrigeration Technician, and I work in a lot of the food processing plants in Southern Alberta, and I have seen too many of these foreign workers brought in for maintenance positions. Safety standards are too low, and one of these days I know that I will be hurt by their incompetence.
But employers get to pay them less, so they can fire large parts of their Canadian workforce and replace them by these inexpensive underqualified foreign workers and pocket the savings while our welfare numbers and government spending goes up and our quality of life goes down. That's called being "good for the economy"!
Does that really matter? It's replacing pre-existing workers or replacing would-be workers. Either way, it's a job position that would go to an otherwise unemployed Canadian....
Is it? Because I'm not convinced that's how it works.
They are being brought in to BE the workforce. They claim that they "cannot" find any skilled workers, so they look at "outsourcing". So they send these people to Toronto and pay for their Journeyman ticket. Apparently they are given a test for equivalency and somehow they are all journeymen......who cannot connect two wires together properly...........
I think that it is more pay dodging than hiring properly trained people. Less money spent on qualified people = more profits.......except when they turn the water off and blow the relief valve, releasing 10,000 pounds of Ammonia into a residential neighborhood. But Ammonia is a healthy, non-life threatening chemical that it won't effect anyone on....wait , what?....................God dammit
Oh how quickly they forget...
There's no meaningful distinction. Because it remains an open loophole for anybody who wants to exploit it: company hires 40 people to "increase" their workforce, then fires 40 workers in response to whateverthefuckreasontheywant. Laws should protect against the worst case, not hope for the best case.
From an immigrant's perspective, I hold fast to my position on this one. If these people were immigrating here, it'd be different in a number of ways. In 2011, there were 248,748 immigrants to Canada. In 2012, there were ~500 000 temporary foreign workers in Canada.*
Also, coincidentally - this is off memory since I can't find the sources right now - temporary foreign worker visas also expire after 4 years. Which is 1 year shorter than you need to qualify for PR now.
Even if these TFWs were getting to stay and get PR, I'd be pissed off if I was in the immigration queue coming here. So what, because I'm not willing to work for low wages and to be exploited by a Canadian company, I get leapfrogged by all these workers who are willing to be? And to be clear, we're exploiting them too. My feelings on that, as an immigrant, are complex and confused, so I won't get into it, but even if I divorce myself of my Canadian-ness and whatever nationalist/patriotic/protectionist sentiments I have, I still see the program as being abusive and exploitative.
* Obviously, TFWs in 2012 can't be granted PR in 2011, but I don't think we'll see our immigration numbers increase by 200% over the regular rate in 2016.
Nova, I think that the problem comes down to companies abusing the system in order to get ahead. I am for immigration, bringing in qualified people who can do the job, and who come here using the proper method. But with the Foreign Workers coming in, who don't know what they are doing, who can't even pass our basic Immigration tests, they are the ones that are hurting the system and are pissing people off. Who can we report it to though, is the big question. Most labor boards can't enforce their own decisions, and the government is certainly not helping. The only way for some people to work safe is to quit their job, and that just perpetuates a cycle of "well, we can't find anyone to work, so we need another TFW." This is what I have been noticing on the construction/maintenance side of the coin, it might be different from the office side.
My friend is trying to immigrate here from France. She has several university degrees in engineering and food industry manufacturing, but she is constantly being fucked over by Immigration Canada, who have lost her paperwork twice in the last 5 years, so she has to start the whole procedure over again. How is that fair. Someone, who has the education, has the want to come to Canada, is being told loltryagain, while someone who can't speak, write english or french is being ushered to the front of the line. My friend is being able to do her job because her company has hired her on a contract basis, because she is damn good at her job.