The London Fog: December 2004

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

I smell John Clarke

John Clarke delivers guest lecture at the University of Toronto.

From The Last Amazon:

University of Toronto will play host to the Israel=Apartheid Crowd from Monday, January 31 to Friday, February 4, 2005 organized by the University of Toronto Arab Student Collective and sponsored by Institute for Women’s Studies and Gender Studies.

John Clarke of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty makes a guest appearance and will host the forum on Palestinian Migrant Labour in the Apartheid State – has this man ever held a real job in his life - let alone one in the Apartheid State? I suppose suicide bombers could be considered a kind of migrant worker – it did tend to be lucrative under Saddam and the on the job promotion to heaven is/was seen as a kind of perk.

Unfortunately, there have been no scheduled speakers to discuss women’s equality issues either in the workplace or before the courts in Palestinian society. There will be no discussions on honour killings; and no one will update the crowd on how the battle goes to end the barbaric practice of female circumcision. Finally, don’t look for anyone to discuss the lack of rights and brutal treatment meted out to the Christians, Druze, Domi or homosexuals in Palestinian society. Though there is a lecture planned to discuss the Illegality of the Apartheid Wall and Canada’s responsibility. No doubt that should be informative.

150 Years of Mismanagement - Downtown London What a Mess

Thanks to Frank Le Fou for yet another submission to the London 150th Song Contest. Pretty much sums it up .....

Listen here!

Dancing with the Infidel

My beloved J. sent me a pointer to a Greg Swann piece that warms the heart of the libertarian minded.

Government Health Campaigns cause lack of Awareness

Thanks, I hadn't had my recommended daily dose of STUPID

In my email, apparently from the Toronto Red Star:

Nurses working in intensive care units and cardiac wards are being laid off despite the province's $200-million hospital rescue plan, the Ontario Nurses Association says.

While Ontario hospitals welcomed the money — which will still leave them short as much as $300 million this fiscal year — critics complained almost half the cash will go to severance payments to laid-off hospital staff.

But they'll sort it out, right? Just some temporary hiccups. Keep the faith. Keep believing. Your grandchildren will thank you for putting your weird dogma first, above flashing neon contradictory facts of reality.

Common Sense - Out of sight, Out of mind

Health units across Ontario kicked off non-smoking week yesterday with a campaign dubbed Out of Sight, Out of Mind. But at least one critic said the campaign to rid convenience stores of behind-the-counter cigarette displays is out of line.

"The back wall is an important sales area," said Dave Bryans, who represents 6,000 retailers as executive director of the Ontario Convenience Store Association. "It is not illegal to display cigarettes.

"They are trying to make a display area into an advertisement," he said. "We already took down the advertisements and we even took down the (tobacco company-sponsored) clocks . . . "

His comments came in response to an initiative by the Middlesex-London health unit, which aims to educate people on power walls -- rows upon rows of cigarettes for sale.

Out of sight, out of mind? Seems to me this constant anti-right talk does more to keep the idea of cigarettes in the mind of the public then an innocent display of tobacco products. Of course, just as guns cause people to kill, the mere sight of a pack of cigarettes will cause children to smoke.

The Ontario Tobacco-Free Network maintains 60 per cent of cigarettes are bought on impulse and power walls serve as a major advertisement that lures young people.

"Right now, children can walk into a convenience store, pick up their candy and hockey cards and then they see this display," public health nurse Nancy Hamilton said at a news conference at Galleria's Rainbow Cinema yesterday.

"Children begin to associate the product as a normal product, And teens see all these cartons and think it's OK to smoke."

As part of its campaign, the health unit has created an educational movie trailer that will run at Rainbow for six weeks.

But childhood obesity is also a problem according to the health gurus - guess this issue is pale in comparison to talk about the dangers of cigarettes. However, once the ministers of public health finish with cigarettes, attention will be drawn to the rows and rows of chips and pop on display. Bring your voucher and permit to the counter and the clerk will fetch your vice.

I also question the claim that 60% of cigarettes are bought on impulse - what is the basis for this conclusion? I thought smokers were addicts, which would lead one to the opposite conclusion: smokers actually go into the store with the express purpose of buying cigarettes - banning displays is not going to change this. Unfortunately, the most frequent arguments printed by the press against such nonsensical legislation essentially miss the point:

Bryan said the convenience store association has been in constant consultation with the Ministry of Health and is agreeable to limiting the size of back wall displays.

"But to put the cigarettes down below the counter or somewhere else puts small store owners and employees at risk," he said.

"An armed robbery or violent purchaser can do an awful lot of damage within 20 seconds of a person bending down to look for a product."

It is a shame that the people of Ontario consent so readily to have their rights trampled upon. One would have thought that the value of business associations would lie in their ability to stand up for the rights of merchants and consumers - if we all said no, and had some organized way to say no, then such draconian laws would be unenforceable. Instead, bar owners and store owners comply and compromise with the government, apparently forgetting that such compromises eventually lead to the total accomplishment of the goals of the Nanny State. The article continues, making note that:

In connection with the launch, the health unit revealed results of a local study that found most of 30 retail outlets scored a poor or failing grade on the Ontario Tobacco-free Network report card which looked at tobacco advertising and power walls.

The study also found 66 per cent of outlets were within one kilometre of a school.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the current law prohibits those under the age of 19 from purchasing cigarettes.

Ironically, many Ontario tobacco farmers gathered in London yesterday to put pressure on the Ontario Government to keep its promise to hand over $50 million to the ailing industry - 'course this is what happens when the law of supply and demand is ignored and violated.

Update: In case anyone was wondering, the OTN - or "The Ontario Tobacco Free Network" is at least partially funded by taxpayer money:

The OTN is a provincial interagency network consisting of the Canadian Cancer Society, Ontario Division (CCS), the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario (HSFO) and the Ontario Lung Association (OLA). The network is funded by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and supported in-kind by CCS, HSFO, OLA and the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco (OCAT).

Update #2: Cigarettes prices are going up in Ontario as of midnight by $1.25 a carton - this is only the third time that the Ontario cartel has raised taxes since they were so unfortunately elected.

Sorbara says it's part of the province's Smoke Free Ontario campaign.

"Smoking is the number one preventable cause of premature death and illness in Ontario and it costs an estimated $1.7 billion a year in health-care spending to treat diseases directly caused by tobacco," said Sorbara.

While the government says the hike is aimed at getting people to quit, critics say such a small price increase won't make a difference.

Nancy Daignault, with the smokers' rights group Mychoice.ca, calls it a cash grab.

"They know if they increase it any more than that at any given time they will end up losing revenue because smokers will look elsewhere for their cigarettes or they will actually stop smoking," said Daignault.

Cynthia Callard, with Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada, agrees.

"Cynically I would say this is a kind of an increase that's more geared more at increasing money than at decreasing smokers," said Callard.

Passing the Blame and Missing the Point

London's ballooning budget hike has quadrupled to 7.8 per cent because the province continues to download new costs onto cities, Tom Gosnell told Ontario's standing finance committee yesterday. Gosnell, the city's deputy mayor, told the panel of MPPs their penchant for adding services to the municipal tax base is crushing cities and enraging property taxpayers.

The committee is travelling to seven Ontario centres to hear from taxpayers before the provincial budget is drafted.

Since 2002, the City of London has been forced to take on $13 million in costs for services passed on by the Ontario government, Gosnell said.

"If we didn't have this type of downloading, we'd be coming in at a one- or two-per-cent budget (hike)," Gosnell said following his presentation.

"It's creating a tremendous burden on our taxpayers.

"Ultimately it's going to destroy the financial sustainability of the City of London."

Gosnell cited the ongoing day-care debacle -- in which the province won't hand over $1.4 million in federal funding unless the city adds $450,000 -- and the 50/50 ambulance funding formula, which he says is now 60 per cent covered by city hall, as examples of the stress placed on city councillors at budget time.

Never mind that capital budget Mr. Gosnell - blame it on downloading in hopes of redirecting some of the justifiable taxpayer wrath toward the provincial government and away from London City Council's profligate spending habits. Pass the blame is the name of the game when it comes to politics. I guess you conveniently forget how much money municipalities actually receive from the province?

London West MPP Chris Bentley, the Liberal labour minister, watched Gosnell's 10-minute presentation and while he's sympathetic to the city's complaint, he said taxpayers are paying for these services, either to the city or province.

"Talking about the moving around of (services) is a useful conversation but it really doesn't point out that there is only one taxpayer," Bentley said.

"That means there's only one pocket who can pay for the services.

For once, I almost agree with Bentley, keeping in mind he is one of the players. The money for services ultimately comes from the same pocket: taypayers. At the same time, let us not forget that this is done without our consent and as usual, it is taken for granted that the government should have the sole monopoly on these services in the first place.

Chatham-Kent MPP Pat Hoy, who chairs this standing committee on finance and economic affairs, pointed to the gas-tax sharing as an example of the Liberals' efforts to help cities.

Although he wouldn't say whether Finance Minister Greg Sorbara will act on any of the recommendations his travelling panel will offer, Hoy called it an "important" exercise.

"We take (this) job very seriously," he said. "We understand the financial constraints they're under and hopefully we can . . . alleviate the problems that cities have."

No other municipal government has focused its discussion on taxes as Gosnell did, Hoy noted.

More useless public meetings and expensive committees - I do hope the committee members are enjoying their free meal ticket. I bet they dine and are accomodated in style as they travel around the province. Interesting that London is the only municipal government that is so shamelessly blaming the province in an attempt to hide their incompetence and inability to successfully manage the city. Perhaps other city leaders will take up the cause in hopes of similiarily deceiving the people. I am sure other Londoners will join me in thanking you for your noble stance in favour of taxpayers -thanks for looking out for yourself Gosnell.

Monday, January 17, 2005

More budget scraps...

Controller Russ Monteith doesn't see big opportunities for budget reductions without sacrificing services or delaying items.

"There may be a few little things we can change," he said. "But in terms of the big items, we've gone through quite a few of those."

Delaying some budget items for a year is a possibility, he said.

"That would give you room in this year's budget. That would probably be the easiest route to making major changes."

Monteith said council has to find about $3.4 million in savings to reduce the budget increase by one percentage point.

People complain about high taxes, but it's difficult to get public consensus on what services should be cut to achieve reductions, he said.

And cutting services -- and the staff who provide them -- would involve costs to the city, Monteith noted, including severance paid to departing employees. "You may not find yourself achieving any savings in the first year."

That's just it folks - the only real way to reach 'public consensus' is to let individuals decide for themselves which services they value and wish to pay for. Passing the buck to future budgets and is going to result in total bankruptcy eventually. Let us stop the pillaging. Considering the number of lawsuits many of the city employees are involved in, not to mention the fully paid stress leaves many of the city employees receive, I am sure it would be cheaper in the long run to pay these bums severence. See you non-producers.

A New Submission!

This just in - a new submission to the London 150th Song Contest!
Pothole City by Frank Le Fou:

Listen to it here:

Economists: the voice of reason in the social sciences

Reading Cafe Hayek, I came across these interesting comments about economists:

Economists are frequently accused of believing that "everything comes down to money" or of being "obsessed with dollars and cents" or some such variation on this theme. Each variation accuses economists of either being blind to the many non-monetary (even non-material) inspirations that motivate human action, or of advising people to disregard non-monetary motivations and respond only to monetary ones.

...

The truly money-obsessed legions seem to me to be income egalitarians. In their view, inequality of income is synonymous with inequality of persons. Or, rather, inequality of income (or wealth) is a sufficient condition for concluding not only that some real inequality exists but that this inequality is at least suspicious and, possibly, a justification for corrective government action.

Hmmm... got me thinking about why, when economists are members of the only discipline I can think of in the social sciences that is predominately in favour of the free market, that they could be so impugned. Of course, the policy-makers have their own pet economists, but there are always people willing to sell themselves in order to avail themselves of public money or popularity. There's a lot of truth in the second paragraph above.

The post on Cafe Hayek brought to mind these words as quoted recently by the excellent The Gods of the Copybook Headings:

The usual terminology of political language is stupid. What is 'left' and what is 'right'? Why should Hitler be 'right' and Stalin, his temporary friend, be 'left'? Who is 'reactionary' and who is 'progressive'? Reaction against an unwise policy is not to be condemned. And progress towards chaos is not to be commended. Nothing should find acceptance just because it is new, radical, and fashionable. 'Orthodoxy' is not an evil if the doctrine on which the 'orthodox' stand is sound. Who is anti-labor, those who want to lower labor to the Russian level, or those who want for labor the capitalistic standard of the United States? Who is 'nationalist,' those who want to bring their nation under the heel of the Nazis, or those who want to preserve its independence?"

Does this sound like the words of someone who believes that "everything comes down to money" or that is "obsessed with dollars and cents?" No, it doesn't — these are the words of Ludwig von Mises, one of the great economists of the twentieth century.

It seems to me that of all the social scientists I know of, economists are the only ones who actually recognize that it is precisely the actions and beliefs of individual humans that are the phenomena under their investigation, in contrast to the usual attempts by social scientists and engineers to reduce humans to merely objects so that they can see themselves, and make sure they are seen, as scientists and researchers whose advocacy of social policy can be claimed to be based on objective facts.

This is a uniquely modern problem, brought about by the tremendous success of the physical sciences in ameliorating the conditions under which humans live. At last, the collectivists had a weapon that they could wield with the scientific certainty of truth — by freeing human reason, abilities, beliefs and actions from the constraints of subjectivity and ground them in the methods of the physical sciences, social science is capable of discovering objective truths that abet not only material progress, like their lucky cousins the physical scientists, but also political and social advancement and engineering! It is no accident that the originators of this doctrinaire kind of thinking, Auguste Comte and Claude Saint-Simon, are often acknowledged as the ideological forefathers of modern Marxism and socialism. The appeal to authority by our own politicians is the same as that of so many social scientists and scientists who study humans. In fact, politicians often directly appeal to the authority of the objective truth of the social scientists as justification for policy.

How can this be possible when the concepts which social scientists pretend to study, such as “homelessness,” “underprivileged,” “minority status” and “resource distribution,” even the "public good" itself, are nothing more than common classifications of appearance. They do no have an existence outside appearance — they cannot be classified according to any objective testing of reality. The concepts of social scientists have no more scientific status than that of any vague popular term.

The social scientist may often seem to be claiming to exist as only a technician advising his or her clients – the public – on how to accomplish their goals, whatever they may be. But the social scientist who uses those common terms or justifies his or her efforts in terms of public policy cannot evade value judgments. The social scientist who advises on efficient public policy for reducing the condition of homelessness is implicitly endorsing the ends of economic equality.

The notable exception to this kind of thinking among the social sciences is in the field of economics where one finds the awareness that the study of human action is the study of how individuals acting with their own intentions and beliefs form complex social structures without any conscious control or design from above. This awareness serves to enable one only only to infer, but not imagine one knows, the short- or long-term effects of social action.

It took economists like von Mises and Friedrich Hayek to pull the social sciences back from the brink of unswerving allegience to the idea of absolute objectivity and certainty in the study of human action. But social scientists and their clients — the government and special interest groups and certainly not the public — still pander to collectivist terms as though they were objective facts like mass and energy. The economists have done their part — it is up to us to question any use of arbitrary and undefinable terms in the pursuit of public policy.

Isabel Paterson shows up on my favourite blog

Here I am reading The God of the Machine by Isabel Paterson, and what should show up on The Gods of the Copybook Headings but a profile of Isabel Paterson.

Isabel Paterson was born on Manitoulin Island and spent many of her childhood years in Alberta. As far as I'm concerned, her words are the most impassioned arguments for liberty that this country has ever produced.

For a quarter-century, starting in 1924, Isabel Paterson wrote a weekly column on books in the New York Tribune. Her column was more than a review column; it was her personal forum and she used books as a point of departure to talk about her ideas. In particular, she was a passionate defender of American individualism and capitalism and attacked collectivism wherever she saw it.

In her 1943 book, The God of the Machine, she attacked all the intellectually fashionable doctrines of collectivism of her day: fascism, communism and modern American compromises with these ideologies. Paterson saw as clearly as Rose Wilder Lane and Ayn Rand (the three contemporary authors who are among the most forceful proponents of liberty the twentieth-century ever produced) that any collective ideology leads to stagnation, poverty, corruption and slavery. The God of the Machine was published in the same month as The Fountainhead — a good month for books!

But don't listen to me. Read the profile of Isabel Paterson on The Gods of the Copybook Headings and then go out and find the book. If you can't find it at your library, the best deal I've found is at LFB.

Canadians would be well-served by the kind of "rugged individualism" of Isabel Paterson these days.

The Red Ensign Standard vol. 13

The 13th edition of the Red Ensign Standard is up at Jay Jardine's site, The Freeway to Serfdom, in all its rugged individualistic glory! This is one of our favourite blogs, and so we are pleased to read his reasons for joining the Red Ensign (reasons that are similar to our own, I dare say in speaking for the other members of the London Fog) — that is, the individualist mentality that built this country finds for some of us representation in the symbol of the Red Ensign. The cringing pleas for handouts from the Trudeaupian Nanny State, on the other hand, really don't require any more representation than they already get. Plus, some of our favourite bloggers are on the Red Ensign.

Here it is, and thanks for an interesting post.

Sunday, January 16, 2005

Where's the good or service in this transaction?

A question from a Londoner, as published in The Londoner.

Misuse of GST

Take a very close look at your London Hydro bill. There is a payment we all make to reduce the Ontario Hydro debt. It's called debt reduction, and that's fine. But there is something sinister here hidden between the lines. This debt reduction payment is taxed by the GST.

Why is it taxed? This is not a loan. This is simply an effort by the provincial government to reduce its debt. This is strictly a provincial matter. The federal government has no right to tax it. This is just another way that the federal government can milk Ontario dry to give billions to the have-not provinces such as Quebec.

This hidden GST on our hydro bills must stop now. And all the Ontario customers must be given a rebate for this illegal tax.

And one more point. The Ontario government must have known about the flagrant abuse of the GST. Yet they kept silent. Why? Did they get a kick-back from the feds? If he can tell the truth, Premier Dalton McGuinty should explain this terrible misuse of the GST.

G.M. Betts, London

As the sole provider of such an essential service, it is not fine to levy a charge against customers because you mismanaged your entrenched government monopoly. Nor is it permissible to levy a tax upon a tax - taxation can never be anything but arbitrary theft and redistribution.

Tsunami Fatigue?

Taking into consideration the incredible amount of governmental assistance directed toward the tsumami crisis, one is left to wonder if there will be any resources left to assist with the next disaster? Of course, there will always be washed up celebrities to herald the cause of the day.

London Skidmarks

Phil Singeris (left), president of the East London Rotary Club, Darrel Skidmore, CEO of London Public Library, Donna Pearce, president of the East London Community Centre board of directors, Shaun Elliott, CEO of London Y, Fred Tranquilli, Library board chairperson and Sam Theocharis, London Y chairperson were happy to start shovelling the ~~shit~~ dirt at the [indoor] new location for the East London Branch Library.

Saturday, January 15, 2005

We're only in it for the money

It is budget time in London, and so it starts to get even stinkier here than usual. There are many aspects of this whole budget process that are enraging, so let us today focus on one particular plea for public funds. The Library.

I went into my local branch library the other day, and what should I find but prepared responses to questions I, as a library user and taxpayer, might have about the Libraries request from the public trough already anticipated and neatly answered on a white and black poster.

As has been the trend for the last few years, the Library board has requested an increase to cover both operating costs and branch refurbishment. In particular, I was struck by the emphasis on the Capital budget - we learn that while the Library, through trust funds and donations, contributes 44% to the capital budget, the city has already coughed up $375,000 in 2003 & $785,000 in 2004. The board is asking for another $195,000 for 2005.

One would think that the operating budget would take precedence over the building fund - afterall, if it is okay to 'borrow' funds from a donation to give blood to the reading garden, an inheritance designated to go to other projects, as specified in the will of the donor in question - then perhaps it would be wise to request less for the capital budget in hopes of getting more for the operating budget, thereby maintaining or perhaps improving the existing service. But the Board does not always make sensible decisions, which is illustrated by the above example of mixed up priorities, and of course, the capital budget is what the board folks are concerned with, 'cause it makes them good now and who cares what the later consequences are. It is not their money afterall and Mr. Skidmore has a fancy job lined up with the United Way and so the future of London Public Library won't be his problem. His career has been made.

Conserve on staff and resource materials, but never mind the cost of finding a new CEO for the system - likely thousands and thousands of dollars, not to mention the time involved, to find a new one and then only another $100,000 or so in salary to keep the successful candidate. Interestingly, refurbishment or a complete rebuilding is apparently 'necessary' to every single branch in the city, all at the same time, at the expense of what really matters - operations, service and 'product'. It seems that London Public Library is the place to make a name for yourself assuming you have the ability to influence the people that matter and are on the correct side of the political spectrum.

I agree that libraries are an essential and desired part of our culture and heritage, but the public system has perverted the whole idea and value of a library - sorry to suggest that libraries are not inherently a 'public' right. Libraries are clearly an important vehicle for knowledge - knowledge in my mind equated with decreased ignorance which does not jive with todays ideological capital projects and schemes.

Todays libraries too often pander to populace appeal, which is fine if those that are pandered to were willing to pay for the service they get. This is not the case though, and much too frequently the familiar 'something for nothing mentality' is heralded - I have a right because I am a taxpayer and that is that.

In todays 'give me something for free' society, because it is a RIGHT - although the advocates do not believe in god and offer no other alternative as a ground for their premises except 'collective right', whatever that might be - and as there is no tangible correlation between the service the patron gets and the price they pay for it, we have a system open for abuse. We all pay for it, and reap the consequences and benefits, rich and poor alike, although some come out ahead of the game, disproportionately, according to their perceived 'need', as approved by the elected or appointed representatives. In a nutshell, people never respect 'public' property in the same way that they respect their own, as the reality and basis of correlation is obliterated - that is, private property - oh gosh, did I say I bad word?

Although many are stunned by the idea that libraries dare charge a user a fee for access to library privileges, they support the idea of publicly funded libraries. And just where do they think this public money comes from - the tooth fairy perhaps? If people appreciate and value the services and resources a library has to offer, as they should, then they would willingly donate and pay for it. Afterall, we pay for stuff when we go to the store - but oh, do I bring up another can of worms!!!!! Let us give the patrons a choice and see what can be sustained in the present, rather than passing the buck to future budgets and generations.

For that matter, a moderate user fee would in no way exclude the poor or disadvantaged. With the realistic and honest contribution of those who value and use the service, i.e patrons paying a user fee and patrons donating time, money and resources, minus the bureaucratic interference - user fees could likely be kept at a reasonable and generally affordable rate, although of course, this depends on the demand, checks and balances in place and also the level of corruption inherent within the system itself.

Personally, I would rather have older buildings, as long as they are structurally sound, with money available for collections and staff, than energy eating, leaking, fancy, expensive buildings, which serve primarily to boost the esteem and prestige of those in control of the reigns.

But common sense isn't an attribute of public systems... it's more about image. Some comments, as published by the Londoner, from a disgruntled Londoner:

"Closing time

London Public Library board played Scrooge this year by keeping libraries open until 5 p.m. on Christmas Eve. Most libraries in Ontario and Canada close their doors either at 12 noon or 1 p.m. I only found Calgary Public Library opened until 4 p.m. I guess rotating closures during the summer better serve ‘their’ interests.

Hum bug

Hum bug indeed - the Library Board approves rotating branch closures during the summer, disrupting service across the whole city, but on the one day of the year when people have other things to do, they decide to provide this 'essential' service. Never mind that only a few patrons decided to visit the libraries that afternoon, as they were spending time with their families and finishing their holiday preparation.

If the bureaucrats who run London's Libary system don't find alternate sources of funding and keep their budgets in check, London may end up like Salinas, which means a city without a library system. Taxpayers there rejected an increase in their sales tax to preserve city services:

Facing record deficits, the City Council voted December 14 to shut all three of Salinas' libraries, including the branches named after Steinbeck and labor leader Cesar Chavez. The blue-collar town of 150,000 could become the most populous U.S. city without a public library.

If the residents here truly value Library service, perhaps they will come up with the money from their own pockets and bring back the idea of private libraries. It is time for London Public Library to operate within its means.

That's right kids, stripping is a legitimate vocation, and what's more, it can fast track your emigration to Canada

Speaker promotes stripping to kids

By BILEN MESFIN - Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The principal of a Palo Alto middle school may not invite a popular speaker back to an annual career day after he told girls they could earn a good living as strippers.

Management consultant William Fried told eighth-graders at Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School on Tuesday that stripping and exotic dancing can pay $250,000 or more per year, depending on their bust size.

“It’s sick, but it’s true,” Fried said in an interview later. “The truth of the matter is you can earn a tremendous amount of money as an exotic dancer, if that’s your desire.”

Fried has given a popular 55-minute presentation, “The Secret of a Happy Life,” at the school’s career day the past three years. He counsels students to experiment with a variety of interests until they discover something they love and excel in.

But school principal Joseph Di Salvo said Fried may not be back next year.

The principal said Fried’s comments to the class came after some of them asked him to expand on why he included “exotic dancing“ on his list of 140 potential careers.

Fried spent about a minute answering questions, defining strippers and exotic dancers synonymously. According to Jason Garcia, 14, he told students: “For every 2 inches up there, you should get another $50,000 on your salary.”

“A couple of students egged him and he took it hook, line and sinker,” said Di Salvo, who also said the students took advantage of a substitute teacher overseeing the session.

“It’s totally inappropriate,” Di Salvo said. “It’s not OK by me. I would want my presenters to kind of understand that they are coming into a career day for eighth-graders.”

That stripping advice wasn’t the only thing that riled parents. Di Salvo said one mother said she was outraged when her son announced that he was forgoing college for a field he loves: fishing.

“He really focused on finding what you really love to do,” said Mariah Cannon, 13.

Fried, 64, said he does not think he offended any of the students: “Eighth-grade kids are not dumb,” he said. “They are pretty worldly.”

Copyright © 2005, CANOE

Friday, January 14, 2005

Smoking threatens the purity of the public

Mahood and his entourage have their heads on sideways. Guess what, this special interest group is funded by the government - the same government that purports to be protecting our 'rights'.

Garfield Mahood speaks as his Masters oversee with approval.

Is it any wonder we are bankrupt:

FROM CANADA: EXAMPLES OF HANDOUTS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CENTRE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

* In 1987, a $617.000 grant was given to the International Network for the Improvement of Bananas to establish a newsletter.
* A $96,000 grant went to the Arab Scientific Institute for Research and Transfer of Technology to study olives in the West Bank in 1987
* In the same year, they gave $154,000 to the Chinese Academy of Forestry in Beijing to establish a Bamboo Information Centre.
* In 1988, $215,000 went to study latrines in Guatemala.

EXAMPLES OF HANDOUTS FROM THE SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH COUNCIL PROGRAM OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE:

* A $5,000 grant in 1985 went to study "Cricket and the Barbadian State"
* A 1985 grant of $13,827 went to study the "Attitudes of Nova Scotians Towards Animals"
* A $6,918 grant went to study "Amateur and Professional Stand-up Comedians"
* A $13,500 grant went to study "Yard Art; The Social Values of Lawn Ornaments"
* A grant of $24,450 went to study the "Fool as a Transitional Figure in the Historical Development of Western Civilization"

EXAMPLES OF HANDOUTS FROM THE CANADA COUNCIL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS:

* A grant of $10,320 went to translate the book, "If It Weren't for Sex, I'd Have to Get a Job"
* More than $800,000 went to six mime companies across Canada between 1986 and 1989
* A grant of 41,850 to the Writer's Union of Canada
* A grant of $2,239 to AB Raben & Sjogren in Stocholm to translate the book "Sweetgrass" into Swedish
* A publishing grant of $86,755 went to the Saskatchewan Wheat pool subsidiary Western Producer Prairie Books.

(Source: The Canadian Taxpayers Federation)

Unadulterated Science?

ATLANTA -- A federal judge has ordered an Atlanta school system to remove stickers from high school biology textbooks that call evolution "a theory, not a fact," saying they are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. "By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories," U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said.

The stickers were put inside the books' covers by public school officials in Cobb County in 2002. They read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

"This is a great day for Cobb County students," said Michael Manely, a lawyer for parents who sued over the stickers.

"They're going to be permitted to learn science unadulterated by religious dogma."

The stickers were added after parents complained the books presented evolution as fact without mentioning rival ideas, such as the story of creation.

Six parents and the American Civil Liberties Union then sued, contending the disclaimers violated the separation of church and state and unfairly singled out evolution as suspect.

Solution: private and home schooling.

More budget lunacy .....

At this rate, 7.8% sounds optimistic.

City councillors vowed yesterday to take a final, hard look at the budget before passing on what now stands as a 7.8-per-cent property tax increase to Londoners. But given council's record as a whole, taxpayers might not want to hold their breath, suggested some councillors.

"For all the ideas out there, there aren't 10 people willing to support any one particular idea," said Coun. Susan Eagle.

....

For example, a police request for a fingerprint scanning device ranked dead last when council set capital priorities, she noted.

Then council gave the requested $418,000 to police anyway this week, she said.

....

Coun. Fred Tranquilli agreed priorities are being ignored.

Way down council's list of priorities was $6 million toward an expansion to the police station, he said.

But council agreed to take $5 million out of a reserve fund to make the contribution, rather than using the money to start paying down the debt and giving taxpayers a break, he added.

For favours or contributions we'll do just about anything

Hell, even pizza buys asylum in Canada.

© 2004 The London Fog

Some thoughts from Publius at Gods of the Copybook Headings:

"Pizza delivery man, whose case is more troublesome than of the stripper."

However awkward those words might sound they eloquently express the nature of modern Trudeaupia. I doubt Sgro for a moment thought what she was doing was wrong. There is an almost paternalist attitude by many Liberals toward immigrants; "We let you in, you owe us." It is presumption far too many immigrant communities accept with little complaint. So what if you throw a former "friend" into the clink and have him deported? It's all for the greater good. The little people can go rot.

I've often thought the leftist obsession with viewing capitalism as a Brecht play was driven by transference more than anything else. This is how a country's political life works when the government has such sweeping power over individuals lives. Our immigration laws grant enormous discretion to the responsible minister about who can and cannot enter the country. Such powers, it has been argued, both before and after 9/11, are for our own safety. Yet in practice our immigration policy has an almost magical ability to exclude the persecuted and deport the law abiding and industrious, while the criminal and parasitic are admitted with little difficultly. If you play by the rules, in a statist society, you're the one who gets screwed.

The London Fog's London Budget 2005 Archives

London Budget News Release — Paul Van Meerbergen
Download as PDF

"London as a Creative City" — by Paul Van Meerbergen
Download as PDF

Capital Budget Amendments — by Paul Van Meerbergen
Download as PDF

Operating Budget Amendments — by Paul Van Meerbergen
Download as PDF

Windfalls blowing through my mind Tuesday April 19

Where there is debt there is a contractual responsibility to pay off or at least acknowledge the debt and make interest payments…

Tilting at the windfalls Thursday Aprl 14

Londoners are also paying provincial taxes to provide "windfalls" for other municipalities in a giant public relations game…

Predictable Tuesday April 12

Council doesn't need to reopen the budget to have organizations lining up for trough money…

Maybe now we can have a parade! Friday April 1

London is to receive further spoils from the province. The Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund rears its ugly head…

"almost makes me want to break out in a rash" Thursday March 3

This years budget hasn't even been passed and already the city managers are predicting further tax increases for Londoners next year…

The future of the JLC? Wednesday March 2

If Fanshawe Pioneer Village closes, I will considering inviting Gord Hume over for dinner…

Anne Marie is smiling Thursday February 24

So you know something has gone very wrong…

The farce of the democratic process Sunday February 20

Imagine all the money that could be saved if we dispensed with elections altogether…

Paydirt! And my income tax refund is a bonus, too… Saturday February 19

The City of London has announced a "golly gee, we're even better than we thought" surplus of $12 million...

It's only 6.63% - and it's London's 150th besides Wednesday January 26

The verdict is in: only a 6.63% increase, compared to last years 5.9% tax hike. Wonder what's in store for Londoners next year...

I admit defeat Tuesday January 25

I am afraid to say, after much thought and deliberation, that there is nothing positive about London...

"Londoners can no longer afford their local government" Monday January 24

The city council and the London Free Press would like to have us believe that we will be fortunate if property taxes are increased by less than 7.3 per cent...

No wonder that report was kindly kept away from council: they don't care and it makes them look bad Sunday January 23

Yet another scandal at city hall...

How much is your property worth to us? Saturday January 22

There's nothing like budget time to bring out the wailing and gnashing of teeth by people you've never heard of before but seem to have a pretty clear idea of how to dispose of your property...

The continuing saga of London's financial crisis Friday January 21

The numbers below illustrate the mixed up priorities of those in charge of the budget...

Bitch slappin' and name calling Friday January 21

Ian Gillespie highlights the combative nature of Wednesday's marathon budget meeting...

City staff gets larger still Thursday January 20

Council's answer to the nationwide health care crisis: hire someone else to deal with it and give them a good salary in addition...

City councillors stomachs grumbling in marathon budget smokescreening Thursday January 20

Just as promised, Gosnell and Co. are selflessly working toward saving taxpayers money...

Passing the blame and missing the point Tuesday January 18

Never mind that capital budget Mr. Gosnell - blame it on downloading in hopes of redirecting some of the justifiable taxpayer wrath toward the provincial government and away from London City Council's profligate spending habits...

More budget scraps... Monday January 17

That's just it folks - the only real way to reach 'public consensus' is to let individuals decide for themselves which services they value and wish to pay for...

We're only in it for the money Saturday January 15

It is budget time in London, and so it starts to get even stinkier here than usual...

More budget lunacy ..... Friday January 14

At this rate, 7.8% sounds optimistic...

Knife misses capital budget and hits Londoners in the back instead Thursday Jan. 13

The sad but predictable story of London Budget 2005 continues...

Budget Scraps - Babies, nannies and horses and buggies Wednesday Jan. 12

A few comments from some of the looters 'winners' in this years scramble for a piece of the pie...

Budget Antics 2005 Wednesday Jan. 12

London was shrouded in a thick fog today, I imagine brought about by the Almighty to express his disapproval...

They always get so cranky when they stay up past their bedtime Tuesday Jan. 11

If I don't see those lights out in five minutes, I'm coming upstairs!

Sing a song of 7.81% Tuesday Jan. 11

Now that the budget is pretty much set, The London Fog is happy to announce that we're holding a London 150 Song Contest...

London Ontario — a sinking ship Tuesday Jan. 11

We're screwed...

Damned if you do, damned if you don't... Monday Jan. 10

Susan Eagle wouldn't want to miss out on public funds and publicity of course and as usual she completely misses the point...

“Smart Growth” is just dumb economics by Dr. Kim Ainslie, reproduced with permission. Published Monday Jan. 10

The “smart growth” policy mantra is becoming firmly entrenched at London city hall these days...

Pay for it yourself Sunday Jan. 9

I cannot believe the audacity of some people! Take! Take! Take!

150 years of robbery and theft Friday Jan. 7

Of course the budget crisis in London is the fault of the province - it has nothing to do with capital projects...

Pass the buck — blame it on the province Thursday Jan. 6

London businesses are saddled with Ontario's highest property-tax rates, a just-completed tax analysis shows...

London proudly upholds time honoured tradition Wednesday Jan. 5

JAN. 5 , 1917: 'Strife and muddle' plague city hall...

London celebrates 150 years of corruption Sunday Jan. 2

But birthday parties don't come cheap...

City Hall’s Cynical Budget Politics by Dr. Kim Ainslie, reproduced with permission. Published Thursday Dec. 9, 2004

We live in a cynical world and city hall is practising some pretty cynical budget politics...

Revision to chart of top contributors to federal Liberal and Conservative parties

Courtesy of Mike Brock. In the interest of clarity after "Corporate whores indeed," a new chart showing the top contributors to the federal Liberal and Conservative parties. This chart takes into account donations to the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance prior to their merger, and shows that the two parties prior to their merger collected more in donations from corporations than the previous chart indicated. However, it should still be noted that the merged Conservative party did not receive corporate donations in any large scale which is significant given that there was an election year after the new party was created. Nor does the chart acknowledge whether most of the donations from corporations in the new chart were made to the federal Progressive Conservatives or to the Reform party; if the former, then a rather different beast than the new party. In any case, make of it what you will.

Conservatives in Canada are made of sterner stuff

From Little Green Footballs, via John the Mad:

...we learn of this obituary in the Chicago Sun-Times. My condolences to the family. It must be difficult to lose a treasured family member because of Post Election Selection Trauma (PEST). Damn those Bushites!
Herbert M. Hazelkorn, DDS, PhD Herbert M. Hazelkorn, of Glencoe, Illinois, left us on December 7, 2004, of a broken heart at the recent passing of his wife of 35 years, Bobby, exacerbated by a broken spirit arising from the results of the Presidential election.

Is this a hoax too? It seems so deliciously otherworldly to be true, kind of like the Democrats (except for the delicious part).

Thursday, January 13, 2005

No way

Come on, Billy, that's an obvious hoax.

Farewell to Raskolnikov, we only just got to know you

One of our more recent and favourite discoveries on the blogosphere, Raskolnikov, disappeared from view a couple of days ago. Raskolnikov wrote some of the most original and insightful commentary about aboriginal issues we have seen in Canada, and it would be hard to find a voice like his anywhere else. Kate from Small Dead Animals posed the question: Anybody know what's up with Raskolnikov? Unfortunately, now we know. This from a comment by Raskolnikov on Kate's site:

Hey All.

Sorry to end it all in such an abrupt way. As you may have known, I posted more than a few critical comments on the Indian Industry that I a work in.

Well, someone who could do serious damage to my career basically confronted me and said they knew it was me running the site. I denied, denied denied like a CBS exec, then quickly erased the site.

Drastic? Overwraught? Sure. But I got a family to think about and a nice future. I have no doubt I would be blacklisted for my attitude.

If I try to start up again I'll be all neutered and lame. Besides, it was taking up a bit too much of my time.
...
If anyone needs a freelancer who'll write a post or two every few weeks on non-indian topics, I'm game. That's about all I could do right now.
Miss ya guys already
Posted by Raskolnikov at January 13, 2005 08:30 PM

We miss you too, Raskolnikov. If you ever get out of that industry, we hope you get a chance to start blogging again.

London Budget News Release

The views expressed in this news release are not necessarily those of the editors of the London Fog. But they're pretty close. We don't typically endorse politicians of any stripe (I'm almost sure that we never have), but if, by the process of having special interests dominate and determine our own interests in municipal elections, an individual like Paul Van Meerbergen occasionally turns up, I think we should express our support. If we had more councillors like Mr. Van Meerbergen, we should have a more competitive and functional city.

This is the text of a news release by Mr. Van Meebergen dated Jan. 6, 2005 about his ideas for the upcoming municipal budget. Please see the post following this for more specifics of Mr. Van Meerbergen's proposal.

Download as PDF

Councillor Van Meerbergen’s prosperity plan calls for $104.6 million in spending, taxation and borrowing cuts to the city budget, as he sets a goal of reducing property taxes by $1000 per household by 2006.

Jan. 6, 2005

Today, Ward 7 Councillor Paul Van Meerbergen called for a reduction in the 2005 city budget of $104.6 million in spending, taxation and borrowing.

If pursued by City Council, this prosperity plan will mean a reduction of 24% in property taxes, or about $650 for the average London household.

Van Meerbergen said today: “We emphatically cannot afford piling up these massive tax increases year in and year out. In fact, the rollback must begin immediately if Londoners are to survive their own local government.”

In addition, Van Meerbergen set of a goal to reduce property taxation by an average $1000 per household by 2006. Londoners currently pay on average $3100 in combined municipal taxation each year (including the water tax, sewer surtax tax and education taxes on property).

He said today: “The tax and spend era at city hall must turn into a new era of prosperity through reduced taxation. No more baby steps. We need a great leap forward if the city is not to fall into bankruptcy in the next few years, and I am talking about bankrupt seniors and working people!”

Councillor Van Meerbergen presented the following prosperity plan for this year’s city budget:

1) $39.228 million in reductions to the operating budget;

2) $33.054 million in reduced current-year tax contributions to “non-obligatory” operating and capital reserve funds, and

3) $32.317 million in reductions to the capital budget, while preserving the most important fire, police, economic development, sanitary and roads expenditures.

Download as PDF

Paul Van Meerbergen is Councillor for Ward 7. Please email or call him to let him know what you think -- details of how he can be reached can be found here. The people of Ward 7 are fortunate to have this man as a representative, although it must be said that Susan Eagle is also their representative, so I guess no good deed goes unpunished.

“London As A Real Creative City”

The following is the outline of a proposal by Councillor Paul Van Meerbergen to reduce property taxes and create a competitive and functional city here in London. Further details will be posted shortly.

The views expressed in this proposal are not necessarily those of the editors of the London Fog. But they're pretty close. We don't typically endorse politicians of any stripe (I'm almost sure that we never have), but if, by the process of having special interests dominate and determine our own interests in municipal elections, an individual like Paul Van Meerbergen occasionally turns up, I think we should express our support. If we had more councillors like Mr. Van Meerbergen, we should have a more competitive and functional city.

Download as PDF

Paul Van Meerbergen’s Prosperity Plan
Councillor, Ward 7, London City Council
January 6, 2005

Introduction

When the City Administration announced the 2005 city budget in November, the bureaucrats made a bold statement -- or at least what passes for boldness by bureaucrats in this age of diminished expectations. They said: “we need to get our fiscal house in order.” Indeed we do. But apparently they didn’t, and so we are faced with another year of uncontrolled spending and tax increases; 11 per cent to date -- with some modest recommendations for lower spending by Board of Control but not yet approved by Council.

My constituents are horrified by this proposed 11 per cent increase in one year, just as they were horrified by the unnecessary 12 per cent property tax increase during the period 2000 to 2003.

And why are Londoners facing this spiral of spending and taxation?

There is no pressing reason; no justifiable rationale. We are not in any emergency in this city; the country is not at war nor are we facing an apprehended insurrection – except perhaps by dedicated statists – and we are not facing an economic recession. We hear lots about provincial downloading, but these complaints are so much hot air: the province “downloads” 10 times more in revenue than in mandated expenditures. There is also, of course, the “debt hang-over” from council’s panic-driven millennium projects, but even the debt service on this borrowing is easily manageable given the city’s tax base and financial resources. No, we have massive increases in spending and taxation because city hall bureaucrats think they can get away with it, and because city councillors haven’t the backbone to fight demands for irrational state largess, with any kind of consistent discipline.

I have come the conclusion that raising this matter of uncontrolled spending and taxation is in part beside the point. Yes, we need to reduce our spending and taxation, but not by dribs and drabs. It is no longer good enough to think about incremental changes like 3 per cent budget caps or even our long-standing drive to sustain zero per cent budgets. Too many on council think that when we say zero per cent, this means no sustained, long-term cuts to services; it does not. But there is no longer a good reason to fight this small battle. We need to look at the big picture. And the big picture is the prosperity of Londoners.

A New Economic Goal for Londoners

The prosperity of Londoners demands that we commit to a revolution in expectations. We need to see that city hall cannot solve London’s economic under-development no matter how much it spends on “services.” Spending by city hall cannot possibly make Londoners as a whole more prosperous. City hall simply does not have the economic wherewithal -- notwithstanding all the gibberish about economic spin-off benefits every time we build a new, taxpayer-financed facility in downtown London.

The only economics that matters is the money that is in individual’s pockets to spend or save or invest as they see fit. The real economic multiplier effects come when our 300,000 plus population makes daily spending, saving, and investment decisions on a wide range of economic objects that suit their economic and financial interests. Our city government cannot do this kind of collective economic decision-making, efficiently, with any kind of competence, or on the right things. City hall bureaucrats and politicians cannot know the individual intentions and interests of 300,000 plus citizens. So the next time a city councillor, controller, or city bureaucrat says he/she can make these decisions for you, just know they are uttering falsehoods or simply don’t know what they are talking about.

London needs a new economic goal; city hall must leave more of the taxpayers’ own money in citizens’ pockets. For too long city hall has been reducing Londoners’ disposable income and wasting it on services and an ever-increasing volume of delivery that people just don’t want. It is time to stop councillors who are serving their own personal and private agendas. You know, the do-gooders who shout from the pulpit that they know what’s best with “other people’s money.” It is time to tell these people to put a sock in it. Let Londoners spend their own money on themselves, and let’s quit trying to “do good” for people who can’t afford this kind of false socialist altruism and barnyard economics.

Let us set a goal to enrich all Londoners; allow our seniors to live without fear of losing their homes, and allow our working folks to rise to a decent standard of living. When the median occupation in London, according to Statistics Canada, is a job as a retail clerk, and Census Canada tells us Londoners median family income is below the provincial average you know we’ve got a long way to go.

Reducing Taxes by $1000 Per Household

Let us set a goal to reduce municipal taxation in London by $1000.00 per household by 2006. Since municipal taxation for the average London household has reached an estimated $3100.00 (including the water tax, the sewer surtax, and education taxes on residential properties), this proposal means a one-third reduction in the municipal taxation per household. The immediate, direct savings to the London economy is $150 million per year. And when we include the real multiplier effect (5 x $150,000,000), the real benefit to Londoners is three-quarters of a billion dollars per year.

Quite obviously, this would be an enormous economic boon to Londoners and measurably increase the city’s real wealth and prosperity.

Getting to Prosperity

How do we get started on the road to this new world of prosperity? Not by little steps, but by a couple of big steps, and in the short term.

First, I propose a $104.6 million spending, taxation and borrowing cut to our $834 million 2005 budget. This will mean a 24% property tax reduction in the 2005 budget – assuming a net average property tax load of $2700.00 (without education taxes). These savings come from a reduction of $39.2 million from the current operating budget, $32.3 million dollars from the capital budget, and another $33.1 million from non-obligatory operating and capital reserve funds.

A 24% reduction in property taxes amounts to an average $650.00 in direct household savings in 2005. The remaining $350 in household tax reductions is planned for the 2006 budget.

Some will say Londoners will not tolerate a reduction of municipal services required to obtain this property tax cut. This is emphatically untrue and it has been untrue for several years. Nordex Research, London’s well-known market research and polling company, has been tracking a desire for priority spending and service reductions since 1997. Indeed, the desire for program and service reductions has been growing since the last election. To test the current demand for municipal service reductions, I recently commissioned Nordex to conduct a poll in my ward, and Dr. Kimble Ainslie, president of Nordex reports that the results obtained in my poll taken during the period Nov. 30-Dec 1, 2004 are comparable to past demand patterns across the city. Since so many councillors and controllers over the years have tried to contradict this real public demand, I asked Dr. Ainslie to pose the following question. My question, among others, was a follows:

Some city council politicians brush off demands for tax savings by saying the electorate always wants to keep taxes low and at the same time the electorate wants more municipal services. How do you come down on this choice? Would you prefer to have lower property taxes and fewer services, or more services and higher taxes?

And the answer we got:

lower taxes & fewer services 52%
more services & higher taxes 23
can’t decide on choice 20
don’t know/don’t care 5

A solid majority in my ward want lower taxes and service reductions; only about one-quarter demand more services with increased taxation – and my ward is one of the most affluent in the city. The remaining respondents have apparently dealt themselves out of the debate. So be it. This is a democracy; the majority rules.

And when I asked specifically what my constituents would be prepared to cut as well as what they wanted to save in services, this was their answer. A majority in the ward want spending curtailed on: recreational facilities, library services, parking enforcement, grants to community associations, sports programs, and parks & gardens. On the other hand, they want the basics preserved such as fire and police services, garbage collection, and roads spending.

And as readers look over my list of cuts in the attached documents, they will see that I have retained the foregoing spending priorities. In the end, I have cut only $104.6 million out of a total budget of $834 million.

Knife misses capital budget and hits Londoners in the back instead

The sad but predictable story of London Budget 2005 continues...

A lack of any courage to make any decisions is an expensive affront to Londoners. There has not been the slightest inclination expressed by any councillor (with the exception of Paul Van Meerbergen) to take seriously the actual penalty they are imposing on the citizens of the city. Each project has its supporters and detractors, and the detractors inevitably support someone else's project to get support for their own favoured projects. So nothing happens, and the unsustainability of our past and present course of funding bread and circuses, with an emphasis on the circuses, in London is coming home to roost. If only the Council would take notice -- 7.8% this year, and more increases to come as we continue on our present course.

The clock ticking on a threatened 7.8-per-cent property tax hike, London council debated a $47-million capital budget for four hours yesterday and passed it without a single cut. If taxpayers are going to get any relief from a tax hike that now stands at an extra $151.69 on an average home assessed at $152,000, council will have to start slashing in the two weeks left before the budget is scheduled to be passed Jan. 25.

Next Wednesday, council will take another whack at its operating budget, usually an area ripe for cuts but one the politicians have increased in their latest budget bashing.
...
Coun. Paul VanMeerbergen tried unsuccessfully on several fronts to make cuts to reduce the tax hike. Among his defeated proposals were a $225,000 cut to parks, a $325,000 cut to Thames Valley Parkway, a $1-million cut to London Transit for bus replacements and a $250,000 cut for woodlot acquisition.

No worries, though, Anne Marie DeCicco assures us that

she's pleased council kept its capital spending within a $30-million debt cap agreed to two years ago.

Must have thought about it alot to come up with that insightful analysis.

Pick up the phone! Operators are standing by.

Like this guy says, it's about time that a doctor stood up for we Ontarians without sleazy queue-jumping connections and hence without a doctor. Where are the rest of you GPs? I imagine it's pretty sweet to be the tenured employee of a monopoly union, but you should maybe shut up a little bit about smoking and trans fats, and spend the time you save looking around and thinking about the people getting screwed over by your profession's willingness to work for cargo cultists.

The Milnite revisionists may still believe that the doctor shortage can be solved with the usual Canadian approach of ignorantly trying to wish away economic principles that were fully understood hundreds of years ago. But, we thank them for this meme all the same.

This really is a good idea. Since I pay the full "health care premium" and yet somehow don't have a doctor, I reckon I'll give Deb Matthews' office a call to arrange for my money back too. Wouldn't it be great if just one out of every ten Ontarians without a doctor did this every day or two? I sure as hell would be on the phone to Future Shop customer service every day if the printer I paid for was never delivered.

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Corporate whores indeed

Courtesy of Mike Brock, we get this chart, compiled on the basis of figures from this site:

The results of a search for political donations to all parties by the City of London - try it yourself by choosing all political parties and entering "City of London" as the contributor:

First, take note that the city is donating taxpayer money to political parties and second, note that they donate to the Liberal party exclusively. Let us thank The Corporation of the City of London for choosing on our behalf.

Taxes and regulations likely to increase on alcohol in Ontario

Ontario could end its government monopoly on retailing alcohol and allow sales from corner stores after it modernizes liquor laws for the first time since prohibition, Finance Minister Greg Sorbara suggested Tuesday.

''The LCBO is not for sale,'' Sorbara stressed at a news conference. ''Repeat: the LCBO is not for sale.''

Yes, a good idea - and to make it even better, don't sell the LCBO, but just dissolve it and get rid of the government monopoly altogether. Likely they are just teasing us......

However, he said all other options would be on the table as an expert panel looks at all players involved in liquor sales in the province, including the government-owned Liquor Control Board of Ontario, the privately owned Brewers Retail Inc., and retail stores owned by wineries.

''The panel is going to look at all aspects of the system, beer, wine and spirits, and all stages, wholesaling, distribution and retailing,'' Sorbara said.

''The current system is a patchwork of policies and agreements dating back to the 1920s and the end of prohibition.''

I smell fish - this suggestion comes from the Liberals afterall, so we should question their motives. Once booze becomes available in corner stores, I bet alcohol and 'drinkers' become the next social scapegoat. Regulation is still regulation and this government is certainly not interested in allowing choice and deregulation.

Sorbara said the panel's report, to be submitted by this spring, will be based on five guiding principles:

* Safeguarding socially responsible consumption, storage, distribution and sale of beverage alcohol.
* Convenience, variety and competitive prices.
* Maximizing value to taxpayers.
* Ensuring responsible reuse and recycling practices.
* Promoting Ontario's products.

You see?

Budget Scraps - Babies, nannies and horses and buggies

A few comments from some of the ~~looters~~ 'winners' in this years scramble for a piece of the pie:

But child-care providers who filled council chambers -- and supporters of Fanshawe Pioneer Village who won a $290,000 operating grant-- were relieved their interests won council support.

"I don't think we fought city hall. I think we just said here's an opportunity we don't want to miss out on," said Ian Gibb, director of London Bridge Child Care Services, which operates 11 licensed day-care centres.

Of course you didn't want to miss out on the opportunity to dip into the public trough. That is generally the only recourse left to us in a socialist state. Unfortunately, Mr. Gibb continues:

"Licensed day care will never meet all the needs and there's nothing wrong with putting your child with family or the babysitter or a neighbour you trust," Gibb said. "But many families are more comfortable in an environment they know is licensed and inspected and this (subsidy extension) will give more families that option."

What is this person saying???!!! Of course "there's nothing wrong" with leaving your child with a trusted family member or babysitter! Although I don't have kids, I sure as hell would trust my family before I trusted the Master's of the Nanny State. Is it really necessary for me to point out that inspected and licensed by the government does not automatically mean that it is the right choice - unless it is forced on us of course, and it becomes the only choice - which is the case, to cite just one example - when it comes to health care in Canada. Next step: force parents to give up their children at birth, as only the state is deemed fit to shape and care for young minds and bodies. Let us not forget Klein's proposed forced wellness program or the push in this country for universal daycare. By the way, thanks for leaving me fewer options, as I am childless you know and tax increases leave less for me, for I don't belong to a successful special interest group. I couldn't afford a kid, even if I wanted one. However, I guess I could always line up for trough money - that is what London Liberal MP Sue Barnes suggested to me in response to a question I put to her at an election debate in London.

More absurdity:

Fanshawe Pioneer Village secured a $290,000 operating grant to keep its doors open this year, but still needs $1 million in capital funds to restore its historic buildings. Village director Sheila Johnson said she's relieved the operating funds were granted because the village faced closure otherwise. Referring to arguments the village deserves a lifeline in light of the fact London is celebrating its 150th anniversary as a city, Johnson said she believes the timing helped. "You can't celebrate history you don't have."

This year will turn out to be very expensive for Londoners, even according to London standards - the 150th anniversary excuse is going to be milked for all it is worth no doubt. And as for Johnson's "You can't celebrate history you don't have", I say you cannot have a city if it goes broke. Ain't nobody gonna care about London's history when it is a ghost town. Keep in mind we needs roads to reach Pioneer Village, although soon enough we will all be driving horses and buggies in this city.

One tier means Liberals should have to just go to the hospital like the rest of us

The Milnite deviationists and their Menshevizing idealism bring to mind one of the celebrated minor characters of Atlas Shrugged, the malfunctioning doctor unit:

"I quit when medicine was placed under State control, some years ago,' said Dr. Hendricks. 'Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent...

Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it--and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn't."

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (1957)

Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of men?

The Tribunal knows!

Did you hear the one about the Satanist who was beaten up -- with hate crime charges laid against his assailants?

This story demonstrates that what counts (and to whom?) as a "recognized group" must be arbitrary and subject to fashion and marketing -- the same fashion and marketing that brought you the concept of hate crimes, this euphemism for a class system, this out-of-left-field introduction into our laws of the notion of a motive itself being a crime, in the first place.

For example, it's now the fashion to overcompensate for past injustices based on race and religion, so we have hate crime laws that set those kinds of differences in stone and ensure that people will forever be touchy about these irrelevant aspects of human variety. On the other hand, another popular target of emotion-based crime, "people who have money I want", are (purely by convention) not seen as a hate-crimeable group, so straight beating while mugging for cash is then a less unholy crime. It's against a less important target. When it comes to trial the judge will perform a magical mind reading act and then proceed as if he is following a real law.

Meanwhile, the visibly non-Satanic should take care to dress evil when they go to rough parts of New York state.

Budget Antics 2005

London was shrouded in a thick fog today, I imagine brought about by the Almighty to express his disproval of the latest talks about the budget here in London. Some highlights from the continuing circus we call London:

The police get a small cut from their budget, and still whine - and this despite the expansion of police headquarters and the huge increase they got last year:

Chief Murray Faulkner said he'll have to meet with senior management and the police services board to decide where to find the money in a $63-million budget that amounts to a 5.5-per-cent increase over last year -- the target the police were given by the city.

"The bottom line is I have to find $184,000 and we'll have to come up with some kind of strategy to find it," Faulkner said yesterday.

He hopes to hire 15 new police officers this year and with 94 per cent of his budget consumed by staffing, that figure may have to be trimmed, he said.

He defended the 2005 budget, along with last year's spending that included hiring 35 new police officers, noting the new staff is showing positive results.

Between 2001 and last year, Faulkner said vacant beats have been reduced by 60 per cent, overtime has dropped by 30 per cent and emergency response time has dropped 43 per cent from 9.4 minutes to under five minutes.

Coun. Paul Van Meerbergen tried unsuccessfully to slash $1.6 million from the police budget, arguing "given the horrific budget pressure we're under, it's just not realistic to grant this type of increase."

Same old story every year - so much so, that sometimes I cannot tell if I am viewing an article from this year about the budget or if I am looking at last years. Maybe I should just move to St.Thomas:

St. Thomas, the city that boasts 25 per cent more life, will likely also bring in a smaller tax hike than big-city neighbour London. In St. Thomas -- as is the case in Chatham, Sarnia and Woodstock -- the projected property tax increase facing residents this year is much lower than the 7.8-per-cent hike looming for Londoners, as councils start hammering out their final civic budgets.

"Compared to some other communities . . . we're looking pretty good," St. Thomas Mayor Jeff Kohler said yesterday.

Compared to London, most communities look pretty good.

Some municipal expenses have been ignored in years past, Gagner said, which will make the targeted tax hike necessary.

"There (was) a period of time where various councils went forward with . . . zero- per-cent budget increases," she said. "One of the problems we've encountered in recent years is playing a little bit of catchup.

"We're paying a little bit now for some stuff that should have been handled before."

In London, the order of the day is to pass the buck to next year, after taking sufficient spoils from Londoners to build fancy arenas and preside over heritage.

The lucky bugger's getting out

This is my 4th year in London, and most likely my last ever. If London has imparted one thing on me, it's how wonderfully functional Ottawa is for a city of its size.

From Highway 401. I'd say that's rather an indictment of London considering what the Ottawa bloggers have to say about their city.

But i want it all for free....

Now here is a good idea!

Frustrated with a deepening doctor shortage, a Goderich family doctor is urging colleagues across the province to quit caring for Liberal MPPs. Dr. Ken Milne has called on doctors with Liberal MPPs as patients to discharge them and their families and replace them with a family with no family doctor.

"If Dalton McGuinty had to come home and have his wife chew him out because they were eight hours in an emergency department because they had a cold and didn't have a family doctor, then maybe something would get done," Milne said yesterday.

So far so good, until you read the next line:

"The government needs to respond in some way."

Indeed they do, and the right response would be no response - i.e. back off and allow private health care. Of course, MPPs would have no trouble buying health care themselves if they were in fact denied service. No need to even mention that allowing private health care would threaten the government's corrupt monopoly.

I am no fan of Ralph Klein, but I liked this comment, taken from his speech to the Canadian club:

Part of our problem is that our health care system is organized by government, paid for by government, insured by government, and evaluated by government, and health care professionals are accountable to government.

That's a lot of government.

At the risk of sounding like a conservative, usually when there is that much government involved, efficiency is the first casualty.

So one of the key changes I want to see in the new Third Way for health renewal is to get a whole bunch of "government" out of the way.

Surprise, surprise, NDP Leader Brian Mason doesn't agree:

"Unless the federal government is willing to cut off the money, Premier Klein can get away with murder," said Mason. "One of the things that's most important here is that the federal government take a clear and strong position with all the provinces, including Alberta."

Murder eh? Is that what you call allowing people to pay for timely and decent care which could save their lives. Wait until you get sick Mr. Mason, but oops! I forget that you are a politician and likely have ways of 'jumping the cue' which aren't available to the vast majority of us vassals.

Alas, we do live in Canada - more from Ralph Klein:

By the fall of 2006, every child starting kindergarten will participate in a mandatory new wellness curriculum to be introduced in every school in the province. The program will combine the best of what we know about healthy eating, staying active, and taking care of ourselves. And if we do this right, we'll succeed in building the healthiest population in the world, and we'll save the health system millions of dollars over the longer term.

No need to worry about sounding conservative Mr. Klein, because while you are a far-sight better than McGuinty and his liberal cartel, you still support the Nanny State - you know where your bread and butter comes from.

Nature vs. Nurture

The Eclectic Econoclast sportingly looks at the idea of whether natural selection is at work in the problem of gambling. Courtesy of The Eclectic Econoclast:

And one thing that really irritates me about the gubmnt monopoly over gambling in so many jurisdictions is that the gubmnt finds itself in a serious conflict-of-interest position about the expected value of gambling. They have, for the most part, monopolized the education business, wherein people are supposed to be taught valuable, useful things, such as, "On average, casinos make money because you gamblers lose." At the same time they abrogate this usurped responsibility by advertising all the wonderful things that can happen if you just keep spending your money on gambling.

Foundations Of Boomer Public Policy

Courtesy Billy Beck:

"Why stir up a political hornet's nest . . . when there is no urgency?" said Rep. Rob Simmons (Conn.), who represents a competitive district. "When does the program go belly up? 2042. I will be dead by then."

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

Empathy to swank

Andrew Sullivan dredges up good old Engrish!

Unfortunately, they don't seem to sell the "Let's eat breakfast firmly" t-shirt of Dec 21 yet.

They always get so cranky when they stay up past their bedtime

If I don't see those lights out in five minutes, I'm coming upstairs!

Some city councillors denounced the London Chamber of Commerce yesterday over what they termed a damaging and erroneous report on the city's business tax rates. At their budget session, some councillors demanded the group apologize for a report released last week that said city businesses are saddled with some of the highest property tax rates in Ontario.

Controller Bernie MacDonald accused chamber general manager Gerry Macartney of causing city council "nothing but heartache over the past five years.

"The Chamber has done nothing but criticize us and we're fed up and let's tell them so," MacDonald fumed.

City treasurer Mike St. Amant said that while information in the report was correct, the conclusions the group drew from it were not.

Oh, so the information was correct, was it? Then how about letting us reach our own conclusions. They seem pretty self-evident to me -- we are overtaxed, spending property taxes on items that have nothing to do with service to property, and we are becoming rapidly uncompetitive. And rather than try to address the problem, let alone even acknowledging it, they waste even more time petulantly criticizing the Chamber of Commerce, whose information was correct! So the headline in the Free Press reads "Chamber criticized over tax report"? The Council deserves every bit of criticism it gets, and being public officials they are expected to receive criticism from the taxpayers of London with the consideration it deserves, not this kind of crying.

"Based on the reports and reactions, you would presume that London taxes are much higher than other cities, but this is wrong," St. Amant said.

He said the city's commercial taxes are actually lower than the Ontario average and the group's report failed to acknowledge that half of the tax rate is determined by education taxes and the city has the highest eduction tax rate in the province.

But Macartney wasn't backing down yesterday.

He said the city's tax rates are undeniably high and hurting competitiveness.

"Other municipalities are using comparative tax rates when they talk to investors. And when they show these charts, guess who's at the top?,"

I know, I know!

Council won't let honest facts and opinions get in their way. Through the Free Press, they have the power to cover over facts and opinions with their loud shrill whining. Makes you wonder why they even wanted the responsibility of running the corporation of London in the first place if they can't handle criticism. Children!

Council debated asking for an apology, but backed down. Instead, Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco will ask the group to consult with the city before releasing future reports and to write a rebuttal that will be submitted to The Free Press.

Left, Right or just plain Totalitarian? All expression must be approved by London's master planners.

You have the right to remain silent ...

Tom Brodbeck of the Winnipeg Sun has an interesting editorial about the proliferation of "rights" in Canada. Good work for lawyers these days...

Seems more and more people are getting more and more "rights" for just about anything under the sun.
...
Rights are being handed out so liberally these days, it's difficult to know what a real human right is any more.
...
We like to say that something is a "fundamental human right." But it's only a right if it's prescribed in law by our legislators.
...
For example, I don't have the same rights as a woman of colour in applying for most government jobs in Canada. Most governments discriminate against white males as part of their affirmative action programs to increase the percentage of visible minorities in their workforces.

I may think that's a violation of my fundamental rights but it isn't. That's because the Charter is very clear in Sec. 15(2) which states that the protection I have against discrimination based on gender and colour is trumped by any program that "has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

So who's disadvantaged? Well, that's up to the courts to decide, and popular opinion among the intellectual giants of the judiciary is going to ensure that I am always going to come up short of "rights" compared to many of my fellow citizens.

The question then becomes, how many "rights" can the courts -- who are unelected and unaccountable -- create before government becomes insolvent?

The next Zimbabwe

Officials in Venezuela have gone into a cattle farm owned by a British company and may expropriate it as part of the government's land reform plans. They were accompanied on to the 13,000 hectare (32,000 acre) El Charcote farm in the western Cojedes state by police.

The government wants to seize land deemed idle or illegally held to give to the country's poor farmers.
...
[The British firm] Vestey says the farm was profitable until hundreds of squatters moved in when President Chavez signed the land reform law four years ago.
...
The law, passed four years ago, allows expropriation of land that is not being used productively, or where ownership cannot be proved.

Ask, and you shall receive. Legislate, and the police will follow.

Check out the video on the sidebar, a chilling example of the ignorance of common law and respect for property that Chavez appeals to. Even more chilling, check out the admiration that some Americans, British and Irish people have for the Venezuelan thug.

Sing a song of 7.81%

Now that the budget is pretty much set, The London Fog is happy to announce that we're holding a London 150 Song Contest. We put this challenge to our readers: who can create the best song celebrating and symbolizing London's 150th birthday?

Send us links to your band's London 150 songs and videos and we'll link to them. Tell your underexposed friends about this twice in a tricentennial opportunity! You don't have to be from London -- after all, Jello Biafra never went to Cambodia, and Jimi Hendrix didn't even live until 1983.

The contest closes on Tax Freedom Day, 2005. The prize for the best song is a map of London signed and annotated by everyone at the London Fog. The second best gets a crumpled up old map that is not special at all.

To get the ball rolling we provide the first entry in the contest. It's a 2 MB Flash video for a satirical light-hearted number by London's own Diversity Workshop, entitled "Gord Hume Wears Hitler's Skull For A Toupee". We caution you that this is an obviously absurd and untrue statement. The video itself contains nothing but lies.

2 MB FLASH

2 MB FLASH

Update: Jan. 16
Our second submission, by Frank Le Fou entitled "Pothole City":

Update: Jan. 17
Yet another submission from Frank Le Fou —
"Downtown London — What a Mess!"

Update: Jan 19
Diversity Workshop break our hearts with "Wonderland Gardens".

Update: Jan 28
Kajagoogoo-wannabes TURN OFF get down with "Anne Marie Is Smiling."

Update: Jan 31
The Diplomats sum it up with "London is Crumbling Down."

Misplaced altruism?

These words are from a post Raskolnikov put up on his blog, now apparently defunct - maybe he has switched his url, 'cause he seems to have just disappeared. I will put the link back up if he shows up again:

As expected, the need to be crowned "Most Generous" in the tsunami-sweepstakes has torn loose from its moorings and begun trashing to and fro. While the disaster has allowed major countries to preen their feathers and strut like roosters, casually handing over billions, it has also provided an opportunity for the small-scale, everyperson renaissance -- the elementary school bake-off for Asia, the Society of Qudrapalegic-Lesbian-Klingon Speakers non-perishable food drive, the dusty South Central orphan offering up his tattered Raiders jersey for the children of Sumatra.

Somewhere amidst this fetishization of charity lies a dark corner, a cul-de-sac of the soul no one wants to talk about. The Great Giving of 2005 is, when it comes down to where the bear shat in the buckwheat, all about us, our turgid hearts, our perpetuation of the "Canadian way" to quote mein Fuhrer, our altruistic ability to overlook the fact that we are basically providing succor to the enemy.

Raskolnikov is not trying to downplay this tragic event, nor discount the suffering and deaths of thousands of innocent people. Nor does he downplay the genuine generosity of many Canadians. He does however draw attention to the self-serving self-promotion of those who otherwise don't even bother to assist themselves. Basically, it seems to me that the value of Raskolnikov's post is that it points out the hypocrisy and opportunism of our so-called community leaders.

UPDATE: The article from which we quote is no longer available, nor is the site from which is was quoted. See here for the reason...

London Ontario - A Sinking Ship

We're screwed.

London council caved in on two key budget issues yesterday, ponying up extra cash to tap federal child-care funding and throwing Fanshawe Pioneer Village a lifeline. But with time running out to chop this year's threatened property tax hike, the mara-thon budget session left taxpayers facing more of a hike.

Council's budget additions yesterday, including $200,000 that was poised to be cut from ambulance service, means Londoners were looking at a 7.81-per-cent tax hike as debate ended about midnight.

The increase amounts to an extra $151.69 on an average home assessed at $152,000 and is up from a 7.7-per-cent hike -- an extra $148.53 on an average home -- before yesterday's session.

Yesterday's hit might have been worse, but for a $184,000 cut to the police budget -- which Chief Murray Faulkner said later will affect new hiring. He was not specific.

Child care was the big issue, with the city backing down on provincial conditions for London to access the money.

[. . . . ]

But in the end, councillors had no taste for cuts that would reduce affordable child care and threaten to shortchange ambulance service.

Only Deputy Mayor Tom Gosnell, Controller Gord Hume and Coun. Paul Van Meerbergen opposed the child- care funding.

Van Meerbergen argued unsuccessfully for council to resist the province, noting city finance manager Vic Cote has warned provincial downloading threatens to cost Londoners an extra $2 million a year from new Ontario programs.

Council also approved $290,000 in operating funds to keep Fanshawe Pioneer Village open. That's $20,000 less than the tourism site got last year, but better than the cutoff village supporters had feared.

Council's giving mood yesterday follows three days of public budget sessions in local malls where voters sent a resounding message they want the line held on taxes.

Last night, tempers flared as councillors realized they were achieving the very opposite.

DeCicco, one of seven council members who opposed granting funds to the pioneer village, admitted frustration.

"We seem to want to have it both ways," she said. "We talk about wanting to reduce and not having control over downloading, and then when we have items where we do actually have control, we still don't cut back and I do find that frustrating."

Coun. Joni Baechler called for a "symbolic gesture" to taxpayers -- a $1,000 cut to the $4,000 travel budget for council members. But that was lost with support only from herself and councillors Van Meerbergen, Bill Armstrong and David Winninger.

Most of the big-ticket items council had threatened either not to spend or to cut were aimed at voicing downloading displeasure to Queen's Park.

Council approved a more than $40-million fire services budget that will see 14 new staff hired and $2 million to address wage settlements and service expansion.

Coun. Rob Alder tried to introduce a swift cut -- $250,000 from three departments overseen by city manager Jeff Fielding-- to reduce the tax pain.

But Coun. Bernie MacDonald lashed out to defend Fielding's budget that came in with no increase.

"The city manager came in at zero and now he (Alder) wants to start whacking it," MacDonald argued.

"I think that's a disgrace."

Gosnell, budget chief, urged council "not to get personal."

Cancer (on) Society

Whatittakestowin points out the extent of Liberal metastasis.

Since I involuntarily spend more than half my day anyways working for free for somebody else's benefit, at this point I only give to charities representing non-voters such as dogs and cats. The Humane Society will not be found here -- and no tabby ever voted Liberal.

You might consider vetting your charity donations through this website, and giving to nonpolitical organizations representing the truly vulnerable, instead of to charities who get in bed with crooks.

Monday, January 10, 2005

It's trendy to be totalitarian these days

Courtesy of God of the Copybook headings - my most favorite blog at the moment:

Keynes was the economist known as the father of the New Deal. In his General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, he argued for the policies which are found in the New Deal as a means of "saving capitalism".

Here is a quote from the preface to the German edition (written in 1936) of the General Theory:

"The theory of aggregate production that is the goal of the following book can be much more easily applied to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of the production and distribution of a given output turned out under the conditions of a free competition and of a considerable degree of laissez-faire."

As this quote illustrates, Keynes was not just a confused economist with the intention of "saving capitalism", he was a totalitarian at heart.

Damned if you do, Damned if you don't

London is the only Ontario city poised to reject federal child-care funding, and that money may be lost to the city indefinitely, child care advocates warned yesterday. City council will hear in a committee of the whole meeting today that if it rejects $1.6 million in federal funding to create subsidized child care, other cities want the cash.

"It will go to other cities and it would be locked in," Coun. Susan Eagle said yesterday, adding the city would have to reapply to get the funding in the future.

"We are not missing out on just this year, but chances are on the whole thing."

Susan Eagle wouldn't want to miss out on public funds and publicity of course and as usual she completely misses the point. I don't really understand what council's motive is here, as usually they are so unprincipled and go for the easy cash with no thought of tomorrow's budget - this makes the subsidy deal particularly suspect. Rejecting handouts with strings attached is probably a good idea, although I usually disagree with almost everything suggested by council and board of control, so I am not sure what to think about this stance. Even though the city gets more than they put out, they are strapped with yet another bill and yearly expense, which like other city costs, continue to go up each year. London has already overspent itself.

Michele Reid, chairperson of the city's child care advisory committee, agreed, adding London has been alone in its opposition.

"We were told in a meeting that if we did not want the money, Toronto was lined up for it," Reid said yesterday. "We heard no one is happy about paying 20 per cent to the province, but we are the only ones questioning it."

Last month, board of control balked at approving $450,000 in new child-care spending to tap into $1.67 million in federal funding.

Controllers are upset the province is insisting municipalities put up 20 per cent of the total funding, even though all the money is coming from the federal government.

No doubt Toronto wants in on the spoils - and please let us not forget that the money is still coming from the same place - taxpayers! and so screw off everyone with your talk of downloading and levels of government. One pay cheque and many demands upon it, some not of our own choosing. Likely Board of Control sees that they cannot take more from Londoners and it is really not surprising the priority would be on capital city projects, rather than social services which do not necessarily serve their personal interests - the members of board of control seem to be particularly beholden to developer interests and that is the engine behind all of the city mega-projects, rather like the Pharaoh's building pyramids.

"We see it as downloading," Cont. Russ Monteith said yesterday.

"We understand Alberta did not charge a fee and we don't think we should pay a 20-per-cent fee to access the money."

Council is looking at ways to cut costs in light of a proposed 7.7-per-cent property tax increase.

"It will be a difficult issue at council," Monteith acknowledged.

Okay, well you have a point Mr. Monteith - the provincial deal does indeed amount to a user fee. We should also not discount the possibility of the federal government reducing funding for this endeavour in the future and yet the city would still be expected to maintain the service. Once a service is entrenched, it becomes a right.

The board's opposition angered Londoner Lisa Vryvogel, 24, who relies on child-care subsidies to keep her in a full-time job and off social assistance.

"I am a single mother and without subsidized day care, I would be on welfare," she said yesterday. "Tell them to try think of me, of being in my position, how would they feel if they were not able to work? They are not thinking about the people who cannot afford to live without it."

Vryvogel makes about $10 an hour at Goodlife Fitness as a membership co-ordinator, and pays only $125 to $140 a month for her two-year old daughter to attend day care.

"It is not just me, but moms who want to go to school are not able to without this subsidy," she added.

I don't want to sound insensitive here or hurt anybody's feelings, but why should I pay for the choices you have made in life? Folks like you are telling me that you have more right to my hard-earned dollars than I do. Once again emotionalism gets in the way of rationalism. If the government didn't take so much from us all and spend it on corrupt bureaucracies that serve primarily to further the agendas of those in power, then maybe childcare would be more affordable and thus enable you to both work and provide for your child. I have needs too, but I don't ask my neighbour to pay for the costs - once you give select people the power to administer 'universal' values, you inevitably end up with an arbitrary system because people cannot possibly share the same values, unless they are forced upon us. Need should not be defined by bureaucrats.

And just guess who comes out to herald the cause? The unions!

Organized labour in London has also come out in support of the city paying some money to get the grant.

"There is a lack of recognition by council of what child care is and what it does for the community," said Tim Carrie, president of the Canadian Auto Workers Local 27.

"They see it as a drain on social programs, but it gets people off social assistance, it helps families provide for themselves. We do not support the provincial strings-attached policy, but we cannot put people in jeopardy by playing politics."

Subsidized child care is critical to getting the poor off the cycle of poverty, said Jacqueline Thompson, executive director of LifeSpin, an agency aiding low-income families and the working poor.

"There is a lot of top-down decision-making going on in the city and it is affecting people at the bottom."

Most certainly there is alot of top-down decision making going on, and it is affecting us all, rich and poor alike - let us stop the top from making decisions for us vassals.

The battle against the 407 - an embarassment to Ontario

Although the Ontario government has lost yet another legal battle against the owners of the 407, McGuinty has asserted publically that his government will continue to fight the upcoming increase in 407 tolls. If the huge waste of money in this futile legal battle is not enough to outrage taxpayers, then the fact that taxpayer money is being used to take out ads in Spain might do it.

Through Christina Blizzard writing for the Toronto Sun, we learn:

In an apparent attempt to embarrass Cintra, a subsidiary of the consortium that owns the 407, shortly before an initial public offering of shares, the government put out a series of press releases through a public relations agency in Madrid. The news releases draw attention to the ongoing legal battle here between Ontario and Cintra.

In late October -- just days before Cintra's IPO -- a consulting company called Edelman, with offices in Toronto and Madrid, distributed releases to journalists in Spain outlining the legal battle initiated by the Liberal government against the 407.

[. . . . .]

The press releases issued by the goverment in Spain were also put out here. One of them discusses the hearings held by Eglinton-Lawrence MPP Mike Colle on the 407. Hmm. How do you say, "Stop the presses," in Spanish?

But what is most odd, and very mysterious, is one backgrounder e-mailed to Spanish journalists, which is highly critical of the 407 consortium and reads as though it is written from the government's point of view.

No one seems to know who is actually sending out this document. Danna O'Brien, a spokesperson in Transportation Minister Harinder Takhar's office, denies it was sent out by them, or on their behalf by Edelman.

[. . . . . ]

it is being sent out "in response to attempts by Cintra to downplay" the Ontario suit against the 407 "at a time when the company has been listed on the stock exchange."

Referring to the lawsuit, it says: "This is the first open front in our multiple legal strategy. We are certain that it will be resolved with a final, binding ruling favourable to the Ontario government."

It adds: "...we are planning a multi-faceted legal strategy that would enable us to exert the pressure necessary to make the company fulfil its contractual obligations."

O'Brien did confirm, however, that the ministry is sending out other releases to Spanish media.

"We send out news releases with every new development in our legal case with the 407 consortium. The same releases were sent out in Spanish because we have an obligation to make sure the public, whether here or abroad, has the facts about our legal case," she said.

"The 407 sometimes sends out releases where the facts are distorted."

But the Ontario government would never distort facts now would they? This example of waste and shameless self promotion is yet another move by the cartel to assert and expand their monopoly over services. If you don't want to pay the tolls, simply don't use the highway. The previous government already made the decision to sell the highway, so it is time to accept it and see what kind of service the operators of the 407 can offer us.

This petty childish vindictiveness against a company that is operating completely legally should enrage Ontario voters. Why would anyone want to do business in Ontario if this is the kind of treatment they receive? It's not as if Cintra has access to the public treasury to fight its public relations campaign with the Ontario cartel.

Public Education linked to decreased cognitive ability

Yes, I smoke cigarettes and I drink coffee too!

Courtesy of the McGuinty government and their health propaganda page, paid for by you...

A new study shows that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, even at extremely low levels, is associated with decreases in certain cognitive skills, including reading, math, and logic and reasoning, in children and adolescents.

The study is the largest ever to look at the effects of environmental tobacco smoke on children's health. It is published in the January issue of Environmental Health Perspectives.

"This study provides further incentive to set public health standards to protect children from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke," says Kimberly Yolton, PhD, the study's main author.

Do you suppose governments ever fund or publish studies that don't support their agenda?

The study's findings translate into nearly a three-point decline in a standardized reading test and nearly a two-point decline in a standardized math test, given an average score of 100 and a modest increase in exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.

Logic and reasoning skills were tested in a task that involved the assembly of blocks. This task evaluated a child's ability to visually organize and reason in constructing a design quickly and accurately. The study found a .55 decline in block-design scores, given an average score of 10 and a modest increase in exposure.

"These declines may not be clinically meaningful for an individual child, but they have huge implications for our society because millions of children are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke," says Dr. Yolton.

To measure exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, researchers measured levels of cotinine, a substance produced when nicotine is broken down by the body. Cotinine can be measured in blood, urine, saliva and hair. It is considered the best marker of environmental tobacco smoke exposure.

For this study, cotinine was measured in the blood of 4,399 children between 6 and 16 years old. Children were only included in the analysis if their serum (blood) cotinine levels were at or below 15 ng/ml, a level consistent with environmental tobacco smoke exposure, and if they denied using any tobacco products in the previous five days.

Cognitive and academic abilities were assessed using portions of standardized intelligence and achievement tests. Reading, math and reasoning scores were highly related to environmental tobacco smoke exposure: The greater the levels of exposure as measured by cotinine levels, the greater the decline in reading and reasoning ability, even at extremely low levels of exposure, according to Dr. Yolton.

Surprisingly, Dr. Yolton also found greater decreases in cognitive skills at lower levels of exposure. While there was, on average, a one-point decline in reading scores for each unit increase in cotinine at levels above 1 ng/ml, there was a five-point decline for each unit increase in cotinine at levels below 1 ng/ml.

So, if you are actually a smoker, I guess you must be a moron. My feelings are hurt now! While I am on the topic of the evils of cigarettes, let us turn to Garfield Mahood and see what he has to say.

A group of doctors and public health experts will launch legal action tomorrow to force tobacco manufacturers to drop the words "light" and "mild" from cigarette packages. The group said yesterday it wants to put an end to "the most destructive, deceptive trade practice in the history of Canadian business or public health."

"We've got a problem and we're going to do whatever is necessary in the health community to solve the problem," said Garfield Mahood of the Non-Smokers' Rights Association.

"Light and mild cigarettes have been responsible for thousands of deaths and health experts feel this has to be addressed."

Oh I see - maybe Mr. Mahood is exposed to too much 'environmental tobacco smoke' - light cigarettes cause people to smoke, just like guns cause people to kill. Strange power Mr. Mahood gives to inanimate objects....

The association has maintained smokers have been duped into believing the light or mild brands are less dangerous than regular cigarettes.

But anti-smoking activists insist the risk is not lower and health benefits don't exist.

[. . . .]

John Wildgust, the director of corporate affairs for cigarette maker JTI-Macdonald, said tobacco companies simply followed a Health Canada request in the 1960s to develop lighter products.

Wildgust takes issue with the allegation tobacco manufacturers are misleading smokers with the light and mild labeling, especially after years of warnings about the health hazards of smoking.

"I don't think there's anybody on the planet who doesn't realize that there's a health risk associated with smoking," said Wildgust.

He cited surveys of people who smoke the products, which show only three per cent believed there was some benefit -- 97 per cent, he said, smoked the lighter products because of taste.

By the way, I really appreciate the Ontario cartel spending taxpayer money for full page ads in major newspapers promoting the proposed "Smoke-Free Ontario Act" - "Stopping the Number One Killer in Ontario" - lines like these are especially interesting:

The proposed act does not extend the smoking ban to private dwellings, with the exception of licensed private home day care. Operators of residential care facilities and hotels would have the option of allowing smoking in these residential settings.

Thanks for clarifying that - glad to know that I still have some choice as to what I do in my own home.

“Smart Growth” is just dumb economics

Thank you to Kim Ainslie for allowing us to reproduce this article, which first appeared in Scene Magazine (April 29, 2004). Although this piece was originally published almost a year ago, City Council has not abandoned any of the misguided socialist principles that have stifled growth and creativity and raised taxes in the London market. It is now budget time again at City Hall, and the London Fog will be trying to hold the feet of Council to the fire. Dr. Ainslie's article is a well-researched and articulated piece of criticism, and it is still very timely. (Please check out a previous piece by him that we have published: City Hall's Cynical Budget Politics

Dr. Ainslie is President of Nordex Research in London, a private, public policy and market development research organization serving clients across North America.

“Smart Growth” Is Just Dumb Economics

The “smart growth” policy mantra is becoming firmly entrenched at London city hall these days, and it is being led the city’s planning committee. Chairwoman and ward 2 councillor Joni Baechler, and her soul sister, ward 1 councillor Judy Bryant are the leading advocates. They are being aided and abetted by top bureaucrats in the city’s planning department. These folks have jumped on the “smart growth” bandwagon by seeking to restrict residential and commercial growth by on the city’s suburban periphery and elsewhere. But this putative, smart growth strategy will have dumb results for London’s economic development.

Baechler’s and Bryant’s clarion call is: “growth doesn’t pay for itself.” The B&B twins’ argument goes like this: residential development and growth on London’s suburban fringes is wasteful for the city because the city cannot recoup the infrastructure investment costs in new roads, curbs & gutters, sewers, street lighting and the like. Theirs is a kind of a post-modern argument where growth is really anti-growth.

But the argument suffers.

First, nothing government does “pays” for itself. Government spending is always a net loss for taxpayers. And, notwithstanding the absconded rhetoric of left-wing media commentators, government offers us no monetary return on investment in this spending. There is no ROI.

Indeed, developed nations for decades have decided that they will pay for widely-delivered infrastructure services, because typically most citizens benefit from these works, as sooner or later we all use them. These infrastructure services, in public finance economics theory, are regarded more or less as “pure public goods.”

That’s the economic theory, but let’s address this as a practical issue. We might ask the B&B twins: “Who paid for the services that were installed in and surrounding your suburban homes in north and northwest London before you arrived on the scene?” The answer is: the rest of us. So in the end, our “smart growth” twins have got themselves twisted around on the economics of their assertions; they are really practising dog-in-the-manger economics. They’ve got theirs; newcomers can take the hindmost. But that’s, of course, what socialists do. These folks are not happy unless they are regulating or redistributing other people’s property and wealth.

Let’s move on to the economic damage that the city planning department is pursuing for the same purposes.

In January 2004, in keeping with the “smart growth” strategy, top officials in the department called for a limit on the availability of commercial zoning across the city. They said: the “[r]e-use and reformatting of [vacant commercial floor space and existing malls] … becomes less viable when too much commercial land is supplied in ‘greenfield’ locations.” Translation: we’re going to reduce the flow of zoned commercial land across the city, and we’re going to regulate business proposers into re-developing existing commercial space, notwithstanding the presence of contrary location, price, distribution, transportation and consumer demand in the marketplace. The idea here is to force new commercial developments into old and abandoned commercial space, just so the planners can run around saying they do not have “excess” commercial land supply.

The problem is: this too is bad for economic development. Why? The anticipated answer from commercial development proposers to the city will be: “Go pound salt. We won’t come into London.”

The fundamental problem is these planners are seeking to regulate and in some cases freeze commercial land supply, instead of stimulating demand for it. And on the question of previously used and vacant commercial space, the real solution lies in fiscal incentives going to redevelopers of vacant commercial space -- just like the city recently offered to a London developer of a downtown residential high rise.

Even post-modern socialists, i.e. neo-socialists, have figured out that the developmental state has to work hand in glove with business in order to produce positive development outcomes. The old Galbraithian, anti-corporate posturing is just passé and unproductive.

The planning department and the B&B twins need to abandon this feckless “smart growth” fad, and start focussing on what works for growth and jobs. That way we all prosper, and there’ll be no more need for silly talk about development freezes.

Story by Kimble Ainslie
Originally published in Scene Magazine, April 29, 2004

Sunday, January 9, 2005

Amiable idiot

Almost worse than the social engineers who barely disguise their contempt for the individuality of people are the amiable idiots who are killing us with kindness by supporting the political agendas of the intellectual minority.

This example, a letter to the editor in the January 6 edition of the London Free Press, struck me in the face as representative of the kindhearted simplicity of thinking that, by the sheer weight of its voting numbers, buries us all in government intervention. A previous letter, People on welfare make lifestyle choices by Robby Smink, created a bit of a righteous stir in the pages of our local condescending rag. In particular, Timothy P. Sandor of London wrote:

We as a caring society must have a social safety net because to err is human for all members of society. Even wealthy folks make bad choices, such as gambling their lives away at casinos. Most people who end up at the bottom of the ladder have been taxpayers as well and are entitled to these benefits.

Mr. Sandor thankfully does acknowledge the role of choices in the fortunes and misfortunes of individuals but bases his argument for the existence of a tax-funded welfare system on the fact that these taxes have already been paid and therefore people are entitled to benefit from these taxes. I agree, there should be a connection between what one pays and what one receives, but this correlation can only be apparent in a free market where individuals may decide for themselves how the value of what they receive is valued in exchange with what they are willing to pay. But when we pay taxes into general government revenue, we can never be sure that we are receiving a benefit concomitant with our outlay. In fact, we encourage people to compete with each other for the benefits that governments provide with tax dollars because there can be no way to account for the value or fairness of the exchange (this lack of accountability makes government the biggest money launderer of all time). The medium for exchange then becomes politics rather than an ability to muster personal resources for something one wishes to receive. And this competition is precisely what does happen as people realize that they can exchange their political clout or franchises (votes) for benefits to which they would not necessarily be entitled to otherwise -- in effect, getting other people to pay for oneself.

Does not this undermine personal responsibility for one's actions when the consequences of one's actions are subsumed under an artificial and arbitrary mode of exchange? I should insure myself against bad choices (which I have made, to be sure) by capitalizing on my existing and future resources, whether saving, buying insurance, working to rectify my mistakes, or by learning and trying to avoid making mistakes again in the future. I should certainly find this easier to do if I'm not busy working to pay for insurance against other peoples' bad choices. (Here's a free tip for those "wealthy folks:" don't gamble your lives away!)

I agree that recipients of these programs should not be critical of the system as they are being helped and should be grateful. However, people who feel their personal income tax is funding the whole system should not either. If looking after the unfortunate were left to uncaring people, these folks would be forced to work as slaves for property owners.
-- Timothy P. Sandor
London

A universal government-run welfare system is precisely leaving caring for the unfortunate to uncaring people. If the people who cared paid into such a system voluntarily, we would have a social safety net that would divvy up resources according to standards those people actually care about and that may be responsive to a distinction between genuine misfortune and bad choices, to those who care about such a distinction. It's called charity, and it's how responsible and caring people have always, and continue to, respond to problems among their fellow citizens.

" ... These folks would be forced to work as slaves for property owners." Well, I think we abolished slavery many years ago. There's a nasty bit of Marxist thinking in this line, by someone who I imagine (and I'm sorry if I'm wrong) has not even read Marx but instead has simply absorbed the kill-the-landlord thinking of the mouthy intellectuals.

Pay for it yourself

I cannot believe the audacity of some people! Take! Take! Take! because it is a value to them, but one that they cannot afford without illegitimately taking from others who don't share the same values. Yeah, I am ranting about the proposed city budget again.

From a London Free Press article about mall budget meetings we read the following nonsense:

David Westhouse, president of the Military Re-enactment Society, attended the Westmount meeting yesterday in 1812 military dress to make a pitch to save funding for Fanshawe Pioneer Village.

The village is looking for $310,000 in operating cash and $1 million over four years to fix its historic buildings. The city rejected new capital grants for 2005 to community groups, including the $1 million for the pioneer village.

"Pioneer Village is part of our heritage, it should be should be preserved. I know it's not a popular opinion, but I don't mind if my taxes go up. I think our taxes are high, but I am OK with that," he said.

I am NOT okay with higher taxes bud, and I think many others in London would agree - meeting basic needs is more important to some than heritage. Mr. Westhouse doesn't have his own self-interest in mind I suppose? Emergency services, like ambulance services, clearly are not as important as heritage. Blame it all on provincial downloading and just ignore the hugely inflated capital city budget:

Funding to expand London's police headquarters, new social housing, buses and roadwork top the list of $47 million in capital projects council will debate Wednesday. In meetings last month, board of control held up its end in keeping capital spending in check by limiting new debt to the $30 million cap set by city council two years ago.

The question now is whether council can do the same.

"I'm sure there are people on council who have projects with a higher priority than others," said budget chief Deputy Mayor Tom Gosnell.

"They're perfectly within their rights to challenge and try to change things. But the process has been so inclusive so far, I really don't think you'll see much change."

In other words, Londoners are screwed.

Council's $30 million debt cap refers to the amount of new debt. It does not include funding from other sources, such as reserves or other levels of government.

As well, it doesn't include so-called life-cycle maintenance (road resurfacing, bridge and building repairs) capital spending, totalling $42 million.

MAJOR PROJECTS

The 10 major capital projects out of a list of 52 council will consider:

1) Widening and upgrade of services at corner of Fanshawe Park and Wonderland roads: $7,600,000.

2) Airport Road Industrial Park: $6,678,000.

3) Replacement buses (not including bus service expansion funded by provincial gas tax): $6,321,000

4) Landfill leachate collection system: $3,775,000.

5) New affordable housing: $2 million.

6) Arena upgrades: $1,350,000.

7) Water main to the city landfill: $1,250,000.

8) Completion of Gainsborough and Hyde Park intersection: $1,100,000.

9) Non-profit housing repairs and upgrades: $1 million.

10) North London community centre: $1 million.

Special note: Staff have been asked to find alternative funding to put $6 million toward the proposed $22-million expansion of police headquarters.

Disgusting! In closing, I quote the most - and I believe only - sensible member of council:

"I have heard from the public the municipality has to look after its own budget and stop hiding behind downloading as a rationale," said Coun. Paul Van Meerbergen. "They think police are asking too much, they want reductions in expenditures.

"We can no longer afford l

About the London Fog

Contributors

Subscribe

Google Search

Support the London Fog

Local Blogs

Canadian Content

The Free World

The Red Ensign Brigade!

Life, Liberty, Property

Blogging Alliance of Non-Partisan Canadians

Cannibal Culture

The Regime

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Local Art & Interest

Filtered For Public Consumption

Streaming Talk Radio

Spontaneous Order

Alternative Energy

The Liberty Library

London Fog Weather Advisory

Archive

Categories

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Monday, January 17, 2005

Sunday, January 16, 2005

Saturday, January 15, 2005

Friday, January 14, 2005

Thursday, January 13, 2005

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

Monday, January 10, 2005

Sunday, January 9, 2005