Japnaam Singh

Hello There

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Sat, 03 May 2008 02:43:00 +0000

Now that I've succeeded in reducing the amount of readers on this site to close to zero, I think I might try to start writing again.

What is there to write about? Like some others out there, I've seriously lost interest in Canadian politics. I still watch the news and even watch bits and pieces from the daily political shows, but there's something uninteresting about watching the current state of Canadian politics, and there's really no one to blame (well sort of no one to blame). If the party more closely associated with your views is in power, it can only really be interesting if they're reform minded and actually getting interesting things done (See Bobby Jindal in Louisiana) Because of the nature of a minority government and because of the ridiculous nature of the promises made by Stephen Harper in the last election (I'm referring specifically to the GST cut here), there just isn't much to get excited about. Canada was also, to be fair, relatively well-governed by the Liberals in a lot of respects and so wholesale change wasn't exactly seen to be urgent.

A lot of the reforms from the government seem fairly common-sense, including the immigration reform and the law and order stuff (it's finally illegal for a 40 year old to have sex with a 14 year old!), but I think there's just a general feeling that the Harper government hasn't been innovative enough on the domestic policy front, especially as it relates to taxes (how taxes could have been reduced by as much as they have been without any changes to marginal rates is beyond me - I don't care what anybody else says.) On the spending side, I think obviously, expenditures related to Afghanistan are wholly justified, although, once again, I think it's inescapable to note that the government should have gotten more out of the provinces in exchange for what it gave up in terms of increased transfers. Rhetoric on a more harmonious economic union sounds terrific, but what other bargaining chips does the government really have to force the provinces to produce results? There also hasn't been any progress on getting the provinces to set up better mechanisms for the recognition of foreign credentials. In fact, there hasn't been much progress with the provinces (as a whole - i.e. the Council of the Federation) on much of anything! What ever happened to working towards an HST? Any progress at all?

Stylistically, I think the government has been founding wanting as well. I think I may have defended it at the time, but when Stephen Harper accused the Liberal Party of opposing the renewal of the Anti-Terrorism Act because of some secret to deal to protect Navdeep Bains' father - I really think a new low was struck in Canadian politics. I find it far easier to see that now in hindsight. The irrationality combined with the simple ugliness of that charge really make it unique for me.

On the whole, I'd still give this government somewhere along the lines of a B-. I just hope that the Prime Minister recognizes that any legacy he hopes to achieve will only materialize with more big picture accomplishments. Competence, which Harper seems to possess, is only half the equation - governments have to be able to accomplish things that substantively and positively change the landscape of their countries if they are going to be looked back at fondly. In my opinion, Canada really hasn't had a lot of impressive governments over the past 50 years. A lot of Canadians look back fondly at a number of provincial governments, but I haven't seen this happen often for federal governments (except for the rare Trudeau-maniac). I think the current government still has the opportunity to go down as a historically good, but it's going to have to really change its overly cautious approach and on a number of files, engaging actively with the provincial governments is going to be unavoidable. That of course would be easier if idiots like Dalton McGuinty and Danny Williams didn't exist... but that's no excuse.

Why Bruce Allen is an idiot

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 05:42:00 +0000

Bruce Allen is not a racist. He might give comfort and misguided ideas to racists and xenophobic people and in doing so, he deeply poisons our social harmony, but he himself is not a racist.

He has, however, made extremely short-sighted and ignorant comments.

More than anything else, Allen's comments were deeply undemocratic. He said for immigrants to "shut up" if they had any problems with living in Canada. Allen's supporters regularly defend their support for him on the grounds of free speech. Why would they defend someone who tells people to shut up if they have concerns? How do you square your support for free speech with support for someone who tells Canadian citizens not to pursue their democratic rights if they don't correspond with his own values?

And what exactly else is Allen trying to say? That the law should never change? The status quo is perfect? The motorcycle helmet issue is another case of Allen's supporters being completely hypocritical and attempting to use any case to bolster their xenophobic fears. A lot of his supporters consider helmet laws and other such state interventions to be 'nanny-statism' and things that the government should not interfere with. But if it allows them to loudly express their misguided xenophobic fears, then there's no problem with helmet laws, right?

Allen's other points were even funnier. The passport pictures dealt with one rogue individual who was clearly acting in a way that made no rational sense. The children who were taking their pictures were easily recognizable and were in fact more recognizble since that's how they looked all the time. But no, Allen can't stand people standing up for their dignity and self-respect, since I guess only certain types of people are entitled to that.

On the name change issue, it's funny as well. He refers to an "immigration plan" to have Sikhs change their names before immigrating to Canada. What fiction! The ideas of a couple of bureaucrats in New Delhi to make their jobs a little easier hardly qualifies as some kind of centrally coordinated "immigration plan"! He made it seem as if the Government of Canada was taking a sophisticated approach to integration by forcing Sikh immigrants to choose new names. What a fool. If he looked into these issues even slightly, he would recognize that wasn't the case at all.

At the end of his rant, Allen talked about how we have laws in this country. Could he explain how the passport and immigration issue had anything to do with the law? They didn't. They were about rogue individuals who were treating Sikhs in an undignified way. There was nothing else to it. And the helmet issue... that IS the law now! There wasn't always a helmet law, then there was and now for Sikhs with turbans, there isn't. The law can change. Immigrants will continue to lobby changes to the law if it affects their personal dignity and there's nothing Bruce Allen can do about that. We're citizens too. We love Canada, our home, just like he does.

One last point. I've heard a few xenophobic types say recently "If you don't like it here, leave." The interesting thing with that comment is people like that aren't speaking for any kind of silent majority. The vast majority of Canadians find that sentiment apalling, no matter what you might be hearing in the media recently. Let's see if a mainstream Canadian political party went out there and said "If you don't like it here, leave." They would be decimated at the polls. They'd be reduced to fringe party status. So to those people who make that comment, why don't you leave instead? Your opinions are actually a lot less mainstream than those of us who feel that while we live in a liberal, secular nation where we have many things that unite us all, there is also room for the richness of diversity. The vast majority of Canadians view Canada as a beacon to the rest of the world, where we're welcoming of those that are willing to come here, contribute and feel as if they are a part of the Canadian fabric. No matter what anyone says in this debate, we should never lose sight of that reality. The xenophobes and the racist will never win this battle.

Baseless fear mongering by the CBC

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 03:04:00 +0000

I've never seen such a blatant attempt to plant fear and misinformation into the Canadian public than I saw tonight on the CBC.

I've never seen such a blatant abuse of journalistic power than Terry Milewski's piece on The National.

It doesn't take very much to slant a piece of journalism to suit the journalist's goals. When people give interviews, all you have to do is use them very selectively. Working as a journalist carries certain responsibilities, and the most basic tenet of journalism is to strive for fairness.

Terry Milewski's reporting on the Sikh community is anything but fair. It is malicious, it is divisive and it is a great shame that the CBC chooses to air his "reporting".

It doesn't take much to find a few nutjobs and air their opinions as the opinions of an entire community, and yet Milewski does this on an almost weekly basis, and the editors at the CBC seem to have no problem with it.

I've tried to come up with a rebuttal of Milewski's piece. Some of my rebuttal is based in clear fact and some of it is based on my observations of the Sikh community over the years.

- The most important starting point is that a violent movement for a Sikh state is virtually dead, in Punjab, in Canada and throughout the world. There still exists a number of Sikhs who wish to establish a Sikh state, but these people wish to do so through peaceful means.

- Tarek Fatah is someone who is deeply intolerant of anyone who doesn't buy into his rigid view of secularism. His view of secularism essentially calls for all religious people to cut their ties to their faith. He also seems to suggest that it is somehow beyond the pale to question the "unity" of India. How foolish. It's alright for Jewish Canadians to have nationalist sympathies with Israel and yet it isn't alright for other Canadians to have nationalist sympathies elsewhere as well? Are all national borders cut in stone? Are no nationalist movements worthy of sympathy? Does state-sponsored terrorism exist nowhere in this world? Most Sikh Canadians who are also Sikh nationalists are fully loyal to both Canada and to their aspirations for a Sikh state.

- This has been stated above, but Milewski makes a conscious decision to interview the most ignorant (and perhaps mentally imbalanced) people that he can find. He interviewed someone who said he spoke for a temple. That is a complete and utter lie. That person speaks for himself and nobody else.

- I can't state enough that there is very little appetite in any segment of the Sikh population that calls for any kind of violent behavior. I've never met a Sikh who wasn't horrified by the Air India tragedy. I've never met a Sikh who didn't realize that the Air India tragedy hurt the Sikh image immensely. Having said that, I have met Sikhs who aren't fully convinced that Sikhs were even behind the tragedy. Now I have my doubts about their theories, but unlike what Milewski kept trying to state as a fact, no Sikh was ever convicted of the Air India tragedy.

- Milewski's interviews of Dave Hayer and Ujjal Dosanjh were just laughable. Dave Hayer's dad distributed sweets outside of the main Sikh temple in Vancouver when Indira Gandhi was killed. Dave Hayer's dad called Jarnail Singh Bhindravale one of the greatest Sikhs ever. The point is that people change. Because someone expressed a view in 1984 doesn't mean that they still hold those views now, or even 10 years after 1984. What happened to Ujjal Dosanjh in 1985 was horrible and disgusting - but Dosanjh's inability (while perhaps somewhat understandable) to let go of a 20+ year old grudge clouds any objectivity that he might have.

- Milewski's attempt to isolate the Sikh community from any political power is as transparently obvious as it is malicious. Instead of perhaps offering some commentary that being integrated into Canadian society would be a good thing - Milewski's prescription is that isolating and shunning 100,000 Sikhs, 99% of whom do not favour any kind of violence for political ends, in India and especially in Canada, would be the best way forward.

- Milewski stated many many other falsehoods in his piece. For example, the WSO is a moderate Sikh group that expressly rejects any kind of violence. And yet he somehow portrayed them as some sort of violent extremist group. Milewski tried hard to portray as much as the Sikh population as possible as violent, raging, angry extremists. Why would he do this when it isn't so? Is it just because these sorts of lies get better ratings, or does Milewski have some other sort of deep seated dislike of Sikhs?

I was used for opposition research! (I think)

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 23:30:00 +0000

In a video recently put out by the Liberal Party of Canada on Youtube (a very silly video I might add), Dominic LeBlanc, an MP from the Maritimes makes reference to the government's ridiculous use of the phrase of a "safer, stronger and better" Canada. When pointing to evidence of the government's use of this phrase, the MP points to (among other things) a PMO press release.

The PMO press release used by the opposition was the same press release I linked to back in February, when I commented on the government's use of the slogan, and how the slogan was poor because of how packaged (and therefore focus-grouped) it sounded.

So yes... this could've just been a coincidence, but I doubt it... since there are approximately 70 PMO releases that contain that phrase, and out of all of them, they used the one I linked to!

Who knows... it still could've been a coincidence, since I almost never update this site anymore. (but it could've been found through google, where I'm on the first page of a likely search in case someone was doing research)

In any event, even though I didn't like the video itself (because of it's absolutely mindless anti-Bush theme), I don't mind being used for research that highlights the element of this government that I can't stand the most... even more than the lack of tax relief. Actually, that's not true... the lack of tax relief is what I can't stand the most. But yes, the pre-packaged/focus grouped nature of this government drives me absolutely insane.

An added note

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:50:00 +0000

In the post below, I quoted Steven Fletcher who talked about how Stephen Harper is making Canada "stronger, safer and better".

This is actually a common phrase coming out of the government these days. For example, it is included in this PMO press release. (It has to be said that I actually agree with the slogan on all three counts.)

Singing from the same song sheet is all fine and well when it comes to a united policy front and not going off script when it comes to contentious issues that could potentially hurt the party in terms of public opinion. Harper seems to have been determined to unite his party's messaging after the 2004 defeat, but it looks like they've just gone way too far in how they go about it.

While a united policy front is practical and looks disciplined, using the same catchphrases and slogans just comes across as cynical and artificial. Wouldn't Steven Fletcher have looked more genuine if he said something a bit more off the cuff? Like Stephen Harper is making Canada "safer, stronger and more prosperous" or whatever? (The use of better seems odd and comes across as a bit egotistical in how it overstates the Government of Canada's ability to immediately impact the nature of the entire country in a positive way)

Sorta disgusting

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:06:00 +0000

Was watching an announcement by Stephen Harper earlier today, where he was announcing funding for spinal cord research with Rick Hansen and Steven Fletcher. Fletcher is one of Harper's MPs who is paralyzed, and he seems like a likeable enough guy, but his introduction of Harper was more than a little over the top.

"Rick Hansen is one of my heroes, and I'm also blessed today to share the stage with another hero of mine. A man of extraordinary energy and determination, who has also surpassed expectations and defied preconceptions. A man of conviction who delivers on his committments and who is singleminded in his resolve to make Canada stronger, safer and better. A man who as leader of my party and as Prime Minister of Canada, is getting things done for all of us. Ladies and Gentlemen, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper."

"is getting things done for all of us" - including the party's next campaign slogan in his introduction of Harper at a spinal cord funding event - WAY over the top!

And how do you go from hailing a genuine hero like Hansen to describing your political boss in even more glowing terms? It just seemed really... eastern-bloc/Soviet-like. I couldn't imagine Harper was comfortable with it at all. It's as if Harper's MPs buy into the whole idea of the leader-based party and what not more than Harper would even prefer. Or perhaps they simply need to go over that whole relationship a bit better in caucus. It's one thing to hail your leader as a man of integrity, someone who has a spine of steel, etc. etc., but it's quite another to behave as Fletcher did earlier today.

Now probably, Fletcher is angling for a post in the cabinet... and today's comments shouldn't disqualify him or anything, but they surely should not in anyway enhance his prospects.

Cabinet Report Card

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 06:54:00 +0000

The NDP put together a report card of Harper's cabinet, so I thought I might as well myself.

So... without further ado:

Rona Ambrose - Environment: Overall C. This was always going to be a tough file. And while Ambrose isn't objectionable in anyway otherwise, her handling of this file has been confusing and has not inspired confidence in anyway. On a number of occasions, it's seemed as if she's actually supported emmissions credits, but then she says she doesn't and it goes back and forth, on and on. When it seems as if the minister herself doesn't know what she believes in, it's difficult for this file to be successful. The C also comes from the fact that many people (myself included) have always sort of wanted to see more Thatcher-like figures in high-profile public positions: strong, unbending, stubborn women who inspire both respect and fear. None of the women in the Conservative ranks have any of those qualities.

John Baird - Treasury Board: Overall B-. His grade would be higher, but his attacks on the Liberals are just way too ridiculous to be taken seriously. This guy is over-the-top partisan when he's on TV. The Liberals were never really that corrupt. They had several fatal flaws, but corruption was never as deeply ingrained in the system as Baird suggests. I mean, c'mon, we live in Canada, not some third-world country.

Maxime Bernier - Industry: Overall A-. Generally impressive in his willingness to take on the CRTC and actually implement his stated preferences for free-market solutions in the marketplace.

Jean-Pierre Blackburn - Labour/Economic Development Quebec: Overall C+. It's difficult to give a high grade to the guy who's responsible for dishing out pork to the province of Quebec. Though otherwise he's been fairly steady as it has related to the anti-scab legislation.

Lawrence Cannon - Transport, etc.: Overall B-. Of course, his performance during the nation debate was embarrassing, but otherwise he's a fairly coherent spokesperson for the party in Quebec.

Michael Chong: Overall B+. Resigned on actual principle, gave up lots of money and a personal chaffeur. All of that merits credit, even if he didn't handle the situation perfectly.

Tony Clement - Health: Overall B. The wait-times guarantee was an impossible task, so he gets no marks off on that front. Otherwise, the reason he doesn't get an A is because he's absolutely not led in any way when it comes to innovation in the healthcare field.

Stockwell Day - Public Security: Overall A. I think I might be unique in feeling this way, but to me, Stockwell Day just exudes competence and leadership on his file. It's still a tragedy that he couldn't get into Foreign Affairs (somewhat rectified byHarper himself take more of a lead on that file), but Day just seems very prepared and knowledgable about his file. The Arar situation was a bit messy, and Day would've gotten an A+ if he didn't express his confidence in the commissioner so close to the commissioner's resignation.

David Emerson - Trade: Overall B. It's difficult to really see what's going on in this file, though I assume that since Emerson's days in government are numbered, he's likely working away quite eagerly on drafting trade agreements with a number of countries. The Softwood file didn't work out perfectly, but in the end, it turned out alright.

Diane Finley - Human Resources: Overall B-. Hard to really judge her, though her performances infront of the camera have been a bit weak.

Jim Flaherty - Finance: Overall A-. Has seemed fairly steady and generally seems to inspire confidence. The GST cut still drives me insane, but that wasn't his fault. And to the extent to which circumstances allow, he seems fairly committed to cutting taxes.

Michael Fortier - Public Works: Overall B-. No real comment to make... Apparently he wasn't exactly successful in revamping the government procurement system.

Loyola Hearn - Fisheries: Overall B. Has seemed fairly competent. Not very flashy at all, but he seems fairly passionate as was shown in the fight against Paul McCartney.

Gary Lunn - Resources: Overall B. I want to see more action from Lunn when it comes to allowing oil and gas drilling off the coast of BC. There's been a number of mixed signals sent on this front, but if Lunn somehow contributed to creating a more dynamic oil and gas industry in BC, that'd be excellent.

Peter MacKay - Foreign Affairs: Overall C+. Has been caught in a few embarrassing situations when he's made premature pronouncements on a number of files, but otherwise, he's been fairly decent when he's been out and about in the international arena. Still though, he just doesn't get it in the same way that a Stockwell Day would.

Rob Nicholson - House Leader: Overall B. The house has been run reasonably well, it would seem.

Gordon O'Connor - Defence: Overall B. He seems like he knows his file and that he knows the mission well, however, he's just not very effective when he's communicating. For example, on a couple of occassions, he's explicitly said that the opposition wasn't "supporting the troops" by talking about the mission as they were. That was O'Connor speaking personally as a soldier, as a general, when instead, he needed to realize that he was in a political situation as a MINISTER and political comments from other parliamentarians shouldn't be dismissed in such a way. It's true that the opposition isn't supporting the troops by calling for a withdrawal from a mission that the troops overwhelmingly endorse and wish to see out, but a politician shouldn't speak in such terms.

Bev Oda - Heritage: Overall C. Just doesn't seem very effective in the house. Doesn't seem to have the strongest grasp on her file either.

Jim Prentice - Indian Affairs: Overall B. Seems to personify managerial competence, but he's still not someone I could imagine in a leadership role, since he seems to lack that common touch and an ability to relate to the conservative base.

Carol Skelton - Revenue: Overall Incomplete. I have not really heard or seen this minister since the swearing in. Of course, it was difficult to not include her in cabinet given the fact that she's a woman.... From what I've seen of her, she seems like an incredibly nice and easy going person, but I can't imagine her being an effective minister. She appears to be a strong Harper loyalist, and so it's no surprise that she was chosen ahead of a few other women to become a minister.

Monte Solberg - Immigration: Overall B+. Everyone seems to like Monte Solberg, but he hasn't been visible enough in his new role. He needs to unveil significant reforms and seriously grab a hold of his file and signal that he's in control.

Chuck Strahl - Agriculture: Overall B+. Good stuff on liberalizing the wheat and barley market.

Greg Thompson - Veteran's Affairs: Overall B. Veteran's issues seem to be in pretty solid hands with Thompson. They've unveiled a few initiatives and otherwise, there doesn't seem to be any problems.

Vic Toews - Justice: Overall B-. Sometimes he seems to talk a bit too much. Being a law student, sometimes I feel like maybe I'm just being brainwashed to be suspicious of Toews, but... there is certainly something to be said about being cautious when reforming the justice system on some issues. However, on some other issues, the system is certainly broken and is in need of major revamping and Minister Toews seems to be providing leadership on those files.

Josee Verner - International Cooperation: Overall B-. Does her best to convey the humanitarian victories in Afghanistan, but hasn't ultimately been successful.

Nightmare!!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 06:51:00 +0000

One of the most likely political scenarios in the spring is for the Liberals and Bloc to push for an election and for the NDP to help keep the Conservatives in power (due solely to soft NDP poll numbers).

I'm not even going to consider the policy ramifications of such a scenario (they're going to be bad), but let me just say that the idea of Garth Turner holding the balance of power in the house is truly terrifying. He'll once again milk the media spotlight he gets for all it's worth.

Just a note

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 06:49:00 +0000

A lot of the weird comments on the comments panel on the side - I have nothing to do with them!

And I'm also unable to delete them, since they're on a comments section that started on an old server, and I don't have editing access.

Also... now that I've written this post, maybe I'll write others as well.

George W. Bush and what he believes

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:25:00 +0000

I don't follow American politics all that closely, I used to until 2004, but now I only have a passing interest in what goes on down south.

Back in 2004, I remember reading the articles of Peggy Noonan, who seemed like such an ardent Bush supporter, even leaving her job as a columnist to help the President get re-elected, and that is why it is so odd to read this article from her today. Apparently Noonan had a significant change of heart about the President immediately after his 2005 inaugural address, after he pledged (naively in her view) to spread freedom around the world. Ever since then, she seems to be a bit of a Bush critic. Her skepticism is not rare, it spreads far and wide among many conservative intellectuals in the states. Today she asks what it is that the President believes - what his governing philosophy is. So since her and many others seem to have a hard time listening to their President, I thought I'd articulate his governing philosophy for them.

On the war/terrorism: I almost get the feeling that a lot of conservatives now regret the absolute focus that the President puts on this issue. And why wouldn't they? It's a bit depressing and frustrating sometimes, and still, the President focuses on this issue far more than on any other. It's almost certain that the policies of his administration have stopped at least some attacks since 9/11, saving the lives of possibly thousands of people, and yet he receives little credit on this front. When the President constantly believes that he must protect his citizens from attack, attack that he deems very much possible to come at any time, domestic policy often gets put off the immediate agenda. As for his long term agenda on this file, who can argue that a world of peaceful, liberal and secular societies is the only way to generally defeat extremism? Any President who considers religious extremism a threat to the world would hold this view quite strongly. And again, some are surprised at how strongly President Bush holds this view.

On the economy: President Bush inherited an economy in recession, a pretty shaky situation for any president to inherit. And since that recession passed, how exactly has the President been performing on the economy? He cut taxes measurably, and has generally, except for when it has been incredibly politically difficult (Steel tariffs for sometime in the first term and Softwood lumber), stuck to a free trade and open economy agenda. It's frustrating that he hasn't been an absolute free trader, but who can blame him on this front? Winning is important in politics too, and given the mood in the United States, it's surprising that he hasn't been even more protectionist. And how has the economy responded to his policies? Incredibly well actually. The US economy is performing strongly, and has been since 2003. It's important to stress that the President is strongly pro-growth in his economic views and that he has definitely delivered on this front. He was probably shaken by the immediate recession, but he has acted in ways that will prevent another recession from coming anytime soon, hopefully.

On spending: Some conservatives point to Medicare reform from the first term as the perfect sign of how President Bush isn't a real conservative, how he's a spendaholic and so on. The central piece of that Medicare bill was a provision that included a prescription drug benefit for seniors. The bill also included provisions for health savings accounts which may make healthcare costs a lot easier to handle for many Americans. Now leaving aside that the President would have lost the 2004 election if not for this bill, even doing a little bit of research, it is easy to find out how the President at least approached the Medicare bill, philosophically. Now in the President's eyes, Medicare (at least in how it related to seniors) was incoherent and inconsistent in how it paid for many medical procedures but how it absolutely did not cover the prescription drugs that could have prevented the need for those medical procedures (surgery and so on). The President even believes that his Medicare reform bill will thus quite possibly REDUCE the cost of Medicare on the federal treasury. Is that not at least a coherent explanation for why the President proceeded with the Medicare reform bill? Is it completely at odds with being a conservative? On another entitlement program, social security, the President tried to fix a broken system but was stopped in doing so by congressional Democrats that would have rather seen the President fail before he fixed an obvious problem, a problem that will now cost the American treasury hundreds of billions of dollars more. Also, fixing social security is much more of a conservative-minded goal, in the sense that social security is a program that makes little sense in how it's little more than a Ponzi scheme that by its very nature is unsustainable and unrealistic in the long term, especially since it applies to all citizens, not just the poor or anything like that. Medicare on the other hand is impossible to cut significantly in any way, because it would be politically untenable to be (rightly) seen to be cutting services to poor people and seniors and therefore impossible to put through congress. On other spending matters, the President's budgets have actually always included cuts in discretionary spending programs. On appropriations bills, it is silly to suggest that he should veto some of them. When President Reagan tried that in the mid 80s in response to a ridiculous highway appropriations bill, he was overriden immediately by the Senate and it was largely a move that showed no real purpose. President Bush, in my view, is above such useless maneuvers.

On immigration: Most of conservative grief with the President is over this file and some of it may be merited, it all just depends on how people view the immigration issue. Now it is clear that the President is absolutely not a restrictionist on the immigration file, but for those who are somewhat restrictionist, it's important to at least acknowledge the good faith reasons that the President has for holding the views that he holds. Largely, it seems to me that his view that illegal immigrants should be offered a pathway to citizenship derives from his Christian faith, in his belief that even illegals should be treated humanely and that it would also be impossible to deport them. His brother's wife is also a Mexican immigrant and this seems to have weighed on his thinking in some way. The President has also stayed away from useless fear mongering when it comes to immigrants and other ethnic minorities and the prime example of this was when he was opposed to a mean-spirited and baseless effort to strip ownership of some US ports from an Arab country (simply because the country was Arab), even though that country was very obviously an American ally.

On social issues: On stem cell research, the President took a courageous stand in not BANNING stem cell research, but at least limiting federal dollars to funding that in many people's views destroy human life. Conservatives generally applaud this. On the Supreme Court, the President made a bit of an error in nominating his personal lawyer to the highest court in the land, but this error can be justified in that when it came to issues related to terrorism and what not, he wanted to be absolutely confident that the Supreme Court sided with his administration's efforts. Also, he genuinely did seem to believe that she'd be a conservative jurist. Notwithstanding that nomination, it does seem that with one more Supreme Court appointment, something the President should get within the next year or so, the Supreme Court will be on its way to reversing fully legal abortion-on-demand throughout the country. On stem cell research and probably even on judicial appointments, the President will almost certainly be stronger on the pro-life side than even a potential Republican President in 2009.

It's also important to note that on the major issues of conservative discontent (immigration, spending), the President's position has generally been identical in 2000, 2004 and now. And it's important to recall that conservative support for the President in 2004 especially was rock solid, even including the lady that prompted this post, Peggy Noonan.

Wow.

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 03:19:00 +0000

Here's a link to some pretty amazing keertan (hymn singing) done by some White Sikhs from New Mexico.

Everyone's claiming to know who these guys are, but why didn't anyone tell me?

Could've been worse (eg. That guy who married and dated women upto 50 years younger than himself)

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:17:00 +0000

Which Former Prime Minister Are You Most Like?

You are Lester B. Pearson. You are a peacemaker and a hero to many.
Take this quiz!

Quizilla |
Join

| Make A Quiz | More Quizzes | Grab Code

More proof that people are generally kind of dumb

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 02:12:00 +0000

Usually, the poll results at CTV.ca are indicative of a readership that is pretty reasonable, but not today, absolutely not today.

In the current poll, over 60% of the site's readers favour a blanket ban on the presence of trans fats in all foods. 20% favour trans fats to be "limited". LESS than 20% favour any kind of system where the presence of trans fats could be unregulated (and even then only 2% of their readership wants the presence of trans fats to be allowed without labelling).

I have to admit, that while my prediction of the poll results is usually pretty accurate, today I was blown away. I was dead-wrong.

I guess this might explain why everyone keeps telling me how the movie "Super Size Me" is the best movie ever - because anyone who sells food that contains fat is like, so evil.

How come I don't hear about this in Canada?

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:48:00 +0000

Every now and then, I hear the most disappointing stories of governments investigating companies for "price fixing" or "price gouging" or something else along those lines. Today's story comes out of both the UK and the US.

Usually, the story is the result of the government trying to seem like they're trying to stand up for the "little guy", especially in the wake of natural disasters. Perhaps it's because Canadian politics has less of a populist strain in it, but I've never heard about these kinds of investigations in Canada. I hear about them all the time in the states though... against Microsoft for being too successful, against the gas companies for raising their prices as the price of light crude rises on the market and so on.

I don't know that much about "price fixing", but complaints about "price gouging" drive me absolutely insane. After major hurricanes in the southern US, I often read stories of hotels and gas stations being potentially charged with price gouging if they raise their prices from what they should ordinarily be. Well I'm working at a hotel we operate, and I'll be here for the entire summer, and if there's some event that causes a surge of traffic to our village, we'll be sure to raise our rates or do whatever supply and demand dictates we do (perhaps we'll have to even LOWER our rates if a natural disaster PREVENTS people from coming). The other hotels in the area will do the same. We won't be constrained by the ridiculous idea of "price gouging".

Self-loathing Canadians: Get out of Canada

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 01:56:00 +0000

In response to his article from yesterday, Jonah Goldberg has posted a number of e-mails from Canadian readers of his who agree absolutely with his take on Canada.

I can't comprehend at all how or why any Canadian would a) even hold those views and then b) send them to Goldberg so he can prominently display them on a website that is read by many influential Americans, particularly those in Washington.

Yesterday we also witnessed the remarks of a former mid-level CSIS bureaucrat who sat infront of a Congressional committee in order to testify that Canada was a haven for terrorists and that immigration and refugee admissions into Canada should be halted immediately.

Do these people have no loyalty to their country? I don't get it. Why would they purposely want to hurt their country and misrepresent it to Americans? Especially when Canada relies so much on America and its economy?

The fact that their views are ignorant and misinformed only adds to the stupidity of their actions.

Now I'm not an anti-American, I never have been, I never will be. America is one of the best countries in the world and it is usually a force for good in the world - but Canada isn't so bad itself. Sure, Canada might be embarrassing from time to time on the world stage, but everything's relative. Canada is usually far more responsible and stands on the side of democracy/human rights, etc. far more often than most countries in Europe.

If you actually look how things are developing, Canada is set to play a more responsible and active (and more moral) role on the world stage - but very few people seem to appreciate this. And since the current PM will probably be more capable of having the ear of the US President than his Liberal predecessors, an active Canadian influence on world affairs is something we'll be almost sure to witness.

As for Canada's supposed addiction to the welfare state - I don't know how any American commentator can honestly make such a criticism. Does he not remember when Bush's ratings tanked precisely after he tried to reform the ridiculous social security system down south? Is he not honest enough to admit that small government doesn't sell all that well in the States either? Sure, Canada has a pretty inefficient healthcare system - but that's opening up, and will only open up more as we move forward.

I expected better...

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:24:00 +0000

I never used to think that Jonah Goldberg was all that bad, but today, a profoundly stupid column by him in the LA Times.

"Canada is arguably the most deluded industrialized nation in the world. Because elite Canadians think the U.S. is the font of the world's problems..."

Which elites think this? Does he mean political elites? Naturally he can't mean the current Canadian government, considering their Conservative political label... but even if he's referring to the past government, the Liberals, it isn't exactly true. None of the prominent Liberal leadership candidates is blatantly "anti-American", though most of them will have no problem appealing to anti-Americanism in order to secure political advantage (though this strategy did not work very well at all during this past general election.) The front-runner in the Liberal leadership race is actually considered to be half-American, especially considering his use of the words "we" and "us" when speaking to American audiences about the role of America in the world.

Moving on:

"They've bravely contributed to the war in Afghanistan, where 2,300 troops still serve, but refused to join the effort in Iraq, believing that jihadists would honor such fine distinctions. That was awfully nice of them."

What a moronic statement. I think it's regrettable that Canada did not contribute to the Iraqi war/liberation, but to attribute to Canada's motives that Chretien believed that "jihadists would honor such fine distinctions" is really ignorant. Chretien didn't participate because he knew it would be politically unpopular - that was the only reason. There were no high principles involved, no fear of being a terrorist target or anything like that. Chretien knew that it would be politically unsellable, especially in Quebec, and he was right. It's also proved to be politically unsellable in America as well, despite President Bush's admirable efforts, but Goldberg doesn't bother to point that out.

Then Goldberg goes onto quote several obscure Canadians who talk about their surprise at Canada being a target because Canada is supposedly so "nice". He doesn't bother to quote the many commentators who have pointed out that our committment to Afghanistan is not viewed with much distinction to the American "occupation" in Iraq. He doesn't bother to mention that there are active terror cells in the United States as well.

Most of all, Goldberg doesn't consider there to be much distinction at all between the social situation in Europe compared to the situation in Canada. While in Europe, demographic and social issues will continue to result in much conflict and tension, that same situation is not replicated in Canada. Our economy is doing a lot better than Europe's and Canada's Muslims are by in large far more likely to view themselves as "Canadian" compared to European Muslims who have a harder time identifying themselves as "British" or "French" or "Dutch".

Kinda Cool

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Mon, 29 May 2006 20:30:00 +0000

I was just flipping through the pages of the June 5th edition of the Western Standard Magazine...

And on Page 7, on the Publisher's Page (the publisher being Ezra Levant), there's a picture from Ezra Levant's recent trip to Ottawa when he was meeting with the Prime Minister in what appears to be the Prime Minister's Office.

In the picture, to their left, is a plaque with a big Khanda on it.

For those of you who don't know, the Khanda is essentially the symbol of the Sikhs, comparable to the cross for Christians or the Star of David for Jews.

I'll try to see if I can scan the picture and upload it onto here.

A Significant Number of American Conservatives are Idiots

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Mon, 15 May 2006 23:29:00 +0000

I very much hesitate to refer to people who list immigration as their "number one concern" as racists or even xenophobes. There are strong reasons to protect a country's borders, there are strong reasons to regulate immigration, but some of the reaction down south can only be described as idiotic and irrational when it comes to the immigration issue.

So many people in America get upset when Bush utters the phrase that there are some jobs "Americans won't do", but what in the world is it about that phrase that gets them all upset? Isn't unemployment below 5%? In what way has immigration, even illegal immigration, hurt the American economy?

The fear-mongering about there being threats to America's identity is also insane. Hispanics in America are in no way comparable to Muslims in Europe. The people who make that argument are such fools. On the economic level, the American economy is so much more flexible than Europe's and on the social level, the people coming in are largely devout Catholics who largely have no problem integrating into American society. But instead, some people point to a tiny tiny fraction of Mexican radicals who talk about taking back the southern United States and making it a part of Mexico again.

Immigration should be a rational and practical issue - it shouldn't be so emotional and heated. Some conservatives are actually calling for Bush's impeachment over this issue. These are the same conservatives who happily voted for Bush 2 years ago even though they knew his view on immigration policy was the same as it is now (it may even be slightly less "liberal" now.) His views on spending are the same now as well. And yet, some conservatives down south are abandoning Bush essentially in response to his dropping poll numbers and the negative media coverage. For people who complain about a liberal media, they're essentially playing right into what the left and the media would want - conservatives abandoning Bush as well, in addition to independents and Democrats. What else would explain it? They voted for him before and his views haven't changed, so what exactly is their problem? They're overexxagerating and over-hyping one issue (immigration) and for what? They know that Bush won't change his mind - they're only weakening his ability to pursue progress on other domestic and foreign matters.

Feel the same way

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Fri, 12 May 2006 03:29:00 +0000

I just encountered a post I made more than 3 years ago, on a Sikh Message Board, supporting America's actions in Iraq.

More than 3 years later, I still feel the same way (even stronger, actually.)

Author: Japnaam Singh
Date: 03-28-03 12:11

Vaaheguroo jee kaa Khaalsaa, Vaaheguroo jee kee Fateh!

Obviously both sides are not perfect, and have done many unrighteous things in the past, but for the following 3 reasons I think it would be best to support the United States.

1) Hope: Saddam Hussein runs Iraq very much the same way Joseph Stalin ran the Soviet Union, dissenting opinions are not allowed at all. Dissidents who have left Iraq have come with many stories about how Saddam has killed any person who he suspected of being unloyal, etc. Plus, we (Most Sikhs who are out of the Punjab) are very lucky that we live in democracies, we have the right to religion, speech, and many other things. All of these rights are greatly infringed upon in Iraq. If one of the Middle Eastern countries is made into a democracy, this will surely cause other nations to follow suit. More nations with democracies will ultimately lead to more stable governments, and more freedom for the people.

2) Humanitarian: The people of Iraq are starving. Partly because of sanctions, but also due to the fact Saddam Hussein obviously does not care about the welfare of the Iraqi people. If Saddam wanted he could still easily prevent starvation and disease in his country if he directed funds towards those issues, however he is obviously more interested in lavish palaces and his military.

3) Safety: A terrorist network by itself has killed 3,000 people, if the means were available they would have had no problems killing 30,000 or even 300,000. When a terrorist network gets links with a terrorist state bad things will happen. The terrorist network will have many more resources and ways to inflict casualties on western democracies and their interests. Saddam Hussein has admitted links to Palistinean terror organizations (Who hate America) and suspected links to other terrorist organizations which hate America even more.

War in itself is not a good thing, it will cause destruction, death and many other bad things.

However, it is definitely in the long-term interests of the Iraqi people and the people of the world to change the regime of Saddam Hussein and implement reforms in Iraqi Society.

Vaaheguroo jee kaa Khaalsaa, Vaaheguroo jee kee Fateh!

A Sham

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Thu, 04 May 2006 15:28:00 +0000

I was a bit disappointed earlier this week, not because I expected much from the advertised Air India inquiry, but because in the end, it delivered nothing substantial.

The inquiry's terms of reference are very empty and there's an obvious and understandable reason for why that is (I'll get to this later). Still, the fact that the government was as short sighted as it was in drafting the terms of reference is a disappointment.

The terms do not include the investigation into the bombing itself in any meaningful way, nor does it include the behavior of the prosecution. Things such as whether the authorities followed all leads, whether they should have been looking elsewhere when thinking of suspects - all of that will almost certainly not be addressed now.

Around when the government was first sworn in, the Justice Minister said that the inquiry was likely going to focus mainly on the investigation and the prosecution, but because of the backlash from the victim's families, this will no longer happen. Now of course the government should have consulted primarily with the victim's families, but consultation should not have been exclusive to them. The victim's families were naturally close with both the RCMP investigators and also with the prosecution team and so it should be no surprise that they're being shielded from the inquiry's scope; but they shouldn't be. Just because the victim's families believe that the investigators and prosecutors conducted themselves properly does not make it so. The government should have been wiser (and braver) enough to include investigative and prosecutorial mistakes in the inquiry's terms as well.

Instead, the inquiry will focus largely on issues that have already resolved themselves to a large extent. RCMP and CSIS matters, assessing the threat of "Sikh terrorism" (which is dead anyway), and so on are matters that really don't need an inquiry. Even the more substantive question of terrorist financing (did the Air India tragedy really require much financing? No.) and trials might be important questions, but the government does not need an inquiry in order to set policy directions for those matters.

So all in all, a disappointment. A whitewash.

Then what's the point really?

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 07:09:00 +0000

I found Michael Ignatieff's entry into the Liberal leadership race to be interesting not because of his prescription for the country or because of any of his policy ideas (all very tired and boring), but because of his academic writings on nationalism and particularly his dissecting of nationalist aspirations and dreams. In any case, his scholarly (and even real world) experience with nationalism will have trouble applying to nationalism in Quebec.

As Laurent Moss notes, nationalism in Quebec is no longer based on French heritage or much of anything to do with a shared ancestry or a shared cultural heritage. Instead, it is based on supposed economic and fiscal grievances, such as complaints about Quebec not getting its fair share of federal transfers. In an effort to appeal to non-Francophones, the sovereignty movement has given up on most of their traditional appeals. In effect, a sovereign Quebec would be identical to the Canada that it had just separated from.

Naturally, instead of the more romantic approach of wanting to be the "French speaking people of North America" in their own country, Quebec's sovereignty movement can no longer be fueled by the same passion that existed before all of the politically correct arguments came to be used by sovereigntist leaders.

As politically correct attitudes (i.e. wanting sovereignty to be based upon something that is "solely civic, territorial, multicultural and pluralistic") spread across the globe to some degree, nationalist movements will continue to die, at least in terms of what real nationalism means.

Even the arguments for Sikh nationalism in Punjab follow along the lines of western PC thinking: A Sikh state would be a completely secular state, there would be no discrimination between Sikhs and non-Sikhs and so on. Of course it would be against Sikh teachings to coerse any non-Sikh into following the Sikh lifestyle but that in itself somewhat defeats the purpose of a "Sikh state". This is why I don't envision a Sikh state to really be a "state" at all. My vision of a Sikh state (something that I can't imagine for decades, at least) is a vision of a sort of anti-state, a sort of anarcho-libertarian paradise, where there's really no government at all.

Low expectations always work

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 05:34:00 +0000

After watching Peter MacKay's press conference with Condi Rice late last week, I have to say that it wasn't so bad. Not as bad as I thought it'd be at least. He'll certainly be far better than Lloyd Axworthy, the worst Foreign Affairs Minister Canada's probably ever had. Axworthy wouldn't even be able to hold a press conference with Secretary Rice if he were still the Minister, considering his past remarks.

When he was appointed Foreign Minister, I was fairly disappointed since changes in government have the ability to effect a nation's foreign policy almost immediately and having a cliche-speaking (and probably cliche-thinking) novice like MacKay in the job didn't seem too promising, but with the tight control that the PMO seems to be imposing on him, things might not turn out too bad. Because of the direction from up top, MacKay will also surely be better than the pointless (though not amoral in the way Axworthy was) Foreign ministers of the later Liberal years such as Manley, Graham and Pettigrew.

TheirSay.com

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 06:09:00 +0000

Mike Brock has finally launched his commenting system, TheirSay.

It is, by far, the best blog commenting system available.

And since I've been a trial user for all this time, I thought I should do my part in helping to advertise for it.

Their Say Blog Commenting.

Normally I try not to judge people by how they look...

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 00:32:00 +0000

But there's no way I could be an objective juror in a trial involving this guy or this guy. (regarding this case.)

I'd want to lock them up before I even heard the opening statements.

In practice

noreply@blogger.com (Japnaam Singh) — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:35:00 +0000

It's disturbing to actually see floor-crossing legislation enacted.

In theory, it was all fine and good to talk about floor-crossing legislation, but the NDP government of Manitoba is actually trying to make it law.

Now of course the Canadian first-past-the-post electoral system is deeply flawed in that voters are simultaneously asked to cast judgment on candidates, parties and party leaders, but that is the system that every province (and the federal government) still uses, and as long as that system is still in place, anti-floor-crossing legislation is deeply undemocratic because it gives more clout and power to the party system, essentially making MPs less representative of their constituencies.

Because it's impossible to gauge the extent to which voters balance the three factors before them as they vote (candidate, party and party leader) it's silly to make the claim that a particular constituency voted only for a particular party when electing a particular candidate. The reason the Liberal party did as well as it did in the past election was because of how many incumbents it had and how many of those incumbents had ties to their communities. There's also much emphasis placed on "star candidates" and their ability to secure more support than their party could ever manage by itself. Basically, candidates matter.

And unless and until Canada goes to a system that is based solely on choosing a particular party instead of choosing candidates (i.e. proportional representation), MPs should be able to floor cross whenever they feel like it. If enough of their constituents truly did mean to elect their party and not them as individuals then that will be known at the next general election. Canada has mandated elections (which happen less than 5 years apart), but too often people forget about that.