The Long-Form Census Debate

One of many links here.

As I mull on this, I have a few observations:

The long-form census was divisive if accurate, and at best a joke.

The questions about heritage were, for example, idiotic. I could argue that the fact I come from a Scots-Welsh mix tells something about me, but I would be stretching the point. Now, basic identifiers such as Cascadian, black, etc. might have medical statistical value, but even that is doubtful in a forum where you are asking people to fill out the forms themselves. For example, how many generations back do some of us have to go to inherit some Native American blood, or have a few Caribbean pirates in our line? Genetics being what it is, I am white as can be, but there are Buchans in the Caribbean who linearly are in my family tree and have a coal black visage. Whose to say the same blood and same genetics don’t predispose us to the same risks? It’s just not a reliable to trust what we think we know about ourselves to provide such data, which is of such questionable value.

Worse than just being idiotic, some of the long-form census questions were invasive given their lack of rational purpose. Having our governments know too much about us is ludicrous given how poorly managed the data is, and how poorly used it is. If they had a track record of making insightful future-forward pronouncements based upon the data, it would possibly be defensible, but the governments in Canada have no such track record. They choose to simply ignore facts that don’t suit their policies of the day (all brands are equally guilty). That dishonesty begs whether they need more than the bare information, given they can’t mange successfully regardless. And the fact Statistics Canada is a reseller of data is worrisome, given the identifiable nature of that data. We can’t generally trust them with the data.

But details of those arguments aside, there is a fundamental unfairness about what the long-form census claimed to provide. It was being leveraged to help specific causes, rather than as a tool to understand the dynamic changes in population. And, frankly, given the ebb and flow of people – and the speed of population changes – it was constantly outdated. It just isn’t a functional tool for the modern world, when that data is more dynamic than ever.

Basic social justice demands that we are responsible to our populace, but the path to get there isn’t about gathering mounds of saleable statistical data. It would be far better to debate, for example, what the government should be doing socially, than to debate the mechanics of a census that is of doubtful use. But that would require real thought, and apparently our media today lacks the integrity to actually explore the root problems of our society, and prefers to focus on the dumb shows.

Tamil Refugee Shuffle

First, I’ll state flatly I’m pro-immigration. My gut feel is that immigration is the best hope the human race has of waking up in a century and not peering out at a wasteland. We either need to have children, or bring people from elsewhere to fill the gaps in our society. Since population growth is a serious problem globally, our birth rate is essentially not a terrible thing if it’s flat, and that means relying on immigration to shape the future. Redistribution is preferable to increase.

I have no preference as to who comes from where, except in as much every incomer needs to come here because of what our society represents, not to transplant the society of the place they’re coming from. I’m perfectly okay with Chinatown equivalents in any city (familiarity for the newcomers can be helpful, and healthy, and the cultural pools are enlightening); and I couldn’t care less about overall religious beliefs, and would welcome a mosque nearby so I could regularly meet the 99.9% of Islam who aren’t running around blowing up people. But, if you bring yourself to Canada, be capable of conforming to the laws and mores of the society, in so much as not imposing a warped world view over our already warped world view. Affect the change, in other words, by becoming part of the society and changing it over time by expressing the wisdom of what your specific culture has to offer. Don’t expect the society here to change instantly to accommodate yours, and realise your culture is not your society. Please bring your cultural variances into play, because we need the variety. If you can do that and be productive, come soon and bring your equally productive friends.

So, I’m staunchly pro-immigration, basically as long as the incomers accept that they are coming to a society that has its own context, not transplanting their social context with their culture. We don’t need slum-mentality from afar, as we have our own; and we certainly don’t need any extra intolerance. When you come to Canada, leave the bad behind and embrace the good while sharing your cultural accomplishments. I’m fairly certain the miniscule percentage of the populace who would slap a racist label on the attitude I have, include very few legitimate immigrants, most of them being hard-working people who actually came to Canada for the very reason it has opportunity and advantage.

Having said that, we probably should start sinking ships like the Tamil-refugee vessel we’re about to let land. It’s harsh, but the reality is we have systems in place to deal with immigration that, even if flawed, have to be respected. If it was just refugee queue-jumping here, I probably would be less harsh, but the problem really is that we have a high chance that some of the people onboard the ship are, or were, or will be, terrorists. Out of two hundred, if even two are, then we are sending a message to the neighbours we depend upon for trade, and the world, that we are the soft-touch nation of choice. And, worse, we are encouraging the awful practice of herd ships, which essentially cram in illegal human cargo and ship it elsewhere. We open an avenue where, eventually, after being repeatedly burned, we’ll get the same bizarre anti-immigration attitude that it has taken decades to largely divest ourselves of.

I think ultimately the test of a nation’s quality is that it balances world need against its own social need, and refugees test a society. Unlike most immigrants, even the best refugees are running from something terrible, often a brutal regime. That psychological stance comes with them, and they are given almost no real integration assistance, which makes them far less likely to be successful in our society. Even the best immigrants, in terms of ability and education, struggle in our society because we have almost no real systematic assistance to help them come to terms with how Canada is different from their point of origin. We can’t actually afford it, I suppose, but my guess is we sacrifice a great deal more in the near-term by not affording it. Taking a refugee, even a legitimate one, into Canada, though, is exposing the system of immigration to a control failure – and that means it is unfair to the nation, to the legitimate immigrants who struggle through frustrating channels, and finally to the very refugees who will end up as an underclass in their new society.

Far more problematic, though, is that we rely upon partnerships with nations that are damaged if we ignore the real responsibility we have to reject false claimants. It’s offensive to me, as well, to have to pay the cost of trying to figure out who is a valid refugee and who is a plant, because we frankly haven’t the resources to waste.

And from a humanitarian point of view, I find it deeply offensive that we accept this form of refugee immigration at all. That’s where my statement about sinking such vessels comes from, even though I’m not literally serious when I write it. We need to stop this sort of dangerous voyage, and the only way to do that is to make the payoff invalid. Sinking a ship is cost-effective; flying every one of these people back home is probably humane. But unless you do it, unless you take a hard-line on this sort of thing, you encourage it – and encouraging greedy people to ship human cargo in filthy conditions is not, and never has, been a Canadian stance.

G20/G8: A Boondoggle at a Billion

Shockingly, the conservatives lost my vote with the price tag of their own boondoggle. Who to vote for now that they are all equally useless? I suppose no one. sad.

Why My Cash Remains In My Bank Rather Than My Member’s Coffers

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20100627/tax-agency-workers-100627/

About 3 months ago I started to withhold my usual donations to the party, primarily because of nonsense like the link above provides evidence for within government. I hope that other conservatives (the real ones, rather than the pretenders presently soaking us for cash) follow suit. There is no excuse for not managing these issues.

More Corruption

I’m going to have to change this blog’s name to “Conservative Watch” if this crap keeps up. (MP Shory accused in giant mortgage fraud)

It strikes me that Jaffer and Shory are two examples of a standard we don’t need anywhere in politics. More proof all politicians are corrupt?

Yes, I know, innocent until proven guilty – but, really, where’s the doubt? You funnel fraudulent loans through your legal trust fund? It’s a matter of cash flow. It’s physical and real. You cannot, ever, deflect the truth. But, hey, maybe his partners did it, or a legal secretary, or anyone but him. Santa Claus might have a hand in it.

One more so-called conservative proves to be an outright criminal mind, and I’ll have to chop up my membership card.

Copyright Disaster

Read this. If true, conservatives just jumped the shark into the same pockets US politicians have been in for years. Sad, pathetic, and just depressing.

Wither Thou Cash?

I’m a staunch fiscal conservative, and have in the past financially supported my cause, but of late I’ve been hesitant about tossing my resources into the ring for three reasons:

1. Unlike politicians, who have no performance requirement to get paid, I actually work for a living, and my earnings are directly affected by their lack of imagination, and their horrific overall inability to manage a buck. As I have watched them piss away my tax dollars lately, I’m hesitant to give anything to any campaign, since I expect that money is as poorly used as the money they blew collectively (all parties take some responsibility here) on the unnecessary debt we took on to escape a recession that wasn’t anywhere as bad (in Canada) as the ones in the 80s or 90s. I’m troubled by the belief they are as pathetically incapable of managing their campaign finances as they mange the public ones. Deeply troubled.
2. Again, unlike politicians, I am a solid middle class earner (on the high end, thankfully), and my resources are limited somewhat. The more I donate to a cause (of any kind) the more basic value I expect. For example, I expect conservatives to be conservative. I also expect the people I help elect to be something other than corrupt; I expect them to, in fact, be sickened by even the vague taint of corruption. But lately I’m watching gyrations that suggest at least a part of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) I support is as corrupt as any past Liberal government. I don’t believe this of the Prime Minister, or any of the key Ministers, but I do believe that below them is a less than respectable haze of questionable folks. Most of these are the unelected dross who come into play when a politician gets his office, and a number of instances of their behaving questionably disturbs me. The Jaffer affair defines this slippage away from what is solemn duty toward pork barrel bullshit. I don’t lately see value in the actions being taken, but I see stalling and excess. This offends my conservative mind deeply, because I struggle to see how this is better than the largess of past governments. Show me value – show me you earn my support – to keep my support. If a politician is too lazy to do that, they need to reconsider their chosen field.
3. Finally, the fact is that this time of year exposes things. Seeing the massive corruption that is evident in the United States (Goldman Sachs, for example; or Obama’s ties to the Climate Exchange in Chicago and its ties to Goldman Sachs) makes me leery of a government that is silent on these matters. We were pushed into massive spending by external circumstances, and by bad fiscal policy that is not conservative in its approach, and now we are silent when we are seeing the fallacy of that policy elsewhere? I have never bought the idea that our governments must be cheerleaders of the American agenda; I detest watching us toady to American interests – not because I disrespect the United States and her people, but because I view us as a unique entity. But lately we are following the Obama path too much, failing to question it when it must be questioned, and have abandoned basic conservative approaches in favour of some autocratic nonsense. I don’t want to support any politicians who become puppets of foreign nations, whether they are our closest neighbours or not.

Where will this lead? Where do actual conservatives head when the party that supposedly represents them fails to do so? All questions to answer some day soon, I expect.