A 'Values' Test

It’s a new year and methinks that it’ll be an amazing year for writers with political emotions.  

Unfortunately, for me, I really do wish there was something, other than politics, that was sufficiently interesting to write about, but is there ?

There is the liberal indoctrination of youth education (Nothing new there, it could be said);  International sport and drugs, of which I am quite ignorant;  Electric automobiles (This may absorb one paragraph);  Sustainable food supplies, requiring much research (For later);  etc.  This leaves me with Politics, Religion, or the misunderstood Global Warming.

Therefore, I will choose Immigration which, of course, is political (Smiley to be inserted).

I have just listened to a CBC radio programme about Quebec’s new immigration laws (rules) and discovered a few things that many people are ignorant about . This is a simple introductory Blog explaining those laws, such that you will be encouraged to discuss them with me (Fingers crossed).

Introducing a controversial "values" test that some potential immigrants will have to complete.

1. It is a questionnaire of 20 multiple-choice questions.

1. The Pass level is 75%.

1. An example question is:  In Quebec, women are equal to men —  True or false.

1. Or:  In Quebec the official language is;  English;  Spanish;  French;  English and French.

1. Every immigrant requiring a Quebec Selection Certificate for permission to apply for Permanent Residency will be required to pass the test.  This will usually be taken in their country of origin.

1. It may be available for taking on one’s home computer (Believe it or not).

1. This will ensure that applicants will understand Quebec’s values.

1. This test is related, also, to the controversial Bill-21.

I believe it ironic if, in this land of immigrants, people may be disinterested to engage into some, necessary, discussion.

Over to you, mes amies.

The Demise of NATO

The following conversation appeared in a Comments section of a newspaper this morning and, as I was one of the antagonists (loosely speaking), I feel that it is acceptable to publish a slightly edited version here to permit, and extend, an anonymous Internet conversation.

Anonym A:  ”...over the past few decades, NATO’s primary focus was on peacekeeping operations in distant places, rather than on its core function of territorial defence...But this attitude changed in 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and launched secretive military incursions into Eastern Ukraine."

Excuse me? What's changed? Annexation of Crimea was a local, albeit unexpected move by Russia - ask the Crimean population how they feel about finally being a part of Russia and it will be a 87% approval rate. Yes, a crime is a crime, but weren't Kyev's actions towards the Crimean population since Ukraine's independence totally unacceptable? So, this "reason" may be dismissed.

Eastern Ukraine had been suffering the same attitude from the Ukrainian state as Crimea, including the constantly diminishing status of the Russian language in this practically Russian part of Ukraine.And then Maidan (in 2014) declared a total ban on use of the Russian language as the second official language in the country. That was way too much!

Again, this conflict has nothing [to do] with the safety of other European states.

So, as it appears, all this drum beat is about money. Russia's actions are just a convenient excuse!

          Anonym B:  It goes without saying that the slow, measured, and deliberate invasion by the USSR into the region of Slav, Turkic, Greek Crimea, makes the 87% vote by the Russian population unsurprising.

Anonym C:  NATO is functionally dead. The U.S. is detaching itself from Europe, so Europe needs to learn to defend itself. As a start, it must (a) learn more about how Russian troll farms have infected European political discourse so that this menace can be effectively fought; (b) wean itself as quickly as possible from all Russian energy sources, so as to deprive Russia of valuable foreign exchange; and (c) separate itself from unhelpful U.S. influence as much as possible. The U.S. has become an enemy, not a friend.

          Anonym B:  (a) Goes without saying. (b) To "wean" is ungrammatical, but to reduce the influence of Russian energy sources is a sound idea, not withstanding the possibility that Russia could discover an alternate solution. (c) To describe the U.S. as an "enemy" based on the policies of the present President is another Liberalization ... simply put.

          Anonym C:  If by “functionally dead” you mean no longer dependable, you are spot on. Your 3-part plan, moving forward, I think is good, assuming that as Europe distances itself from the US, they likewise re-arm to fill that void. This is all unfortunately true. Putin has somehow (through illegal political funding - at a minimum) decapitated the GOP president and congressional leadership. Will the truth ever come out

          Anonym B:  It would be lacking foresight to "re-arm [sic] to fill that void". Russia's obvious tenacity regarding its desire to regain previous territory will make it quite possible to eventually cherry-pick the smaller nations regardless of their weaponization. The increasing Communism of Europe thus becomes a future threat to North America and ... the wheel turns once more.

Anonym B:  The Plan (if you have not realized it) is for our great-grandchildren to experience a North America with a brutal Red Bear on the Atlantic side, and an inhumane Red Dragon on the Pacific side.

The Minimum Wage Law

  This morning, I noticed that Tim Hortons continues to be in trouble because of its’ response to the provincial government’s new minimum wage law.  While I agree that they (Tim Hortons) had to do something, this should not have been a surprise to them, and they should not have been singled-out as the only business to be affected.

  It reminds me of a Toronto Star (1995) comment when Tim Hortons was merged with Wendy’s.  “The spectacle of another great Canadian icon, one more priceless chocolate coconut cream-filled dutchie glazed cruller Timbit of our precious heritage, gone to Yankee burgerfat; burp … and nobody around to pass the Maalox?"

  Then, when it was taken over by Popeyes (Restaurant Brands International) originally known as ‘Chicken on the Run’, you must have heard me screaming as I tore out my hair.

  But I digress.

  Why should there be a minimum wage?  That is the question.  Is a good happy life dependant upon wages?  Really? (Think about that).  Is a millionaire happy with his (her) income?  Most would probably say “No!”  Therefore, if things are to be made legal and relatively fair, why not have a maximum wage?

  Could we not adjust the liberal welfare system such that it provides, generally-speaking, sufficient funds to keep everyone above the poverty level … and set a fair minimum wage slightly above that, ensuring that employment is preferable to welfare.  Not to mention a conservative maximum wage … without percentage calculations (Remember).

  Please voice your thoughts below.

Politics 16 - Changing Political Gender

I am bound to leave the realm of global thoughts as Canada prepares for a General Election, because I have some questions.

It is not difficult to find terrible things to say about the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper (Conservative) although, there are a few things that I actually agree with.

There are a few worrying things to say about Justin Trudeau (Liberal) but, in my opinion, he more than satisfies my need for a Harper replacement.

I keep looking at Thomas Mulcair (National Democratic) and try as much as I do, I find it impossible to understand what he is both for and against.

By the way, who is Mr. Mulcair?

Today, I notice that Greece has a new female prime minister and, therefore, it occurs to me that we could do worse than have Elizabeth May (Green) as the next prime minister.

Oh, I am quite serious.

You may comment below.