(no subject)
So, my dear friend `Raine and I have very ...pretty much opposite political perspectives, and I replied to her last post and then her reply was too long to post in reply, and now mine is too long to post in reply, so here it is! This all really tickles me pink too btw given that I'm thinking about my Political Science and Canadian Political History courses while considering both her perspective and my own! :)
------------------------------------------------
LOL
What a marvellous reply `Raine! I can see why it was too long Hahaha... Love it though :) Thank you for those other links.
Gosh, where do I begin *grins*
The man-jobs stuff I guess. I guess what I was getting at was that the opportunity is there for women if they wish to take it. Furthermore looking at it and simply saying men work those areas to me also ignores the ripple effect that every action has. More men being in that sector means more room in other sectors for women anyways. I don't think it excludes women in that regard at all. I think if one chooses to look at it the way she did, yes, sure, but I enjoy playing devils advocate so to speak with scenarios like this as we both know *laughs*
The Pay Equity laws being repealed, is interesting. Employment standards is an area of legislation that typically falls under jurisdiction of the provinces, provided any legislation they pass does not go against our Charter of Rights. I'm not finding anything out there on the federal government doing anything to it though so if you can find some substantial information on this I'd be interested to read more for sure! I can see sources out there that say various provincial governments have repealed their pay equity acts, at various times throughout the last 20 yrs or so, and I can also see that most of them aren't repealing the entirety of it but rather certain sectors of the legislation... if you can find me some more info that'd be great :)
The subject of social services is also interesting. It is unfortunate perhaps that we can't live in a utopian society, (though truly how dull would that be?) ...this one I suppose is up for speculation though. Without having seen the number of services "before" and the number of services "now" and the effectiveness of the services "Then" and the effectiveness of the services "left" I am again inclined to reserve judgement. There will ALWAYS be those who "lose out" so to speak, there's also the question of whether the services 'available' were even being used. Sadly, life isn't fair and if the government cuts funding to some programs which aren't cost effective, which aren't being utilized except by a few people then the funding is likely going to get cut and be put towards programs which are more successful. This I think is where your more liberal views and my more conservative views really come into play (don't worry I'm more middle leaning towards right, this just happens to be one of my more right-inclined subjects). It is basic business. It'd be great to be able to help the masses and have programs available for them, but if they're not being used or if they're not 'profiting' (ie not having an impact on the levels of homelessness, drug addicts, etc etc) in society, they have to go. I think this might also be where you live vs where I live also may play a part. You live in a pretty small town and I agree the needs of a small town are not the same as the needs of a large town, however the programs which have branches in a number of locations could have vastly different results, which in an 'overall' level again may impact their 'success' rate and whether or not they get cut. Out here on Hastings St for example there are TONS of non-profit organizations to help the homeless kick drug addictions, help victims of the sex trade get back on their feet, help the unemployed find work and build skills to get work... and the degree of utilization of these services when compared to the competition services and the ratio of use:population, is going to end up vastly different when placed up against the level of use in say, Whitehorse. Sure, 10:100 in Whitehorse may use the service, (whatever it may be) while 10:100,000 may use the service in larger cities, however when in the federal government's court, they're not looking at Bill, Sally, Joe, Bob, Dick, Harry, Jim, Jeff, Mary, and Sue from Whitehorse, and what a positive impact this has had on their lives: They're looking at how this program stacks up against the others which are available and if it isn't "producing results" then unfortunately it's likely it'll get cut and Bill, Sally, Joe, Bob, Dick, Harry, Jim, Jeff, Mary, and Sue will feel that loss. The end result though is that 10,000:100,000 success ratio programs will benefit from it.
As far as federal funding for non-band affiliated individuals goes, yeah that is too bad but its not as though there aren't options for all of those non-band affiliated individuals. There has to be a proven link between an individual and at least one band for them to have status so it would simply come down to needing to make a choice. (I had to make a choice when I got my status, and while the first two years of my schooling were funded by the DIAND, the past year has been funded by my band. The funding isn't necessarily "vanishing" its simply being re-routed so the government doesn't need to pay administrative time and wages to deal with it which is fair because it creates jobs within the bands.
What I will say which I find interesting too is that I want to point out that I didn't consider myself to be a particularly "conservative" individual, even when Mr. Harper was first elected. I distinctly recall feeling wary about him being in office, and at the time there really was no "better" option given the way the Liberals had managed to pull the rug out from under them. Mr. Layton is feeling 'betrayed' by the way he mentioned that Mr. Ignatieff has decided to "let the Conservatives" remain in power, and I think that this was a smart smart move on Mr. Ignatieff's part. If the conservatives are truly bad for this country then history will repeat itself and we'll find ourselves under the Liberals yet again, (quite likely considering the way Quebec is currently feeling) and the choice to not form a coalition with the NDP is probably the smartest move the Liberals have made in a very long time. Mr. Ignatieff's spin on the purpose of the coalition is also a very different one than what has commonly been portrayed. I find it interesting that had there been a non-confidence vote and had we had to go to re-election back in the fall less than 1 month after we had our election, the Conservatives would have had a majority government (at least that's what the polls were suggesting back then). This way they still have a minority government, and through the skillful work of the Liberals new leader, the Liberals are once more now starting to look like a "good choice" (Quite impressive, given the short time he has been party leader, and the many ways the party has decided to trip itself up and throw up obstacles in its own success path, through its own idiocy and party division and everything else they've displayed since that horrendous scandal that got the Conservatives in power. Which, historically, the Liberals have a long scandal rap sheet!!!! Scandal pretty much pre-dates every single Conservative Government that Canada has had.)
So yeah, I am all for social services being available however I think it should be limited, I don't think they should be "readily available for whoever" because that seems to be when they end up abused and I am conservative enough minded that I don't think that my hard work and hard earned dollars should be put towards enabling leeches to abuse the system. I don't mind people going on it when they need it, and the way its currently set up its extremely strict. In some instances (ie Elderly) it could absolutely be improved. Extending the EI benefits by 5 weeks is for those who qualify, yes, and those who qualify are going to be those that don't abuse the system. I wont' be getting EI benefits because I am a student, and that is fair but once I am done school I am able to go there and say to them that I am looking for work and I will be able to receive them (asked the people at Service Canada yesterday). That's eminently fair I think. No, it doesn't make my life any easier right now but I can appreciate that the measures are there in place to keep people from simply receiving the benefits and making zero effort on their own part to improve their situation.
Phew this is long, I might have to make a post of my own hahahaha...
Hope that helps you see where my perspective is coming from! :)
This is fun btw, can't wait for your reply! :D
Love T
------------------------------------------------
LOL
What a marvellous reply `Raine! I can see why it was too long Hahaha... Love it though :) Thank you for those other links.
Gosh, where do I begin *grins*
The man-jobs stuff I guess. I guess what I was getting at was that the opportunity is there for women if they wish to take it. Furthermore looking at it and simply saying men work those areas to me also ignores the ripple effect that every action has. More men being in that sector means more room in other sectors for women anyways. I don't think it excludes women in that regard at all. I think if one chooses to look at it the way she did, yes, sure, but I enjoy playing devils advocate so to speak with scenarios like this as we both know *laughs*
The Pay Equity laws being repealed, is interesting. Employment standards is an area of legislation that typically falls under jurisdiction of the provinces, provided any legislation they pass does not go against our Charter of Rights. I'm not finding anything out there on the federal government doing anything to it though so if you can find some substantial information on this I'd be interested to read more for sure! I can see sources out there that say various provincial governments have repealed their pay equity acts, at various times throughout the last 20 yrs or so, and I can also see that most of them aren't repealing the entirety of it but rather certain sectors of the legislation... if you can find me some more info that'd be great :)
The subject of social services is also interesting. It is unfortunate perhaps that we can't live in a utopian society, (though truly how dull would that be?) ...this one I suppose is up for speculation though. Without having seen the number of services "before" and the number of services "now" and the effectiveness of the services "Then" and the effectiveness of the services "left" I am again inclined to reserve judgement. There will ALWAYS be those who "lose out" so to speak, there's also the question of whether the services 'available' were even being used. Sadly, life isn't fair and if the government cuts funding to some programs which aren't cost effective, which aren't being utilized except by a few people then the funding is likely going to get cut and be put towards programs which are more successful. This I think is where your more liberal views and my more conservative views really come into play (don't worry I'm more middle leaning towards right, this just happens to be one of my more right-inclined subjects). It is basic business. It'd be great to be able to help the masses and have programs available for them, but if they're not being used or if they're not 'profiting' (ie not having an impact on the levels of homelessness, drug addicts, etc etc) in society, they have to go. I think this might also be where you live vs where I live also may play a part. You live in a pretty small town and I agree the needs of a small town are not the same as the needs of a large town, however the programs which have branches in a number of locations could have vastly different results, which in an 'overall' level again may impact their 'success' rate and whether or not they get cut. Out here on Hastings St for example there are TONS of non-profit organizations to help the homeless kick drug addictions, help victims of the sex trade get back on their feet, help the unemployed find work and build skills to get work... and the degree of utilization of these services when compared to the competition services and the ratio of use:population, is going to end up vastly different when placed up against the level of use in say, Whitehorse. Sure, 10:100 in Whitehorse may use the service, (whatever it may be) while 10:100,000 may use the service in larger cities, however when in the federal government's court, they're not looking at Bill, Sally, Joe, Bob, Dick, Harry, Jim, Jeff, Mary, and Sue from Whitehorse, and what a positive impact this has had on their lives: They're looking at how this program stacks up against the others which are available and if it isn't "producing results" then unfortunately it's likely it'll get cut and Bill, Sally, Joe, Bob, Dick, Harry, Jim, Jeff, Mary, and Sue will feel that loss. The end result though is that 10,000:100,000 success ratio programs will benefit from it.
As far as federal funding for non-band affiliated individuals goes, yeah that is too bad but its not as though there aren't options for all of those non-band affiliated individuals. There has to be a proven link between an individual and at least one band for them to have status so it would simply come down to needing to make a choice. (I had to make a choice when I got my status, and while the first two years of my schooling were funded by the DIAND, the past year has been funded by my band. The funding isn't necessarily "vanishing" its simply being re-routed so the government doesn't need to pay administrative time and wages to deal with it which is fair because it creates jobs within the bands.
What I will say which I find interesting too is that I want to point out that I didn't consider myself to be a particularly "conservative" individual, even when Mr. Harper was first elected. I distinctly recall feeling wary about him being in office, and at the time there really was no "better" option given the way the Liberals had managed to pull the rug out from under them. Mr. Layton is feeling 'betrayed' by the way he mentioned that Mr. Ignatieff has decided to "let the Conservatives" remain in power, and I think that this was a smart smart move on Mr. Ignatieff's part. If the conservatives are truly bad for this country then history will repeat itself and we'll find ourselves under the Liberals yet again, (quite likely considering the way Quebec is currently feeling) and the choice to not form a coalition with the NDP is probably the smartest move the Liberals have made in a very long time. Mr. Ignatieff's spin on the purpose of the coalition is also a very different one than what has commonly been portrayed. I find it interesting that had there been a non-confidence vote and had we had to go to re-election back in the fall less than 1 month after we had our election, the Conservatives would have had a majority government (at least that's what the polls were suggesting back then). This way they still have a minority government, and through the skillful work of the Liberals new leader, the Liberals are once more now starting to look like a "good choice" (Quite impressive, given the short time he has been party leader, and the many ways the party has decided to trip itself up and throw up obstacles in its own success path, through its own idiocy and party division and everything else they've displayed since that horrendous scandal that got the Conservatives in power. Which, historically, the Liberals have a long scandal rap sheet!!!! Scandal pretty much pre-dates every single Conservative Government that Canada has had.)
So yeah, I am all for social services being available however I think it should be limited, I don't think they should be "readily available for whoever" because that seems to be when they end up abused and I am conservative enough minded that I don't think that my hard work and hard earned dollars should be put towards enabling leeches to abuse the system. I don't mind people going on it when they need it, and the way its currently set up its extremely strict. In some instances (ie Elderly) it could absolutely be improved. Extending the EI benefits by 5 weeks is for those who qualify, yes, and those who qualify are going to be those that don't abuse the system. I wont' be getting EI benefits because I am a student, and that is fair but once I am done school I am able to go there and say to them that I am looking for work and I will be able to receive them (asked the people at Service Canada yesterday). That's eminently fair I think. No, it doesn't make my life any easier right now but I can appreciate that the measures are there in place to keep people from simply receiving the benefits and making zero effort on their own part to improve their situation.
Phew this is long, I might have to make a post of my own hahahaha...
Hope that helps you see where my perspective is coming from! :)
This is fun btw, can't wait for your reply! :D
Love T