Read this article coming out in Maisonneuve and decide for yourself. (free registration required)
138 Replies to “Are Canadian bloggers pussies?”
By the way, Anon, why don’t you cut your losses, give up on Lexus-Nexus, and go back to your “Bayesian for Beginners”.
The thing is, Anonalogue, most of the folks here probably agree with you that there are problems with Canada’s immigration policy, I certainly do. But you simply can’t go around calling people, on your side or their side, penises, and you can’t get away with casually dropping Bayes in like that somehow automatically validates your claim, and still expect people who know penises and Bayes to be treat you seriously.
I think you are, broadly, “on my side”. I’ve read your comments for months. If you would pay more attention to your argument, and less to taking offense, I think you would have more success in influencing others.
Of course, that’s just my opinion.
Look how far you’ve come, Peter! This is you at the beginning of this thread:
“Analogue:(Good one! – Anon.)
No free pass for you. Please cite two polls which show opposition to immigration at 80%. I bet you can’t find any that have it at even 70%.
Peter”
I don’t need to remind you how badly you misunderstood the first set of data, do I? OK, maybe one more time, since you seem to have forgotten how demonstably stupid you are:
“This is me:
“many polls showing about 85%-90% of Canadians oppose increasing immigration”
Notice the subtle, yet critically important, distinction. Not my fault you can’t read.”
I said what I was going to do, and did it. I don’t argue to the point of convincing an extreme morn like you; I aim to convince only up to the median moron, and I’ve done that. I’m not surprised you are so hostile. Now go bug a Liberal.
Watch out Peter, one of these days I’m going to pull out my Butkov on you: http://tinyurl.com/dyaqs ๐
Yes, you’ve pointed out that typo a couple of times now.
Again, nice equations. And nice work finding a single poll which demonstrates that when asked “Do you oppose increases in immigration” 90% of Canadians agree. Or even 70%.
I really like the Bayesian demonstration you’ve given. Shall I call you the Glib Sampler (suspect you won’t get this joke either)?
back to what started all of this: it is interesting how xenophobes always assume that the majority of their community agree with them. ANAL. seems to think that immigration to canada is a bad thing for canada and for the immigrants (because he disparages the country so much). and i am sorry about the child like name calling but its more of a suitable abbreviation than anything else.
furthermore; does this site have the highest retention of statistics majors on the web?
Just so Petr, EKG, Tonie, and the rest of the aggrieved can sleep tonight, and not need to seek grief counselling or take stress leave:
Canada is a shiny happy country with a shiny happy immigration policy that all Canadians love.
All better now?
Some New Troll: “ANAL. seems to think that immigration to canada is a bad thing for canada ”
An absurd assumption; posting data does not equate to stating opinion. I have not stated my thoughts on the matter in any way in this thread.
Notice how stupid this guy is to assume that since I post some data, that I must agree with what the data says. A small child can see that is illogical.
“because he disparages the country so much”
This is super false; I am a known Canada lover. Again, you are – I hate this word but it fits – projecting.
” xenophobes”
Hey, you just called me a xenophobe! That’s absurd!
That looks like a white flag. Does this mean Mr. Loewen will get his two c-notes?
Anonalogue is absolutely correct when he claims that our immigration ‘policy’ is more important than other issues! In order to express an opinion on this subject, one must first INFORM themself on this issue. (I would cordially suggest that you take a look at what Martin Collacott has to say about this, on the Fraser Institute website.) And when you separate the FACT from the FICTION, you are going to be as profoundly shocked as I am!
Is it correct- or not- that we currently have a backlog of almost 700,000 OFFICIAL applicants to move to this country? (Bearing in mind, that these people have filled out all the forms, had their medical tests, security tests, etc. and paid nearly 1500 bucks- each- with their applications?) Slightly less than 1500 bucks EACH X 700,000 people!
Anonalogue:
You are something else. Are you saying you brought up those statistics because you think immigration is a great idea? It’s so clearly not the case.
Second, you are the one who has projected a policy position onto everyone who has agreed with you.
It’s almost funny how absurd you are. Almost.
Shiny/Happy? Oh, come on, Anonalogue, see 10:12 p.m. hereto op. cit. Get a grip, mate, you’re fighting your own side. Let’s go over do Dave now, who seems to have a fresh angle on the case…
Yes, I am something else. Stop pretending that I didn’t smoke you in this thread, lickboy, and recognize The Anonalogue Experience.
Yeah, you’re a master. Again, nice Bayesian equations.
I wonder if 90% of Canadians support increased emmigration.
What’s a “lickboy”?
I think it’s someone who has recently won a bet by unfairly wagering against a fool. But that’s just a guess.
EGG – your cat needs your attention more than I do right now, go pet it.
Peter – I’ve assigned you some homework, step to it:
1) Type “Canada immigration poll” in a “search” “engine”, press “submit” (being a Subjectivist – Statist, submitting should be entirely your bag) and see what you can learn.
2) Write an essay on why you suck at blog commenting.
i wonder why anal. is so worked up. does he really think that a minty fresh new canadian immigrant will want his job? i mean it is conceivable: little familiarity with the english language and no skill set necessary, bring your own opinions, facts and logic! – actually that is an undeserved insult to the thousands and thousands of people who come to this country bringing their extraordinary skills and experiences to make canada a better place. but i guess we all forget that we all came from somewhere else when we are so busy demeaning women.
also lickboy has no entry at urbandictionary.com and means nothing outside of whatever context anal. mis-copied it from. dude, why dont admit defeat and stop spewing your santorum everywhere.
Anon:
I don’t have time for the cat right now. I’m too busy running Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations to determine the probability that you will pay Mr. Loewen. But I don’t need to tell you that this is a good technique for rare events simulation.
I may also have time later to estimate the probability that you know what I’m talking about. Let me know if you’re interested in the output.
Hey Peter, you folks keeping score at home, it’s been a slice, but I’m starting to think we’re beginning to run in circles.
Every post is valueable, at least to its poster in terms of their time investment. Let’s all try to remember these words by Alexander Pope, from his “Essay on Man”:
Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind is Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the skeptic side
With too much weakness for the Stoic’s pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest.
In doubt to deem himself a god, or beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer,
Born but to die, and reasoning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much:
Chaos of thought and passion, all confused;
Still by himself abused, or disabused;
Created half to rise, and half to fall;
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled:
The glory, jest, and riddle of the world!
G’night. Y’all take care now, y’hear.
Peter, Anonalogu, Tony, EGG:
All other arguements aside what is the ideal number of immigrants that should be accepted into Canada annually?
“All other arguements aside what is the ideal number of immigrants that should be accepted into Canada annually?”
There was an article in the Sun yesterday or the day before – too tired to google – which said that since 1990 immigration in Canada has had a net negative economic effect. Seeing as how data like this would seem to be highly relevant in determining the optimal amount of immigrants, and seeing as how we (and when I say “we” I mean guys like Peter) seem to have a problem acknowledging let alone accepting data which doesn’t conform to our views, I’d be skeptical of anyone who didn’t present a shitload of good data in giving a hard number.
And it’s not just the number of immigrants, but the basis of admission needs to be considered as well. 300,000 refugees or family reunification thingies is a lot different than 300,000 wealthy Hong Kong expats.
Until people stop rejecting the super extremely large amount of data that is out there which indicates Canadians are nearly unaimously against an increase in immigration, and until people stop freaking out or turtling whenever immigration is mentioned, I think we’re not ready for a grownup discussion about how Canada should proceed on immigration. In short, we are too pussified.
BTW, data is plural.
Oh Peter. You’re so “anal”…
The main reason blogs have more influence in America than here is not because of the product or productivity of their blogs, as compared with ours, it is because Americans are much more open minded than Canadians.
Canadians are in fact so incapable of thinking for themselves that they are quite content to have a foreign head of state 137 years after the nation was founded. This is the essence of a backward country. It is little wonder Canadians oppose freedom for Iraqis.
Risk being killed so that others may live free? What’s that all about?
Calling Canadians pussies is a compliment-although the approbation is in the general area of the correct anatomical description.
…a disheartened Canadian…
76 comments and not one was interesting.
This is probaly the reason why more people just
visit and don’t come back.
It happens on blogs, a few people take over and
anyone wanting to join in are not “in” on
what is being said, they are not welcomed afte
a few times trying and so leave.
It takes some real interest in the words, penis
and fuck I guess to enjoy the comments.
Yes, for sure, there is a change needed if
you want more real discussions.
It happens on blogs.
“Oh Peter. You’re so “anal”…”
Well that’s something I’ve been wondering about. Only question is….is Peter a “top” or a “bottom”?
Comments not required.>>>
EDITORIAL: Burning issues in Ottawa
Toronto Sun ^ | 2005-10-07 | (editorial page)
Posted on 10/07/2005 4:43:55 AM PDT by Clive
Today, we begin a new editorial feature here at the Sun.
We call it: “Here’s another good reason to burn down Parliament Hill and tar and feather every !@@#$# Liberal MP we can find as they run out of the building.”
Today, in our first installment, we offer two good reasons. >>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1498267/posts
Excerpt from an Oct. 4 news release from The Fraser Institute:
“There has been a sharp decline in the economic performance of recent immigrants to Canada since 1990, according to Immigration and the Welfare State in Canada: Growing Conflicts, Constructive Solutions, released today by The Fraser Institute.
…
The paper cites official statistics showing that recent immigrants, on average, have lower incomes than comparable Canadians even after 10 years๏ฟฝ residence in Canada. As a result of these lower incomes, the progressive income tax structure of the Canadian welfare state and the universal availability of government benefits have resulted in substantial transfers from other Canadians to these immigrants. Grubel estimates the transfer to immigrants who arrived between 1990 and 2002 is approximately $18.3 billion every year, based on 2002 data. http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=685
Read the report Anonalogue. It doesn’t say 18.3 billion a year. That’s the aggregate since 1990. Either you misread it, or misrepresented it. Neither would surprise me.
By the way, I was up all night in fascination over those Bayesian equations you posted.
I am loathe to admit it, but I am wrong. I misread that statistic. Sorry, Anon. Too quick on the trigger.
“By the way, I was up all night in fascination over those Bayesian equations you posted.”
And I was up all night in fascination over this “Elizabeth” chick who is good at math; that totally gives me a woodie. Her attitude, less so. Anyone know if she’s single? And Catholic? Since she has a cat, and is good at math, I’m gonna get my Bayesian Inference on and say “yes”. Statists call this “stereotyping”, but they’re stupid and wrong.
Anyhoo, I need to produce an heir – long story – prefereably an intelligent one. So if you’re reading this Elizabeth, please contact me at anonalogue@yahoo.com and I’ll tell you everything you want to know about Bayesian Inference, and we can arrange for a successful mount.
I was waiting for Anon to bring it to this level. In fact, I’m surprised he didn’t go there earlier. It’s really the last resort of a failing intellect.
Anon, here’s a little tip, vulgarity does not make you funny or less wrong. The intelligent visitors to this site will see your last statement for what it is.
By the way, can you give us the equations on the probability that I’m a single, Catholic geek?
Hey, I think I figured out what Blogs really are:
modern day playground for childish behavior.
I hope the government doesn’t get wind of it or they may come up with a National CyberCare.
Elizabeth G-G: I would like to offer my sincere appologies, if I may be so bold, for all males in general.
Mike, RoA
Anonalogue, jesus! You’re last post was creepy to me and I’m a good ol Alberta redneck.
Canada is a G7 country! It is not entirely surprising that immigrants do not immediately start out at the same income level as a 3rd generation Canuck. If the income of immigrants is sufficient to support themselves, there is absolutely no impact on other Canadians. Face it, there are some jobs Canadians don’t want to do. There are also other factors at play such as the lack of recognition of foreign medical degrees and foreign experience that lower the income of immigrants. In any case, the transfers you mention is less than 1% of the taxation by the federal government. How does that number compare to seasonal workers?
Elizabeth Goodyear-Grant: Elizabeth is a PhD student in the Department of Political Science at McGill University. She is a SSHRCC Doctoral Fellow and a research assistant for the Canadian Election Study team. Her work focuses on political behaviour, media and elections, methodologies, and gender and politics.
No pictures.
Good show, Brian C. You’re bang on with the post.
Estimating the fiscal impact of immigration is a statistical mess (at best), and I’m not sure the Fraser Institute is the best source on the subject. A better source would be something like OECD Econ. Outlook or similar.
Immigration is not just about money. First, at the current rate of population replacement (births/deaths in simple format), Canada is in trouble.
Second, Canada, like most civilized countries, recognizes the fundamental right of family reunification. In plain english, this means that we must accept low-earning dependents because to do otherwise would break up families.
Finally, most calculations (including those in the report of the Fraser Institute) include refugees as immigrants in calculating fiscal impact. This is decidedly suspect, since the logic of asylum is not based in any way on economic considerations. It is a human rights issue, not a fiscal issue. What a surprise that refugees from Rwanda, North Korea, or other such places have lower earning capacities than Canadian citizens.
If immigration produces a net budgetary loss (and that’s a big if), there may be more important factors at play.
OK, is anyone here NOT a political science student? Man, I feel like I’m on the Truman Show.
whome: congratulations on mastering google.
October 06, 2005
Canadian Bloggers Are Not ‘Pussies’
Siri Agrell, writing for the Canadian site Maisonneuve, wonders why the Canadian blogosphere has not uncovered a major scandal or exposed political shenanigans in the national government. Agrell notes the long track record of American bloggers in uncovering journalistic malpractice and governmental stupidity, resulting in high-profile career damage to luminaries like Dan Rather, Trent Lott, Eason Jordan, and others. Agrell suggests that Canadian bloggers are “pussies”, and uses me as an example:
US political bloggers have appeared on the cover of the New York Times magazine and were accredited to cover the 2004 Republican and Democratic conventions. But in Canada, blogs remain the domain of pundits and policy wonks, an outlet for little more than chest-thumping, crystal-ball gazing, slander and self-promotion.
Only one major Canadian political story broken by bloggers has made its way through to the mainstream media and into our consciousness: the leaking of Jean Brault’s testimony to the Gomery Inquiry. The leak revealed a new dimension of the sponsorship scandal and showed us just how powerful an independent online voice could be. Unfortunately, in this case, the voice was American๏ฟฝthat of Edward Morrissey, aka Captain Ed, who influenced the course of Canadian politics from his Minnesota-based Captain’s Quarters blog. …
But the fact remains that, in a year when American bloggers led major stories on both sides of the border and Canadian politics reached new levels of intrigue and animosity, political blogs in this country made little๏ฟฝif any๏ฟฝimpact. McMillan places part of the blame on a disinterested public and a media that largely ignores the sites as a source of information or ideas.
While I appreciate the recognition from Agrell, I have to disagree with the thrust of the headline. The Canadian blogosphere may not have the saturation of its American cousin, but that does take time to develop. Political wars don’t play as much of a role in Canadian lives as it does with Americans, and plenty of both will argue that likely indicates better mental health north of the border.
More than that, though, the article tends to downplay courageous Canadian bloggers. Kate MacMillan actually played a role in my publication of the Gomery testimony, which she appears in this article too modest to acknowledge; she wanted the story to come out and sacrificed the scoop to make sure it did. Stephen Janke defied the publication ban and linked me during the Gomery testimony, as did Neale News, despite the threat of prosecution for doing so — showing a bit more bravery than most of the Canadian press at the time. John at Newsbeat1 has already built a following doing the kind of reporting that Agrell wants, and he does so with some risk, if readers pay attention to the nature of his prolific links.
Canadian bloggers work hard to position themselves for the inevitable day when their fellow countrymen decide that their diversity-challenged media have not served them well and begin to demand the answers to questions Americans learned to ask after Watergate. If they’re not quite reaching the traffic levels of American blogs now, they will soon enough. I’ve met them and know their mettle — and they will be ready when the time comes. (h/t: Canadian reader Tim H.) http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005574.php#comments
Another f—> “Right in der fuehrer’s face”– Spike Jones (1911-1965)>>>
Canada is in the Grips of a “Liberal Orthodoxy”. Canadian Bloggers therefore need to be a bit on the unorthodox side of life in order to baffle and confound the orthodox.
Offer alternative choices, offer alternative news. Laugh at the Liberal establishment. Become the opposition if the political parties on the right can’t get their act together. Work with them if need be. The Canadian Government gets daffy when folks up there talk of “Breaking Away”. Talk of a Canadian Confederacy. Talk about issues that cause the left discomfort. Liberals are a thin skinned bunch. Start a Canadian Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Use Canadian sensibilities and traditional Canadian values.
Pick fights wisely, smile and be happy.
Posted by: Borgia [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 7, 2005 04:46 AM>>> http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005574.php#comments
Testing only
This blog has been taken over by a bunch of childish idiots who are simply having personal conversation among themselves and offering little for other readers.
One doesn’t feel like placing a thoughtful item here since it will be lost among the idiotic posts around betting on the accuracy of other data and whether or not one has the ability to do the research to prove their points and so on.
In other words it’s all about the posters not the post. A regular pissing contest.
Kate, no one needs to put up more than one or two posts per topic. otherwise it’s just a stupid chat room and that what it is now … a stupid chat room.
Where does one obtain an avatar?
Very disappointed Kate … you are letting the inmates run the institution …
Meanwhile … I nominate SDA as the blog on the quickest slide down to oblivion.
Maybe you could get some rap music to happen in the background to make these fools feel more at home. Perhaps the Disney Corp. will offer to buy you out.
They could rename it “Small Dead Ducks”
I think that the announcement that Pettigrews chauffeur has taken “leave” shows that the Canadian bogging community CAN have a significant effect on politics and are NOT “pussies”
Keep up the good work.
Horny Toad
Duke: One may obtain an avatar whenever one captures a Hindu deity reincarnated in human or animal form.
Mark
Ottawa
Hey Maz2, try and keep this thread on topic! It’s not about Blogging Pussies, it’s about immigration statistics!
๐
Hey, maybe we’ve gotten something here. The only time Maz posts an on-topic comment is when the whole comments thread goes way OT!
Duke, quit whining! What’s wrong with occaisional chat (even if it’s gotten pretty childish). Do you really expect us to act like stereotypical Canuckistani’s mildly commenting once or twice per post and then moving on to the next post? Sounds too much like some government regulated pussy-blog to me!
Take it easy! Look at LGF! They’re one of the most popular blogs out there with a regular readership and commenter-conversationalists.
If you don’t like it then don’t keep reading the comments.
I completely disagree that we limit comments to one or two posts. There are some topics which are more important to me than others and if I’m in a good discussion such as Peter, Anonalogue, and Elizabeth we having about immigration, we shouldn’t necessarily stop at 2 comments. Sorry, this was my third comment on this post. And to cheap shot Kate when she has created one of the more successful blogs in Canada is just that, cheap.
By the way, Anon, why don’t you cut your losses, give up on Lexus-Nexus, and go back to your “Bayesian for Beginners”.
The thing is, Anonalogue, most of the folks here probably agree with you that there are problems with Canada’s immigration policy, I certainly do. But you simply can’t go around calling people, on your side or their side, penises, and you can’t get away with casually dropping Bayes in like that somehow automatically validates your claim, and still expect people who know penises and Bayes to be treat you seriously.
I think you are, broadly, “on my side”. I’ve read your comments for months. If you would pay more attention to your argument, and less to taking offense, I think you would have more success in influencing others.
Of course, that’s just my opinion.
Look how far you’ve come, Peter! This is you at the beginning of this thread:
“Analogue:(Good one! – Anon.)
No free pass for you. Please cite two polls which show opposition to immigration at 80%. I bet you can’t find any that have it at even 70%.
Peter”
I don’t need to remind you how badly you misunderstood the first set of data, do I? OK, maybe one more time, since you seem to have forgotten how demonstably stupid you are:
“This is me:
“many polls showing about 85%-90% of Canadians oppose increasing immigration”
Notice the subtle, yet critically important, distinction. Not my fault you can’t read.”
I said what I was going to do, and did it. I don’t argue to the point of convincing an extreme morn like you; I aim to convince only up to the median moron, and I’ve done that. I’m not surprised you are so hostile. Now go bug a Liberal.
Watch out Peter, one of these days I’m going to pull out my Butkov on you: http://tinyurl.com/dyaqs ๐
Yes, you’ve pointed out that typo a couple of times now.
Again, nice equations. And nice work finding a single poll which demonstrates that when asked “Do you oppose increases in immigration” 90% of Canadians agree. Or even 70%.
I really like the Bayesian demonstration you’ve given. Shall I call you the Glib Sampler (suspect you won’t get this joke either)?
back to what started all of this: it is interesting how xenophobes always assume that the majority of their community agree with them. ANAL. seems to think that immigration to canada is a bad thing for canada and for the immigrants (because he disparages the country so much). and i am sorry about the child like name calling but its more of a suitable abbreviation than anything else.
furthermore; does this site have the highest retention of statistics majors on the web?
Just so Petr, EKG, Tonie, and the rest of the aggrieved can sleep tonight, and not need to seek grief counselling or take stress leave:
Canada is a shiny happy country with a shiny happy immigration policy that all Canadians love.
All better now?
Some New Troll: “ANAL. seems to think that immigration to canada is a bad thing for canada ”
An absurd assumption; posting data does not equate to stating opinion. I have not stated my thoughts on the matter in any way in this thread.
Notice how stupid this guy is to assume that since I post some data, that I must agree with what the data says. A small child can see that is illogical.
“because he disparages the country so much”
This is super false; I am a known Canada lover. Again, you are – I hate this word but it fits – projecting.
” xenophobes”
Hey, you just called me a xenophobe! That’s absurd!
That looks like a white flag. Does this mean Mr. Loewen will get his two c-notes?
Anonalogue is absolutely correct when he claims that our immigration ‘policy’ is more important than other issues! In order to express an opinion on this subject, one must first INFORM themself on this issue. (I would cordially suggest that you take a look at what Martin Collacott has to say about this, on the Fraser Institute website.) And when you separate the FACT from the FICTION, you are going to be as profoundly shocked as I am!
Is it correct- or not- that we currently have a backlog of almost 700,000 OFFICIAL applicants to move to this country? (Bearing in mind, that these people have filled out all the forms, had their medical tests, security tests, etc. and paid nearly 1500 bucks- each- with their applications?) Slightly less than 1500 bucks EACH X 700,000 people!
Anonalogue:
You are something else. Are you saying you brought up those statistics because you think immigration is a great idea? It’s so clearly not the case.
Second, you are the one who has projected a policy position onto everyone who has agreed with you.
It’s almost funny how absurd you are. Almost.
Shiny/Happy? Oh, come on, Anonalogue, see 10:12 p.m. hereto op. cit. Get a grip, mate, you’re fighting your own side. Let’s go over do Dave now, who seems to have a fresh angle on the case…
Yes, I am something else. Stop pretending that I didn’t smoke you in this thread, lickboy, and recognize The Anonalogue Experience.
Yeah, you’re a master. Again, nice Bayesian equations.
I wonder if 90% of Canadians support increased emmigration.
What’s a “lickboy”?
I think it’s someone who has recently won a bet by unfairly wagering against a fool. But that’s just a guess.
EGG – your cat needs your attention more than I do right now, go pet it.
Peter – I’ve assigned you some homework, step to it:
1) Type “Canada immigration poll” in a “search” “engine”, press “submit” (being a Subjectivist – Statist, submitting should be entirely your bag) and see what you can learn.
2) Write an essay on why you suck at blog commenting.
i wonder why anal. is so worked up. does he really think that a minty fresh new canadian immigrant will want his job? i mean it is conceivable: little familiarity with the english language and no skill set necessary, bring your own opinions, facts and logic! – actually that is an undeserved insult to the thousands and thousands of people who come to this country bringing their extraordinary skills and experiences to make canada a better place. but i guess we all forget that we all came from somewhere else when we are so busy demeaning women.
also lickboy has no entry at urbandictionary.com and means nothing outside of whatever context anal. mis-copied it from. dude, why dont admit defeat and stop spewing your santorum everywhere.
Anon:
I don’t have time for the cat right now. I’m too busy running Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations to determine the probability that you will pay Mr. Loewen. But I don’t need to tell you that this is a good technique for rare events simulation.
I may also have time later to estimate the probability that you know what I’m talking about. Let me know if you’re interested in the output.
Hey Peter, you folks keeping score at home, it’s been a slice, but I’m starting to think we’re beginning to run in circles.
Every post is valueable, at least to its poster in terms of their time investment. Let’s all try to remember these words by Alexander Pope, from his “Essay on Man”:
Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind is Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the skeptic side
With too much weakness for the Stoic’s pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest.
In doubt to deem himself a god, or beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer,
Born but to die, and reasoning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much:
Chaos of thought and passion, all confused;
Still by himself abused, or disabused;
Created half to rise, and half to fall;
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled:
The glory, jest, and riddle of the world!
G’night. Y’all take care now, y’hear.
Peter, Anonalogu, Tony, EGG:
All other arguements aside what is the ideal number of immigrants that should be accepted into Canada annually?
“All other arguements aside what is the ideal number of immigrants that should be accepted into Canada annually?”
There was an article in the Sun yesterday or the day before – too tired to google – which said that since 1990 immigration in Canada has had a net negative economic effect. Seeing as how data like this would seem to be highly relevant in determining the optimal amount of immigrants, and seeing as how we (and when I say “we” I mean guys like Peter) seem to have a problem acknowledging let alone accepting data which doesn’t conform to our views, I’d be skeptical of anyone who didn’t present a shitload of good data in giving a hard number.
And it’s not just the number of immigrants, but the basis of admission needs to be considered as well. 300,000 refugees or family reunification thingies is a lot different than 300,000 wealthy Hong Kong expats.
Until people stop rejecting the super extremely large amount of data that is out there which indicates Canadians are nearly unaimously against an increase in immigration, and until people stop freaking out or turtling whenever immigration is mentioned, I think we’re not ready for a grownup discussion about how Canada should proceed on immigration. In short, we are too pussified.
BTW, data is plural.
Oh Peter. You’re so “anal”…
The main reason blogs have more influence in America than here is not because of the product or productivity of their blogs, as compared with ours, it is because Americans are much more open minded than Canadians.
Canadians are in fact so incapable of thinking for themselves that they are quite content to have a foreign head of state 137 years after the nation was founded. This is the essence of a backward country. It is little wonder Canadians oppose freedom for Iraqis.
Risk being killed so that others may live free? What’s that all about?
Calling Canadians pussies is a compliment-although the approbation is in the general area of the correct anatomical description.
…a disheartened Canadian…
76 comments and not one was interesting.
This is probaly the reason why more people just
visit and don’t come back.
It happens on blogs, a few people take over and
anyone wanting to join in are not “in” on
what is being said, they are not welcomed afte
a few times trying and so leave.
It takes some real interest in the words, penis
and fuck I guess to enjoy the comments.
Yes, for sure, there is a change needed if
you want more real discussions.
It happens on blogs.
“Oh Peter. You’re so “anal”…”
Well that’s something I’ve been wondering about. Only question is….is Peter a “top” or a “bottom”?
Comments not required.>>>
EDITORIAL: Burning issues in Ottawa
Toronto Sun ^ | 2005-10-07 | (editorial page)
Posted on 10/07/2005 4:43:55 AM PDT by Clive
Today, we begin a new editorial feature here at the Sun.
We call it: “Here’s another good reason to burn down Parliament Hill and tar and feather every !@@#$# Liberal MP we can find as they run out of the building.”
Today, in our first installment, we offer two good reasons. >>>>
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1498267/posts
Excerpt from an Oct. 4 news release from The Fraser Institute:
“There has been a sharp decline in the economic performance of recent immigrants to Canada since 1990, according to Immigration and the Welfare State in Canada: Growing Conflicts, Constructive Solutions, released today by The Fraser Institute.
…
The paper cites official statistics showing that recent immigrants, on average, have lower incomes than comparable Canadians even after 10 years๏ฟฝ residence in Canada. As a result of these lower incomes, the progressive income tax structure of the Canadian welfare state and the universal availability of government benefits have resulted in substantial transfers from other Canadians to these immigrants. Grubel estimates the transfer to immigrants who arrived between 1990 and 2002 is approximately $18.3 billion every year, based on 2002 data.
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=685
Read the report Anonalogue. It doesn’t say 18.3 billion a year. That’s the aggregate since 1990. Either you misread it, or misrepresented it. Neither would surprise me.
By the way, I was up all night in fascination over those Bayesian equations you posted.
I am loathe to admit it, but I am wrong. I misread that statistic. Sorry, Anon. Too quick on the trigger.
“By the way, I was up all night in fascination over those Bayesian equations you posted.”
And I was up all night in fascination over this “Elizabeth” chick who is good at math; that totally gives me a woodie. Her attitude, less so. Anyone know if she’s single? And Catholic? Since she has a cat, and is good at math, I’m gonna get my Bayesian Inference on and say “yes”. Statists call this “stereotyping”, but they’re stupid and wrong.
Anyhoo, I need to produce an heir – long story – prefereably an intelligent one. So if you’re reading this Elizabeth, please contact me at anonalogue@yahoo.com and I’ll tell you everything you want to know about Bayesian Inference, and we can arrange for a successful mount.
I was waiting for Anon to bring it to this level. In fact, I’m surprised he didn’t go there earlier. It’s really the last resort of a failing intellect.
Anon, here’s a little tip, vulgarity does not make you funny or less wrong. The intelligent visitors to this site will see your last statement for what it is.
By the way, can you give us the equations on the probability that I’m a single, Catholic geek?
Hey, I think I figured out what Blogs really are:
modern day playground for childish behavior.
I hope the government doesn’t get wind of it or they may come up with a National CyberCare.
Elizabeth G-G: I would like to offer my sincere appologies, if I may be so bold, for all males in general.
Mike, RoA
Anonalogue, jesus! You’re last post was creepy to me and I’m a good ol Alberta redneck.
Canada is a G7 country! It is not entirely surprising that immigrants do not immediately start out at the same income level as a 3rd generation Canuck. If the income of immigrants is sufficient to support themselves, there is absolutely no impact on other Canadians. Face it, there are some jobs Canadians don’t want to do. There are also other factors at play such as the lack of recognition of foreign medical degrees and foreign experience that lower the income of immigrants. In any case, the transfers you mention is less than 1% of the taxation by the federal government. How does that number compare to seasonal workers?
Elizabeth Goodyear-Grant: Elizabeth is a PhD student in the Department of Political Science at McGill University. She is a SSHRCC Doctoral Fellow and a research assistant for the Canadian Election Study team. Her work focuses on political behaviour, media and elections, methodologies, and gender and politics.
No pictures.
Good show, Brian C. You’re bang on with the post.
Estimating the fiscal impact of immigration is a statistical mess (at best), and I’m not sure the Fraser Institute is the best source on the subject. A better source would be something like OECD Econ. Outlook or similar.
Immigration is not just about money. First, at the current rate of population replacement (births/deaths in simple format), Canada is in trouble.
Second, Canada, like most civilized countries, recognizes the fundamental right of family reunification. In plain english, this means that we must accept low-earning dependents because to do otherwise would break up families.
Finally, most calculations (including those in the report of the Fraser Institute) include refugees as immigrants in calculating fiscal impact. This is decidedly suspect, since the logic of asylum is not based in any way on economic considerations. It is a human rights issue, not a fiscal issue. What a surprise that refugees from Rwanda, North Korea, or other such places have lower earning capacities than Canadian citizens.
If immigration produces a net budgetary loss (and that’s a big if), there may be more important factors at play.
OK, is anyone here NOT a political science student? Man, I feel like I’m on the Truman Show.
whome: congratulations on mastering google.
October 06, 2005
Canadian Bloggers Are Not ‘Pussies’
Siri Agrell, writing for the Canadian site Maisonneuve, wonders why the Canadian blogosphere has not uncovered a major scandal or exposed political shenanigans in the national government. Agrell notes the long track record of American bloggers in uncovering journalistic malpractice and governmental stupidity, resulting in high-profile career damage to luminaries like Dan Rather, Trent Lott, Eason Jordan, and others. Agrell suggests that Canadian bloggers are “pussies”, and uses me as an example:
US political bloggers have appeared on the cover of the New York Times magazine and were accredited to cover the 2004 Republican and Democratic conventions. But in Canada, blogs remain the domain of pundits and policy wonks, an outlet for little more than chest-thumping, crystal-ball gazing, slander and self-promotion.
Only one major Canadian political story broken by bloggers has made its way through to the mainstream media and into our consciousness: the leaking of Jean Brault’s testimony to the Gomery Inquiry. The leak revealed a new dimension of the sponsorship scandal and showed us just how powerful an independent online voice could be. Unfortunately, in this case, the voice was American๏ฟฝthat of Edward Morrissey, aka Captain Ed, who influenced the course of Canadian politics from his Minnesota-based Captain’s Quarters blog. …
But the fact remains that, in a year when American bloggers led major stories on both sides of the border and Canadian politics reached new levels of intrigue and animosity, political blogs in this country made little๏ฟฝif any๏ฟฝimpact. McMillan places part of the blame on a disinterested public and a media that largely ignores the sites as a source of information or ideas.
While I appreciate the recognition from Agrell, I have to disagree with the thrust of the headline. The Canadian blogosphere may not have the saturation of its American cousin, but that does take time to develop. Political wars don’t play as much of a role in Canadian lives as it does with Americans, and plenty of both will argue that likely indicates better mental health north of the border.
More than that, though, the article tends to downplay courageous Canadian bloggers. Kate MacMillan actually played a role in my publication of the Gomery testimony, which she appears in this article too modest to acknowledge; she wanted the story to come out and sacrificed the scoop to make sure it did. Stephen Janke defied the publication ban and linked me during the Gomery testimony, as did Neale News, despite the threat of prosecution for doing so — showing a bit more bravery than most of the Canadian press at the time. John at Newsbeat1 has already built a following doing the kind of reporting that Agrell wants, and he does so with some risk, if readers pay attention to the nature of his prolific links.
Canadian bloggers work hard to position themselves for the inevitable day when their fellow countrymen decide that their diversity-challenged media have not served them well and begin to demand the answers to questions Americans learned to ask after Watergate. If they’re not quite reaching the traffic levels of American blogs now, they will soon enough. I’ve met them and know their mettle — and they will be ready when the time comes. (h/t: Canadian reader Tim H.)
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005574.php#comments
Another f—> “Right in der fuehrer’s face”– Spike Jones (1911-1965)>>>
Canada is in the Grips of a “Liberal Orthodoxy”. Canadian Bloggers therefore need to be a bit on the unorthodox side of life in order to baffle and confound the orthodox.
Offer alternative choices, offer alternative news. Laugh at the Liberal establishment. Become the opposition if the political parties on the right can’t get their act together. Work with them if need be. The Canadian Government gets daffy when folks up there talk of “Breaking Away”. Talk of a Canadian Confederacy. Talk about issues that cause the left discomfort. Liberals are a thin skinned bunch. Start a Canadian Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Use Canadian sensibilities and traditional Canadian values.
Pick fights wisely, smile and be happy.
Posted by: Borgia [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 7, 2005 04:46 AM>>>
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005574.php#comments
Testing only
This blog has been taken over by a bunch of childish idiots who are simply having personal conversation among themselves and offering little for other readers.
One doesn’t feel like placing a thoughtful item here since it will be lost among the idiotic posts around betting on the accuracy of other data and whether or not one has the ability to do the research to prove their points and so on.
In other words it’s all about the posters not the post. A regular pissing contest.
Kate, no one needs to put up more than one or two posts per topic. otherwise it’s just a stupid chat room and that what it is now … a stupid chat room.
Where does one obtain an avatar?
Very disappointed Kate … you are letting the inmates run the institution …
Meanwhile … I nominate SDA as the blog on the quickest slide down to oblivion.
Maybe you could get some rap music to happen in the background to make these fools feel more at home. Perhaps the Disney Corp. will offer to buy you out.
They could rename it “Small Dead Ducks”
I think that the announcement that Pettigrews chauffeur has taken “leave” shows that the Canadian bogging community CAN have a significant effect on politics and are NOT “pussies”
Keep up the good work.
Horny Toad
Duke: One may obtain an avatar whenever one captures a Hindu deity reincarnated in human or animal form.
Mark
Ottawa
Hey Maz2, try and keep this thread on topic! It’s not about Blogging Pussies, it’s about immigration statistics!
๐
Hey, maybe we’ve gotten something here. The only time Maz posts an on-topic comment is when the whole comments thread goes way OT!
Duke, quit whining! What’s wrong with occaisional chat (even if it’s gotten pretty childish). Do you really expect us to act like stereotypical Canuckistani’s mildly commenting once or twice per post and then moving on to the next post? Sounds too much like some government regulated pussy-blog to me!
Take it easy! Look at LGF! They’re one of the most popular blogs out there with a regular readership and commenter-conversationalists.
If you don’t like it then don’t keep reading the comments.
I completely disagree that we limit comments to one or two posts. There are some topics which are more important to me than others and if I’m in a good discussion such as Peter, Anonalogue, and Elizabeth we having about immigration, we shouldn’t necessarily stop at 2 comments. Sorry, this was my third comment on this post. And to cheap shot Kate when she has created one of the more successful blogs in Canada is just that, cheap.
This makes me speechless ๐ Very well done! phentermine ( http://phentermine.webpark.pl/ )