On the heels of Ford’s better-than-expected third quarter profits and its promise of solid profitability by 2011, 68% of Americans adults hold a favorable opinion of the one company that passed on a government bailout. Ford continues to far outdistance public perceptions of General Motors and Chrysler.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 24% view Ford unfavorably.
But just 34% of Americans have a favorable opinion of GM, while 56% view the automaker unfavorably.
Chrysler’s ratings are even lower, with just 29% who view the company favorably. Sixty-three percent (63%) view Chrysler unfavorably.

Rasmussen Reports, November 4, 2009

The FLQ Manifesto is undeniably part of Quebec’s history. It is a text that evokes a particular time — one that, in fact, does so splendidly, evoking the feverish, fetid atmosphere of the late Sixties with a suddenness and a brutality that makes one glad those days were so long ago. It is perfectly proper that the manifesto should be recited as part of a general airing of important historical texts, as it was once recited to help save the life of James Cross, the still-living British diplomat kidnapped by the Front de liberation du Quebec on Oct. 5, 1970.

Source.

I too, support the argument that we must not forget our past.

To understand the FLQ and it’s violent actions, it’s important to first understand the ideology they were loyal to. The FLQ were first and foremost a radical Marxist movement. For the FLQ and most Marxist groups, the primary objective is to defeat capitalism – using any means possible. For the FLQ, the goal of Quebec sovereignty provided the “noble” cover to their part in the much wider global struggle against capitalism.

Much of the FLQ Manifesto reads as though it were lifted directly out of Marx’s A Communist Manifesto:

We are the workers of Québec and we will continue to the bitter end. We want to replace the slave society with a free society, functioning by itself and for itself; a society open to the world.

Our struggle can only lead to victory. You cannot hold an awakening people in misery and contempt indefinitely. Long live Free Québec!

Long live our imprisoned political comrades. Long live the Québec revolution!

Long live the Front de liberation du Québec.

In addition to capitalism, the other enemy of Marxism is organised religion. In this passage the FLQ takes a swipe at both enemies in one sentence:

We are terrorized by the capitalist Roman church, even though this seems less and less obvious (who owns the property on which the stock exchange stands?)

In fact, there is very little reference to Quebec as a “distinct society” in the FLQ Manifesto. Instead it is quite clearly a call for “workers” to rise up against their “bosses”. Quebec nationalism is merely a smokescreen.

This pattern of seeking out what appear to be noble causes can been seen throughout history in the Marxist battle against capitalism. The most recent example of this wolf in sheep’s clothing is the battle over how to deal with climate change, which is rather ironic considering the environment records of the communist world.

While the FLQ now appears to be a historical footnote, it’s important to understand that it’s underpinnings are still very much alive and kicking today.

Today it became public that Hydro One has asked the Ontario Energy Board for permission to raise the cost of distribution to all Ontario customers an average of 9.5% in 2010 and 13.3% in 2011 to cover $266 million dollars in costs relating to their four year Green Energy Plan for 2010 to 2014. By 2011 the impact of this $266 million will be an average increase of 24.3% over two years on the delivery portion of every Ontarian’s hydro bill. Because each public utility is a customer of Hydro One, it doesn’t matter who sells you your electricity – this impacts you.

In February 2009, George Smitherman told Ontarians that the cost to implement the five billion dollars of investment Ontario is expected to make in renewable energy as part of the Green Energy Act would result in an annual increase of approximately 1% per year on the average hydro bill.

Source.

h/t to Kate.

The reason we were meeting was to see if I might be able to offer any advice to help her market the new school.

Talking to Sheileen and listening to her describe her vision and her dedication to education convinced me there certainly was a place for her new offering in the education market in her area – Toronto. Sheileen has years of experience as both a teacher and as an education administrator, in fact she had run her own successful school (at the high school level) in the past.

The challenge Sheileen faces, however, is that the “market” for education does not come close to resembling a true competitive market. The Ontario government fully funds public and Catholic primary and secondary education through general taxation. In other words, whether you have a child enrolled in a publicly funded school or not, you’re already paying for it. If a parent choses to send a child to an independent school they have to pay for it on their own. This is hardly a level playing field when it comes to education, and this is also discriminatory:

Against the backdrop of this obvious inequity, the United Nations’ Human Rights Committee issued a report in 1999 criticizing Ontario’s educational policy as blatantly discriminatory. The committee recommended that Ontario either extend public funding to all independent schools irrespective of religious orientation or withhold such funding from all such schools.

Source.

This has long been a concern of parents who choose to enroll their children in independent schools, and has made it very difficult for independent schools to compete fairly for students.

And now, as if the financial disadvantage wasn’t enough, the Ontario Government has introduced another way to discourage parents from choosing an independent education option for their children:

Ontario will start requiring high school credits and grades received from private schools to be flagged on student transcripts with the letter “P” starting this fall.

Education Minister Kathleen Wynne confirmed Tuesday that the move was in response to public concerns that some private schools were providing “easy marks” for a fee. Such fees can run up to $2,000 for a three-week summer Grade 12 English course.

Source.

So because “some private schools” are not upholding adequate standards, the government will flag ALL private school grades with a “P”. Instead of identifying and dealing with only the offending schools, the government will stain the reputation of all private schools.

This is clearly an unfair policy, and I believe it is more about boosting public school enrollment than it is about “improving transparency”.

So what advice can I offer Sheileen? What marketing angle or creative campaign could possibly overcome these very real obstacles to success? I will continue to ponder that one.

——-

To learn more about Sheileen’s new school, please visit:
www.alderwoodtoronto.ca

As Jennifer Rubin points out:

The White House’s attempt to paint ordinary citizens who come to speak out against ObamaCare as pawns of the insurance industry takes on a comical air when one considers the president’s own background and tactics. As Charles Krauthammer remarked:

There is a certain irony in an administration denouncing ordinary Americans who get together to express what they believe and to confront authority, when that administration is led by a man who began his career as a community organizer, whose job, as I understand it, is to take ordinary Americans, get them together to express what they believe, and express demands against the authorities.

So it’s unbelievably hypocritical. And, of course, as we just heard, this only happens when you have a conservative protest. It is called a mob. If it’s a liberal protest, it is called grassroots expressing themselves.

Remember, just a year ago under the Bush administration, dissent was the highest form of patriotism. And today it is a kind of either organized anger, it’s a facsimile of anger, it’s unpatriotic, it’s whatever.

Ultimately, the “blame the voters” tactic is self-defeating, if not downright embarrassing. The White House can’t demean the voters whose support they need. They must persuade and engage, not spy on and smear the town hall attendees.

Source.

Here in Ontario it seems, the same cannot be said. Here we have the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, who have just ruled against a Toronto police officer for questioning and following a black mail carrier following a report of phone lines being cut in the area.

In spite of the fact there was no evidence to support the claim of racism, the Tribunal has found the officer guilty:

The two officers testified Mr. Phipps’ skin colour was not a factor in their actions and they did not discuss it.

“I accept their evidence that (Mr. Phipps’) skin colour was not discussed between them,” Ms Joachim said. She did find that on a “balance of probabilities” the fact that Mr. Phipps is black was a “factor, a significant factor, and probably the predominant factor, whether consciously or unconsciously” in Const. Shaw’s actions.

Source.

This is a disturbing ruling. It essentially states that if a case of racism is brought before the Tribunal involving a person of colour vs. a white person, the white person will be assumed guilty despite a lack of evidence. The white person must have been racially motivated “whether consciously or unconsciously”.

—-

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised this case has received remarkably little media attention, but I did find this column by Margaret Wente in The Globe and Mail.

In any event, it always amuses me when people express surprise that criminals commit crime – and that when you group a bunch of criminals together (like, say, in jail) they don’t walk out ruminating on Kant, but instead, as criminals, do what criminals do – ie, commit crime. You’ve got your causation mixed up – it is not jail that causes people to commit crime, it is people being criminals that causes them to go to jail; and then, when they get out, they tend to commit other crimes. Not because of jail, but because they are criminals.

Bob Tarantino, July 24th

h/t to Kate.

“How long does this continue?” Mr. Beatty said. “We can’t set up a situation where the future of the industry depends on constant subsidies…. This suggests that [the government] is prepared to be interventionist beyond their aim to help the industry recover.”

Toyota, known for its hybrid technology, was not informed of the government’s intention to offer the rebates and was taken off guard that the announcement venue was a Chevrolet dealership, Mr. Beatty said.

“The question is: Is this a well-thought-out industry strategy? Or is it sort of the next stage in advancing a particular product and helping a particular company?”

Industry analyst Dennis DesRosiers echoed Mr. Beatty’s concern.

“A cynic would say this is just government subsidizing a product that is produced by a company they own. I think that is a bit too cynical. I just think it is bad policy from a variety of perspectives.”

Source.

Here’s an interesting take on the new rebate plan by Victor Wong.

—-
Update: Today’s National Post editorial has picked up on the anti-competitive theme:

The government can’t very well say it doesn’t want to pick winners in this race while it is riding one of the horses. In taking a chunk of the shares, it has effectively made a moral commitment to distort the marketplace, to reduce the economic efficiency of auto customers’ buying decisions, and to require Toyota to compete in Ontario with one hand tied behind its back.

Source.

Even with the labor savings, analysts question the logic of building a compact car in the U.S. Margins are so tight that even Toyota and Honda have opted to build their smallest models in countries with lower labor costs. “Virtually nobody makes cars that size in the U.S.,” said CSM Worldwide automotive analyst Michael Robinet. “There is a reason why GM at the outset was going to bring this car in from China.”

Estimates peg GM’s losses on U.S.-built small cars at roughly $1,000 to $2,000 per vehicle sold in recent years. Lawmakers and congressional staffers involved in the compact-car competition said GM acknowledged the company expected to struggle to break even on the venture. GM views small cars as central to its bid to become what Mr. Clarke called “the greenest car company in the world.”

Source.

Does anyone expect taxpayers will ever see their investment returned?

This is the real world. Healthcare is expensive.

As we have observed in Canada, where government controls access to health services, there is often tremendous political pressure to maintain balanced budgets without increasing taxes. Healthcare costs represent the largest budget item, by far, for provincial governments (approaching 50% here in Ontario). Faced with having to deal with this dilemma, in 2004 the McGuinty government in Ontario did nothing to improve healthcare, rather they chose to cut back on health care services and increase taxes. This was the largest tax increase in Ontario history, and came shortly after the Ontario Liberals campaigned on a pledge to not raise taxes (but that’s another story).

If Barack Obama has his way, it looks like America will be heading down this same path of declining health care services and increased taxes:

President Barack Obama on Saturday proposed an additional $313 billion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other programs to pay for healthcare reforms expected to cost about $1 trillion over the next decade.

“I know some question whether we can afford to act this year. But the unmistakable truth is that it would be irresponsible to not act,” Obama said in an advance text of his weekly radio address.

Obama wants a healthcare reform bill on his desk by October, but faces opposition from Republicans who oppose creation of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers.

Many of his fellow Democrats are wary of making deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, the U.S. healthcare programs for seniors and poor people, to pay for reforms.

With the cost of U.S. healthcare continuing to rise rapidly, Obama argued the country could not afford to wait another year for sweeping changes.

But he acknowledged the ambitious plan would increase government costs in the short run.

To address those concerns, Obama has pledged to come up with enough spending cuts and new revenue to pay for reforms.

Source.

It’s popular here in Canada to hold our public healthcare system up as better than the American system. The American system is often criticized for it’s lack of universality – after all “millions” of Americans have no healthcare insurance. But we seldom distinguish the difference between having “insurance coverage” and having “access to healthcare”. Here’s an interesting take on that subject:

Another statistic often quoted, in support of socialized medicine, is the fact that Canadian health care costs are lower than in the United States. Many would argue, in fact, the costs are proportional to the level of services offered, and that the significant difference in service wait times should also be considered. People in Canada simply do not have access to many medical services available in the U.S., and often when we do we must wait much longer for that access. Unfortunately, this story is all too common here.

Before you go down the road towards socialized medicine, America, ask yourself two very simple questions:

1. With real healthcare costs rising and demand for services increasing, do you really think the government is the best institution to deliver value for your money? In other words, can you think of any other government undertaking that has delivered services efficiently in the past?

2. When it comes to deciding what medical treatments you need access to, would you prefer that decision is made by your doctor or by your government?

This is most certainly not a trivial matter, and I wish you well as you debate these questions.