Rather than spend a couple paragraphs before getting to the reason, I'll give the reason why the Tim Horton fast food chain started to hire migrant workers by 2012.
A few Canadians think they are too good to work in menial jobs such as a fast food worker at Tim Horton's. In contrast, a migrant worker is less likely to complain about work conditions in a fast food restaurant in Canada.
Thus, we Canadians are the reason why migrant workers get exploited by Tim Horton's.
For every Canadian who thinks she's too good to work at a fast food restaurant, there are a dozen workers who will have to walk 1-5 miles in the middle of a Saskatchewan winter to work, and get a work check missing holiday pay.
IMO it's legit to blame able-bodied people who turn their noses up at the prospect to work at Tim Horton's. I personally don't think there is anything wrong to get food services training and make a lot of cash in tips working at a bar, either.
Tim Horton's thinks of the bottom line: minimum wages for earnest workers who love working at their restaurants in Canada beats trying to find a good job in their home country.
I certainly support the right of any worker, migrant or Canada-born, to get the same rate of pay as Canadian workers who work for minimum wage.
However, there is nothing wrong with working at minimum wage at a fast food restaurant, provided that the worker has food services training.
Originally published on December 12, 2012 at 9:30 AM
Reference:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2012/12/11/f-temporary-foreign-worker-program-tim-hortons-canada.html
Showing posts with label social activism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social activism. Show all posts
20131124
Rant about the UBC Rapist (satire)
I am a man and according to feminist thetoric I am inherently sexist. Isn't that too a sexist statement? Yes, neither side of the gender divide is innocent of sexism.
Oh wait1 I am not supposed to be ranting incoherently that is off topic. :p
Feminism is not free of bias itself. Since it is too inherently biased, then it becomes like a filter that facilitates dialog between all genders.
At 50, I realize that my biases are partially inherent. I refuse to exaggerate the sexism inherent in male rhetoric. There is no such thing as male sexism being totally inherent because such extremes are few in number.
For confirmation bias denies this, and a few feminists prove my point when they discuss the male stereotype.
Another feminist bias regards women as a visible minority when unemployed and underpaid. This depends on the age group.
Sometimes feminist rhetoric tends to turn grey areas of human civilization into black and white caricatures of reality while presenting it as reality.
Overall there is a gender bias present which is more subtle than men acknowledge.
How am I to be free of such bias if the confirmation bias of feminists label some of my actions as sexist yet sometimes deny theirs to be sexist by use of the fallacy that all men are sexist while subtly stating that only men are sexist.
The truth is, belief in the gender binary makes men and women equally culpable in being sexist. Either gender, be it male or female, is capable of using fallacies to propagandize their confirmation biases about gender.
When a person encounters such biases and does not question them, there are many reasons for non-confrontation of these biases.
Confrontational methods of dealing with gender biases common to the limitations of the gender binary may be observed by a person as a political ploy to exercise freedom of expression and of associations.
So feminists protest publicly the glass ceiling's effect on women's wages. Then the term "rape culture" is used to morph sexual assaults of women into attempted rape and label the survivors of such assaults as victims.
In response, I deny that there are victims; there are only survivors of sexual assault. Even when the perpetrator escalates his violence against some women in the future, and rape become likely, they are then survivors of rape.
My reason for removing the term "victim" from my rhetoric is to imply that the human species is capable of surviving violence.
Not all men are rapists, nor is a man inherently violent. Both genders are capable of violence.
Therefore, the introduction of victimology into the discussion of sexual violence is inherently an artifact of the patriarchy that pervades society at this point in time.
Thus, by using the term "survivor" I have reframed sexual violence in a pro-active manner, rather than catering to a patriarchal bias by calling a victim a survivor.
This reframed view turns a victim into an empowered individual, and negates the perpetrator's impact. For victimology implies that there is a victim and a perpetrator as well as a them versus us ideology.
Calling such a victim a survivor does not negate the victim's experience. Rather, it removes the survivor from remaining powerless.
What does this make the perpetrator but a potential rapist? Especially when he escalates his violence.
As for myself, I have no sympathy for the rapist. He thinks he is entitled to exercise his power over a potential victim because in doing so, his loss of control over his sexual urges motivates him to gain control over someone potentially weaker than him.
How ironic that something that uncontrolled results in a show of power that reflect a hidden impotence!
If a man needs that much excitement in his life, then he is truly a sexual psychopath. Even though he may have a partner, not even she and his circle of friends would suspect him of such a crime.
A prime example of this is the UBC rapist whose six victims I only see as six survivors of an inept offender who gave up when his crimes became known.
To the survivors I have this to say: "through no fault of your own you survived a terrifying act of violence and prevented rape.
Thus you six prove that there is no rape culture at UBC."
These six acts of violence reflect instead a rape culture inherent with the perpetrator's family within their community.
Oh wait1 I am not supposed to be ranting incoherently that is off topic. :p
Feminism is not free of bias itself. Since it is too inherently biased, then it becomes like a filter that facilitates dialog between all genders.
At 50, I realize that my biases are partially inherent. I refuse to exaggerate the sexism inherent in male rhetoric. There is no such thing as male sexism being totally inherent because such extremes are few in number.
For confirmation bias denies this, and a few feminists prove my point when they discuss the male stereotype.
Another feminist bias regards women as a visible minority when unemployed and underpaid. This depends on the age group.
Sometimes feminist rhetoric tends to turn grey areas of human civilization into black and white caricatures of reality while presenting it as reality.
Overall there is a gender bias present which is more subtle than men acknowledge.
How am I to be free of such bias if the confirmation bias of feminists label some of my actions as sexist yet sometimes deny theirs to be sexist by use of the fallacy that all men are sexist while subtly stating that only men are sexist.
The truth is, belief in the gender binary makes men and women equally culpable in being sexist. Either gender, be it male or female, is capable of using fallacies to propagandize their confirmation biases about gender.
When a person encounters such biases and does not question them, there are many reasons for non-confrontation of these biases.
Confrontational methods of dealing with gender biases common to the limitations of the gender binary may be observed by a person as a political ploy to exercise freedom of expression and of associations.
So feminists protest publicly the glass ceiling's effect on women's wages. Then the term "rape culture" is used to morph sexual assaults of women into attempted rape and label the survivors of such assaults as victims.
In response, I deny that there are victims; there are only survivors of sexual assault. Even when the perpetrator escalates his violence against some women in the future, and rape become likely, they are then survivors of rape.
My reason for removing the term "victim" from my rhetoric is to imply that the human species is capable of surviving violence.
Not all men are rapists, nor is a man inherently violent. Both genders are capable of violence.
Therefore, the introduction of victimology into the discussion of sexual violence is inherently an artifact of the patriarchy that pervades society at this point in time.
Thus, by using the term "survivor" I have reframed sexual violence in a pro-active manner, rather than catering to a patriarchal bias by calling a victim a survivor.
This reframed view turns a victim into an empowered individual, and negates the perpetrator's impact. For victimology implies that there is a victim and a perpetrator as well as a them versus us ideology.
Calling such a victim a survivor does not negate the victim's experience. Rather, it removes the survivor from remaining powerless.
What does this make the perpetrator but a potential rapist? Especially when he escalates his violence.
As for myself, I have no sympathy for the rapist. He thinks he is entitled to exercise his power over a potential victim because in doing so, his loss of control over his sexual urges motivates him to gain control over someone potentially weaker than him.
How ironic that something that uncontrolled results in a show of power that reflect a hidden impotence!
If a man needs that much excitement in his life, then he is truly a sexual psychopath. Even though he may have a partner, not even she and his circle of friends would suspect him of such a crime.
A prime example of this is the UBC rapist whose six victims I only see as six survivors of an inept offender who gave up when his crimes became known.
To the survivors I have this to say: "through no fault of your own you survived a terrifying act of violence and prevented rape.
Thus you six prove that there is no rape culture at UBC."
These six acts of violence reflect instead a rape culture inherent with the perpetrator's family within their community.
20130828
To the Children of the West (satire)
Dear Children of the West:
Can you ask the leader of your country to stop the War on Terrorism because it's not working?
The 3,000 deaths in the most symbolic form of terrorism ever called the 9-11 attack on the Twin Towers in NYC was, is and never will be worth the 100,000+ deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Those terrorists even missed the most vital nerve center of the West: the Stock Exchange backup servers. Had that been hit, we would have had the Crash. America's recovery could have been delayed, and the mortgage crunch in 2008 might have dragged on, leading to more poverty and homelessness for Middle Class America.
America would have been left unable to fund Israel, and the terrorists would have wiped it out by 2010.
By 2059, most terrorist bombings would have rendered most cities in the West inhospitable. By 2060, Islam would have had more forced converts and sharia law would have been imposed beyond Dearborn and Birmingham. The end result would not be pretty: by 2100, Muslims (4 billion) would outnumber Christians and Buddhists (3.5 billion) combined in a world with almost 8 billion people
So, I am saying 911 was better than the worst-case scenario. Unfortunately, 100,000+ people dead in the Middle East will never be worth the War on Terrorism, because it has never been 911 that was the real reason for invading Afghanistan and Iraq.
It has always been natural resources of the Middle East. Anyone telling you different on FOX is a CIA dupe. Wake up!
Now it is up to you, Children of the World, to call on your leaders to make war no more.
This public message is not endorsed or funded by the New Left or any other anti-war activist group. You may return to your regular diet of pop and corn chips to play your stupid XBOX game.
Can you ask the leader of your country to stop the War on Terrorism because it's not working?
The 3,000 deaths in the most symbolic form of terrorism ever called the 9-11 attack on the Twin Towers in NYC was, is and never will be worth the 100,000+ deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Those terrorists even missed the most vital nerve center of the West: the Stock Exchange backup servers. Had that been hit, we would have had the Crash. America's recovery could have been delayed, and the mortgage crunch in 2008 might have dragged on, leading to more poverty and homelessness for Middle Class America.
America would have been left unable to fund Israel, and the terrorists would have wiped it out by 2010.
By 2059, most terrorist bombings would have rendered most cities in the West inhospitable. By 2060, Islam would have had more forced converts and sharia law would have been imposed beyond Dearborn and Birmingham. The end result would not be pretty: by 2100, Muslims (4 billion) would outnumber Christians and Buddhists (3.5 billion) combined in a world with almost 8 billion people
So, I am saying 911 was better than the worst-case scenario. Unfortunately, 100,000+ people dead in the Middle East will never be worth the War on Terrorism, because it has never been 911 that was the real reason for invading Afghanistan and Iraq.
It has always been natural resources of the Middle East. Anyone telling you different on FOX is a CIA dupe. Wake up!
Now it is up to you, Children of the World, to call on your leaders to make war no more.
This public message is not endorsed or funded by the New Left or any other anti-war activist group. You may return to your regular diet of pop and corn chips to play your stupid XBOX game.
20130120
Medication Through Meditation
Marxist-Leninists have critqued religion often saying "Religion is the opium of the people".
If religion is the opium of the people, then recreational drugs are just another addiction.
For religion may be addictive to people who desire control over others to make up for their inability to control their own destiny.
Indeed, addiction is a symptom of that inability.
Yet the irony is that among the New Left recreational drugs is a part of their culture.
For me it is easy to see that the problem here is not drugs, but the ego delusion associated with addiction based on the inability to control one's destiny.
If you are a social activist, then you may be directing your destiny in encounters with the State (potential arrest for burning a police car and smashing windows of a bank).
This creates the inability to control your destiny due to the police state mentality that results from confronting authority (exceedingly long times for the right of free assembly).
I find the solution to be simple: develop a rehabilitative strategy rather than relying on your drug crutch. For drug addiction is not a symptom of your hate for the State. Rather, it's an excuse for merely getting high. Were you doing it for noble purposes, I could understand.
For addiction is a dysfunctional way of "handling stress" called self-medication. I assure you that the best medicine is found through meditation, not getting drunk as a skunk.
YMMV
If religion is the opium of the people, then recreational drugs are just another addiction.
For religion may be addictive to people who desire control over others to make up for their inability to control their own destiny.
Indeed, addiction is a symptom of that inability.
Yet the irony is that among the New Left recreational drugs is a part of their culture.
For me it is easy to see that the problem here is not drugs, but the ego delusion associated with addiction based on the inability to control one's destiny.
If you are a social activist, then you may be directing your destiny in encounters with the State (potential arrest for burning a police car and smashing windows of a bank).
This creates the inability to control your destiny due to the police state mentality that results from confronting authority (exceedingly long times for the right of free assembly).
I find the solution to be simple: develop a rehabilitative strategy rather than relying on your drug crutch. For drug addiction is not a symptom of your hate for the State. Rather, it's an excuse for merely getting high. Were you doing it for noble purposes, I could understand.
For addiction is a dysfunctional way of "handling stress" called self-medication. I assure you that the best medicine is found through meditation, not getting drunk as a skunk.
YMMV
20130117
A Picture Paints a Thousand Words
It is very dangerous to whip out your smartphone and video a police takedown from your front yard. If the cops see you, then they could arrest you for "obstructing justice" when all you are doing is watching the police.
In Canada, legal advice has it that it is illegal to take a picture of a person who may be identified in it and subject to slander, libel and similar injustices.
However, there is also a 50-foot exception since beyond this point, you need an expensive DSL camera to refine details in a picture.
Yet the state of technology of a camera depends on the resolution of a photo. If you choose a picture resolution of under 2048x1536, then picture quality will suffer for subjects 50 feet away from the camera lens.
E.g. the camera in my smartphone has a 8 megapixel (mp) resolution, which means a resolution of 3264x2448, which allows for more detail.
However at 50 feet, a 8 mp resolution still isn't so clear that a person is identifiable, considering that without anti-jitter and at low light levels, the image will still be blurry.
Cameras do the best with detail with portraits, up close.
At 50 feet, picture detail is compromised by low resolution and jitter.
Thus, taking pictures of State action with a smartphone at a distance of 50 feet of more isn't actually illegal. Given the quality of the image, it's possible to create reasonable doubt about anyone identified in the picture.
Therefore, it is imperative for social activists to enforce a 50-foot rule for known agents of the State. However, this means ponying up money to pay for this right.
In Canada, legal advice has it that it is illegal to take a picture of a person who may be identified in it and subject to slander, libel and similar injustices.
However, there is also a 50-foot exception since beyond this point, you need an expensive DSL camera to refine details in a picture.
Yet the state of technology of a camera depends on the resolution of a photo. If you choose a picture resolution of under 2048x1536, then picture quality will suffer for subjects 50 feet away from the camera lens.
E.g. the camera in my smartphone has a 8 megapixel (mp) resolution, which means a resolution of 3264x2448, which allows for more detail.
However at 50 feet, a 8 mp resolution still isn't so clear that a person is identifiable, considering that without anti-jitter and at low light levels, the image will still be blurry.
Cameras do the best with detail with portraits, up close.
At 50 feet, picture detail is compromised by low resolution and jitter.
Thus, taking pictures of State action with a smartphone at a distance of 50 feet of more isn't actually illegal. Given the quality of the image, it's possible to create reasonable doubt about anyone identified in the picture.
Therefore, it is imperative for social activists to enforce a 50-foot rule for known agents of the State. However, this means ponying up money to pay for this right.
20090131
Commentary on My Internet Participation
January 31, 2009: For almost 20 years now, I tried hard to suggest peaceful solutions to local and global challenge on the Usenet newsgroups and Internet forums, usually to no avail.
When I suggested people meditate more often, the spiritually shallow accused me of being a naive hippie. When I suggested they complement their readings with a deeper reading of the Bible, Qu'ran, Buddhist scriptures, the Talmud, etc. they claimed suggesting religious sources are irrelevant to the topic at hand.
All in all, a few Internet users seem to be shallow people who react to what you write if it challenges their limited world-view and exposes the truth about their fear of change, and the endemic fear of psychosis.
Let us hope that that my conclusion proves that most online users have a deep and meaningful relationship with both themselves and others, primarily their families and friends.
Update: 20130125.1945
Since almost four years, my review of the past 20 years suggests to me that the first response to peaceful solutions will be either derision or acceptance.
However, I have been mistaken about it mostly being derision. That mistaken belief may have been due to scrutinizing the derision rather than seeking acceptance.
My suggestions about meditation didn't work because the proof that it works wasn't made part of my overall suggestion. As well, a few people are negative towards meditation due to their own prejudices.
This is due to the reasonable fear of the unknown (meditation), despite the fact that the current alternative (prayer) is also a part of the dual discipline of prayer and meditation.
For the people who are prejudiced against meditation are usually biased for prayer, considering "prayer as prayer" when in fact, a few of them have meditated when engaged in deep prayers which last longer than five minutes.
As I stated before, the current prejudice against meditation is due to fear of the unknown. It is my contention that the source of that fear is due to ignorance about meditation, including its use by Jesus and the Apostles, but especially its use by monks in solitude.
However, it is the fear of change that must be challenged. I totally support online users who have the courage to challenge their fears about meditation and especially psychosiphobia in a timely manner
For when you face the fears that arise from my suggestion to meditate early, it becomes easy to apply it to your personal toolkit for coping with change. Meditation aids in our ability to adapt to change, for it transcends prayers by going beyond bringing it to God's attention to being willing to accept God's will.
Such acceptance is achieved by first calming your mind, and secondly, being able to create the solution that works for everyone's best interests.
Indeed, prayer and meditation works when, out of humility, you focus on what's best for all of humanity.
When I suggested people meditate more often, the spiritually shallow accused me of being a naive hippie. When I suggested they complement their readings with a deeper reading of the Bible, Qu'ran, Buddhist scriptures, the Talmud, etc. they claimed suggesting religious sources are irrelevant to the topic at hand.
All in all, a few Internet users seem to be shallow people who react to what you write if it challenges their limited world-view and exposes the truth about their fear of change, and the endemic fear of psychosis.
Let us hope that that my conclusion proves that most online users have a deep and meaningful relationship with both themselves and others, primarily their families and friends.
Update: 20130125.1945
Since almost four years, my review of the past 20 years suggests to me that the first response to peaceful solutions will be either derision or acceptance.
However, I have been mistaken about it mostly being derision. That mistaken belief may have been due to scrutinizing the derision rather than seeking acceptance.
My suggestions about meditation didn't work because the proof that it works wasn't made part of my overall suggestion. As well, a few people are negative towards meditation due to their own prejudices.
This is due to the reasonable fear of the unknown (meditation), despite the fact that the current alternative (prayer) is also a part of the dual discipline of prayer and meditation.
For the people who are prejudiced against meditation are usually biased for prayer, considering "prayer as prayer" when in fact, a few of them have meditated when engaged in deep prayers which last longer than five minutes.
As I stated before, the current prejudice against meditation is due to fear of the unknown. It is my contention that the source of that fear is due to ignorance about meditation, including its use by Jesus and the Apostles, but especially its use by monks in solitude.
However, it is the fear of change that must be challenged. I totally support online users who have the courage to challenge their fears about meditation and especially psychosiphobia in a timely manner
For when you face the fears that arise from my suggestion to meditate early, it becomes easy to apply it to your personal toolkit for coping with change. Meditation aids in our ability to adapt to change, for it transcends prayers by going beyond bringing it to God's attention to being willing to accept God's will.
Such acceptance is achieved by first calming your mind, and secondly, being able to create the solution that works for everyone's best interests.
Indeed, prayer and meditation works when, out of humility, you focus on what's best for all of humanity.
20071006
20070617
Japanese-Canadian Activism Began In 1942
June 2007 marks the 65th year since about 100 Japanese-Canadians after being imprisoned at the old Vancovuer Immigration building for about 3 weeks rioted and were sent to two POW camps in Ontario.
The Nisei Mass Evacuation Group gave themselves up en masse. They were detained in the Immigration Building at Vancouver Harbour from April 25, 1942 to May 20, 1942.
When they finally rioted to protest being forcibly removed from their homes and family, the Canadian government moved them to Petawawa and later Angler in Ontario.
After proving not to be a threat to security, the Canadian government let a few of these brave men return to society in Ontario or to be re-united with their families back in prison camps in the BC Interior.
Yet records of those three weeks are hard to find.
June1942 is when social activism for Japanese-Canadians was born.
The Nisei Mass Evacuation Group gave themselves up en masse. They were detained in the Immigration Building at Vancouver Harbour from April 25, 1942 to May 20, 1942.
When they finally rioted to protest being forcibly removed from their homes and family, the Canadian government moved them to Petawawa and later Angler in Ontario.
After proving not to be a threat to security, the Canadian government let a few of these brave men return to society in Ontario or to be re-united with their families back in prison camps in the BC Interior.
Yet records of those three weeks are hard to find.
June1942 is when social activism for Japanese-Canadians was born.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)