There is always a portion of folks who look at the rich with disdain and some advocate for closing the gap by higher taxation.  There have been many recent Wall Street protests happening in the US and Canada too.  However many of these protesters always look at the “big bad companies”.   My point today is in light of the Air Canada Strike that had been attempted but halted for the moment is this: What about the disparity between workers who are part of these big unions and the people who are not?

What about unions which are advocating for guaranteed amounts of pensions, when millions of other Canadians have to establish their own retirement savings?

What about the millions of Canadians that do not earn the wages that many from these unions do?

What about the abuse that happens (of course not by everyone but a certain portion) by abusing the generous sick time policies negotiated by unions?

Can unions continue to make demands in this economic climate when millions of Canadians and Americans do not have the luxury of unions?

Talk about the power of unions…One recent example is in the Ontario election there was big money taken from union dues to counter the Conservatives.  By the way, in Canada (unlike the US) union members have no choice when it comes to their dues being used for this purpose.

Is there not a huge disparity here? Do unions think they will continue to get sympathy from the millions of others? Are they on a sustainable path?

America adds 103, 000 in September 

Canada adds 61,000 jobs in September

America’s population is over 300 million people  and Canada’s is about 33 million.  Yet Canada added 61,000 jobs and the US only 103,000.  Obviously there is a recession like atmosphere but relatively by comparison Canada is doing quite well.

Why?

Much in part because Canada got its spending under control in the 90s but just as important it has appropriate regulations concerning its financial institutions.  I say appropriate because I certainly believe it’s very possible to over-regulate or incorrectly regulate.  Unfortunately when these mistakes are made in regulations then you fuel the large groups of people opposing government incursion.  But when regulations are done correctly and not excessively they can enable the free market.  This is key for capitalism.

If you have had the opportunity to deal with bureaucratic institutions he US you probably have noted that it can be quite unpleasant.  There sometimes does not appear to be that reasonableness that one might expect.  Not that the same is never true in Canada, but I believe Canada pales in comparison.  There are so many laws and regulations and institutions permitting and prohibiting various activities that there is in many senses more latitude in Canada.  Obviously there are differences between Canadian and US law. Canada is common law (except Quebec which is the Civil Code, Louisiana has some French and Spanish heritage in law) and differs from US law even though they have the same Common Law origins, and our federations differ.  Click here for more information about the US Federal Government and here for info on the Canadian.  The US is certainly a great melting pot of regulations.   Many people think of the US as being freer than Canada but in many ways it is not.  I think that Canadians are coming to see the “The True North strong and free!” which can be an example for other countries.  Where as many in the US say it is spreading democracy and freedom, Canada can be an influencing example of common sense.

Watch this video and think about this issue seriously.  Regardless of where you stand I think the following is obvious.

Many victims of family members who have been killed by the most serious criminals are taunted whenever a parole hearing or Faint Hope Clause is invoked.

Canada at one time had the death penalty but in 1976 after it was abolished those who would have faced the death penalty had their sentences commuted to life sentences.    Many of those might have served a true life sentence.   This would mean that they would serve the rest of their lives in prison.

This is no longer the case.

Now a life sentence means 25 years.  Or does it? Not necessarily. When for instance, you read that someone is sentenced to 25 years without any chance of parole, this doesn’t mean they will not be released before 25 years.  They can apply for the Faint Hope Clause within 15 years.  This has now been changed by the Conservative Government but it doesn’t apply to everyone. Only “offenders who commit murder on or after the day that this legislation comes into force will no longer be able to apply to be eligible for early parole.”1

If someone is convicted of second degree murder then they would be sentenced to 25 years but they can apply for parole in 10 years.

So not only does a life sentence not really mean life, it doesn’t necessarily mean 25 years.  Notwithstanding the horrible nature of these crimes and the fact that these people will re-offend, this along with victims’ families being taunted at parole hearings might be part of the motivating reason that we have a considerable portion of the Canadian population still in favour of the death penalty.

What can be done?

1. Make a life sentence really mean life.

or at the very least,

2. Eliminate the Faint Hope Clause for everyone it might apply to.  Conservatives have done so going forward.  But it only “offenders who commit murder on or after the day that this legislation comes into force will no longer be able to apply to be eligible for early parole.”1

3. Do not allow for parole until at least after the 25 years is served.

4. Beef up the Parole Board process  to have to really utilize the information that the experts have recommended with regard to release.  Now what happens is that a team of professionals such as psychologists, psychiatrist, etc. will follow the prisoner and recommend whether he/she will likely re-offend, etc.  Often what happens is that although the experts indicate that the likelihood is very high, the parole board may still release these people.  To avoid this, if recidivism (likelihood to re-offend)  is high the person should not even get to the Parole Board, because this Board can completely ignore what the experts have said and release the person.

1. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/nr-cp/2011/doc_32590.html

#mce_temp_url#

Is Canada becoming a safe haven for foreign criminals?

If one looks across the spectrum of examples in society, many successful ventures are the result of joint ventures in which contributors share resources, roles, etc.  It might be public and private partnerships.  It might be an interdisciplinary team that provides healthcare.  It could be the healthcare approach by a society which involves a public component and supplemental private coverage – sometimes a more even combination might be referred to as a hybrid system.

Similarly a hybrid approach is best whenever you read or watch a news story or are attempting to critically evaluate anything for that matter, an approach which honestly considers the good points as well as the bad points is the best path to follow.

Don’t get caught into the trap of trying to defend your own perspective instead of recognizing the good points of another.  This is what happens all too often with politics, for example.  Admittedly sometimes one perspective is better than the other but not usually to the complete abandonment of the other.  More precisely it’s probably a matter of looking at the conclusions that are being drawn from either argument.  Give this a shot the next time there’s an opportunity to critically evaluate something.

Some points to ponder:

If you’ve ever participated in volunteer organizations or other similar functions, you’ll likely have come across some folks in the group who don’t show up for a lot of meetings, they don’t contribute much; when they do have something to say it is negative, and so on.  The reason they often have such negative viewpoints or can be so critical is because they haven’t considered all the facts.  Sometimes a negative viewpoint is warranted but in this instance I am only referring to those who do little but criticize because they refuse to be informed on many of the issues.

A quick analogy:

If you know some competent lawyers you’ll know that when they are preparing for a case in court they will have considered the arguments of the other side, they are completely apprised of all the facts, and know the arguments and counterarguments.  Now in this instance they know all the facts and then they make their argument.  Now whether or not one agrees with their viewpoint, one must admit that at least they are informed.  This is what I’m getting at with respect to being informed with news stories.  Obtain as much information as you can before reaching an opinion.  At the very least you should always be reading the news and asking skeptical questions and then seeing if you seem to get reasonable answers.  Often you might get alternate viewpoints if you do so.  I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with having an opinion, but one should always try to be informed before forming one.

You know, in today’s busy and competitive world, being informed is not only valuable it is necessary.  That’s why I would recommend that you consider joining my free and continuous newsletter which deals specifically with how to be informed on a variety of important subject areas.  People often state that an activity is valuable if they can take away at least one actionable idea – with respect to improving the quality of their life physically, mentally, intellectually .  We’ll by joining my newsletter you will walk away with many actionable ideas on an ongoing basis.  To get started, simply enter your email in the sign-up box at the top or bottom of the blog.

Take care,

Matthew

What’s this have to do with anything?

Well it serves an example to anyone who truly wants to be informed: the lesson to take from this is that it’s not necessarily what is said in an article but what is not said. Although what was stated in the article was not actually false, it did not present all relevant facts in my opinion. The problem, though, is that the overall impression the reader may be left with is false – without having the additional information, that is. Fortunately I had obtained the additional information by having more than one source of information.

So it’s important to always consult more than one source of information and ask yourself whether all the important facts are likely included in a story whenever you read them.

This is yet another way of being informed and empowered in today’s world where much information is thrown at you. By doing this you put yourself ahead of many who will never take the time to be truly informed.

Happy Holidays!

Matthew

Before you go: Are you a subscriber to my free newsletter?

In the last post we discussed the notion that you have to learn to trust your own judgment by using your own innate ability to solve problems and analyze things.  We all have this ability but it does take persistence.

This ability begins with our ability to trust ourselves which starts by doing things on our own.  This is important when we are analyzing news stories and determining what choices we wish to make in life.

We also discussed the fact that news stories (and of course any information we’re given) likely do not present all sides of the story.  The reason for this is simple: because in reality there are many sides to a story and it doesn’t really fit into the space that is allotted for each news story ,or to be honest, most people’s attention spans.  This is really due to our culture which likes quick little sound bites but it is also due to the fact that the person presenting the news story will likely frame the points from his/her perspective and overall the news networks will do the same.

The overall effect though, if we trust the limited perspectives given to us when we take in new information initially, I believe is that it can lead to an effect that can be very detrimental to our own (much needed) state of being informed or empowered.

I’m not stating all of this to simply give you a sense of doom and gloom.  To the contrary: I think it’s great that we have the world of information at our fingertips nowadays and we can use this information to our advantage – quite simply.

What are the keys to getting more informed news?

Well for starters: comments hold the key…any sites that provides news coverage and allows for reader commentary will generally generate a variety of perspectives which if approached for an open mind can indeed provide various sides to the story – of course by now you know that there are multiple sides to a story and it’s quite limiting to suggest that there are only two sides to a story: i.e. the other side of the story.

I actually enjoy first reading the story and then the comments.  Often there is much more detail unveiled from those commenting because they often include a link to another site containing relevant more detailed information in addition to bringing forward information in their comments and their perspectives.

Additionally, because you can go on the internet and access information from a variety of sources and countries you can generally gain more perspectives on any issue you’re looking at.

In the end, though, I’m not suggesting all comments you read online or elsewhere are 100% quality and to be trusted – you still have to use your discretion – of course.

But what you will learn is that often there is more to the story than presented and you will learn to think from multiple viewpoints and then can form a more informed opinion.

Also I think a good routine to follow when reading a headline or snippet of news that gets your emotions flowing is to ask yourself the following: “Is there more information to this story than is being presented or captured in the headline?”

I think by approaching things with a rational scepticism we are being much more realistic and the outcome is that we will learn to become more informed over time.  The more we learn about things in life, the more our collective perspective of the world is increased.

I’ve often thought it was such a mistake to assume, as many do, that once we’ve gone through childhood, (or early adulthood) we’ve gained our perspective and learned all the significant things.  To the contrary, I think that we continue to gain more and more throughout our lives.  I think if we recognize this fact it opens us up in many ways.