Bill C-51: Asking the basic questions - Why, Where, When, What, Who?

Some genuinely curious Canadians are puzzled by the vociferous and passionate opposition to Bill C-51 -- why is it so bad?  Some have read the Bill and not found anything too controversial in it.  Others have pointed to the Government making some changes in the Bill's language.  Still others have expressed their "trust" in the "goodness" of Canadian legislators and government agencies.  (For those that are THAT naive, I think just pointing out that their trust has already been repeatedly betrayed should suffice: RED FLAG!  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/eva-prkachin/cses-spying_b_6575142.html)

While definitely not exhaustive, my thoughts are summarized here to avoid repeating the same points in different forums.  I have raised some basic questions: Why? Where? When? What? Who? 

WHY? 

Or rather, why now?  Despite jumping on the US bandwagon in 2003 to go attack a country (Afghanistan) that hadn't attacked Canada, the country hasn't seen any large-scale "terrorist" incident in the last 10 years?  No mass attacks, no plane hijackings, no threats to infrastructure, etc.  Canada is not even mentioned in the threats of most terrorist groups.  The Harper government seized the excuse of a deranged gunman shooting in the Parliament.  But in a country of 30 million, a solitary shooting incident whether it is in the Parliament in Ottawa or in the Eaton Center Mall in Toronto does not become the basis for changing some very serious laws!  

It appears that Canadian lives have more of a threat from drunk driving and operating cellphones while driving than from terrorism!  Current laws have managed to thwart current terrorist threats.  And they are getting more and more invasive, with the Supreme Court opening up Canadians' cell phones to police snooping before Bill C-51 was even passed. RED FLAG!  http://www.corporatesoothsayer.com/2014/12/supreme-court-opens-canadian-phones-to-police-snooping.html.  So why do we need new laws? 

WHAT? 

What are the new laws preventing or targeting anyways?  If they are the nation's reaction to curb terrorism like the Ottawa shooting, how come there are no gun-control provisions in the new law?  Why not de-weaponize our cities?  Who needs a gun in Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal?  Guns are made to kill.  Why should any civilian in today's civilized Canadian society be allowed to buy or possess a gun?  Wouldn't that be more effective? 

WHERE? 

Where should anti-terrorism focus be?  Terrorist threats largely originate outside of Canada.  Terrorist outfits like the Taliban and ISIS rely on weapons supplies and funding to sustain their crimes.  Why is it that new anti-terror legislation does not have a focus on foreign policy and cutting of funding and applying trade embargoes and sanctions against the financiers, funders and supporters of terrorism like Saudi Arabia?  Why is it that instead of severing ties with these terrorist regimes, Canada is busy arming them to crush their civilians' uprisings? RED FLAG!  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/31/combat-terror-end-support-saudi-arabia-dictatorships-fundamentalism.  Same story in Egypt. http://www.mediacoop.ca/story/canada-backs-violent-military-regime-egypt/33004  Why is our counter-terrorism policy's focus so "inward" looking?  How come the larger global perspective is completely ignored in the counter-terrorism narrative? 

WHEN? 

When did "counter-terrorism" legislation start?  The attacks against the parliament happened in 2014.  However, as this writer pointed out in an earlier post RED FLAG!  (http://www.corporatesoothsayer.com/2012/06/next-stop-canadian-government-to.html), 3 years ago in 2012 the Canadian government established a "counter-terrorism" unit to protect Canada's "energy" industry.  The only threat at that time to Big Oil's infrastructure was from the aboriginals / First Nations opposing pipeline projects and threatening even physical disruptions if the pipelines crossed their lands, disrupting their lives.  So is counter-terrorism merely an extension of the Canadian government's services as private security guards for the Big Oil industry, as observed in the arrests of Burnaby Mountain protesters against the Kinder Morgan pipeline? RED FLAG!  http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/david-suzuki-burnaby-mountain-support-kinder-morgan-protest. This becomes even more dodgy when seen in conjunction with the Canadian government's muzzling of environment science. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/20/stephen-harper-science-research_n_6019806.html

WHO? 

Who defines a "terrorist"?  A casual reading of any anti-terror law or bill would obviously seem innocuous because who wants any leniency for "terrorists"?  But WHO defines a terrorist?  As pointed above, in 2012 the counter-terrorism threat was focusing on First Nations.  Tomorrow it might focus on environmental activists like GreenPeace.  Next, it might focus on protesters like the Occupy movement, the G20 Summit protests in Toronto or other civilian protests.  If the gunman who attacked the Parliament in Ottawa cited Star Wars or a Hollywood movie like "Enemy of the State" as his inspiration, would he be a terrorist?  If he cited a deranged reading of a religion as his inspiration, is he a terrorist?  It becomes even scarier when our Defence Minister cannot define or does not even bother to define it and instead directs inquirers to "look it up" -- as in laws should rely on Google or Wikipedia's (or worse, Urban Dictionary's!) definition of terrorism?! RED FLAG!  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peter-mackay-skirts-debate-on-definition-of-terrorism-look-it-up-1.2961934  This is highly problematic as it leaves it open to the interpretation and creates a deliberate vagueness that governments and nefarious politicians can exploit to their advantage to silence dissent and legitimate protests. RED FLAG!   http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/anti-terrorism-bill-will-unleash-csis-on-a-lot-more-than-terrorists/article22821691/

Democratic Hypocrates grieve Saudi Dictator's death / riddance?

Mainstream news coverage of the Saudi Dictator's demise shows disgustingly low journalism standards. Consider this article by New York Times that mentions 2 contradictory statements without clarifying for its readers how this can be possible?

"[Abdullah] in at least two telephone calls CASTIGATED President Obama for encouraging democracy in the Middle East, saying it was dangerous."

"I always valued King Abdullah's perspective and appreciated our genuine and warm friendship” President Obama said. 

FRIENDSHIP?!  Sounds more like a sadomasochist Master/slave relationship!  Perhaps best illustrated by this spoof photo mocking Obama's deferential low bow when meeting the dictator! 

Barack Obama bows down to a brutal dictator

Civilian Uprisings or Insurgencies?

But that was not all.  NY Times conveniently skipped details of the Dictator's "SWIFT REACTION" when mentioning the civilian uprisings:

"When popular movements and insurgencies overthrew or threatened long-established Arab rulers from Tunisia to Yemen in 2011, Abdullah reacted swiftly." 

The fact that the article uses the word "INSURGENCIES" for the famed "Arab Spring" civilian protests and uprisings is shameful in itself!  "Rulers" conveniently replaces "Dictators" and "Kings" in this forgetful look back at recent history! 

Why is New York Times kissing up to the Saudi dictator?  Or is it simply following George Bush's presidential tradition? 

George Bush kissing a brutal dictator

Saudi Dictator's Legacy

Such is the disgusting legacy of the Saudi dictator that even in NY Times' "respectful" eulogy, one can find some interesting facts about this "genuine" friend of US Presidents. 

Here is a sprinkling of some facts mentioned even in this flattering article: 

• Abdullah considered democracy "dangerous"
• He was a war-monger, urging USA to attack Iran to "cut off the snake's head"
• His kingdom outlaws the practice of any other religion other than Wahhabi Islam
• His pet religious puppet cleric passed a verdict declaring street protests illegal
• He sent tanks to crush a civillian uprising in a neighbouring country (dictatorship of Bahrain)
• Women in his kingdom are arrested or beaten up by police for not covering up completely
• His kingdom postponed voting rights for women

The Big Question?

What are Canadian, American and British "leaders" doing kissing Saudi ass?  Why are the champions of democracy, free speech and women's rights cozying up to brutal dictators who crush and suppress their civilians and hate democracy??

Tweet Follow @TheIdeasOfMarch

Supreme Court opens Canadians' cell phones to police snooping

Watching "RoseWater" last night, I was disgusted that Canadian police have the same powers as Iranian police to snoop into citizens' personal lives without a warrant.  Canadians' cell phones - and their lives -- are now open to the police for snooping, without needing a warrant.  4 judges, 3 of whom were appointed by the conservative Harpocracy of Stephen Harper, gave these broad snooping powers to the police.  

My first reaction on reading the news was: "It is bizarre that 4 people, whose average age is greater than 65 years, can pass landmark judgments without demonstrating that they fully understand the power of the technology that is a cellphone"!  And nobody can do anything about their opinion! 

Firsty let's get the lingo right...  

A "Cell phone" is NOT just a phone today.  

• It is a computer.
• It is a repository of private documents.  
• It is the family photo album.  
• It is where 80% of all your private conversations happen and are stored. 
• It is an instrument for activists in a democracy, planning and expressing their dissent.
• It also is a window into private conversations that your co-workers, professional networks, friends, lovers and relatives have with you -- or with others! 
• It is also a library of books that you choose to read.
• It is also your collection of movies and videos you watch.
• It is a geographical history of your physical movement, places you have been to, businesses you have visited. 

In short, what is left of my private life that is NOT open to a cop that chooses to arrest me?  This is another step towards turning Canada into a police state where a cop can arrest and snoop through all my personal and private data to find more information to use against me.  

I don't feel safe knowing that my political intentions, ambitions and dissenting views (like this one) can be made visible to any policeman without a warrant?  Specially at a time when Americans and Canadians are horrified by police brutality and high-handedness, as evidenced by the widespread protests in the cases of Michael Brown and Eric Garner!    

Ridiculous Conditions don't make citizens feel safer! 

Of course the judiciary in their finely age wisdom didn't just give police access to your lives willy nilly without any checks and balances?  Here are a few checks: 

• The arrest has to be lawful. (And who gets to decide that on the spot? Let me see, my name is Officer Snoopyreach and I am scratching my head thinking whether this arrest I am making is lawful or not so I am not sure if I want to go through your phone to see if I can find a reason to claim it is lawful?!)
• The search of the phone must be made promptly.  (Great, so now the first thing a cop MUST do is search through my phone immediately on arresting me because as time goes by, they would not be able to find that precious incriminating evidence that my Facebook and email would provide?)
• The police don't have a license to just "rummage around the device at will".  (But how are you policing that? What is to prevent a cop who has forced open his way into a cell phone to not click on that tempting "Private Docs" app?).
• Police must take detailed notes of what private information they looked at and for how long.  (Great! I can imagine a cop taking copious notes like "Errr, went through John's porn collection and stared at the image of a dominatrix whipping a judge for 30 seconds before I orgasmed"). 

While I watch in amusement people freak out every time Facebook and Instagram update their privacy terms, Clueless Canadians will not utter a peep that any copy on the street can arrest them and search through their most private data and life events without a warrant!  

Laws like these are ridiculous not just because they encourage police high-handedness and make activists, demonstrators and dissenters feel unsafe -- they also take away the moral legitimacy for the Canadian government to speak out against censorship, privacy intrusions and snooping by countries like Iran and Israel). 

D'oh Canada! Our privacy stands unguarded and open to thee! 

Tweet Follow @TheIdeasOfMarch

BBC News Coverage of Israel-Palestine: David-Goliath?

Forget all this controversy about BBC's biased coverage of Israel-Palestine violence.  Let's just compare the damage. 

On the left:  Israeli home struck by Palestinian militant's rocket from Gaza. 
On the right: Gaza neighbourhood struck by Israeli bomb. 

Seems a bit much? Certainly not a measured response?  Perhaps not even a sane response? 

If there is such a huge David vs. Goliath contrast between the firepower of the two groups, I doubt if a balanced news channel would describe this as a "war" or "military response".  Sounds more like violent, barbaric slaughter. 



Tweet Follow @TheIdeasOfMarch

World Cup fever masks Canadian Government's sickness

The timing of Harper's government's announcement of approving the Northern

Gateway pipeline could not have been more sneaky!  It was probably counting on World Cup fever to hide Canada's sick policies.  While ignorant Canadians blare the horns of their flag-draped cars to celebrate the soccer victory of some remote country in Europe and get high on that opium for the masses (TV), Canada moves to approve the Northern Gateway. 

In some parts of the world, this would result in militancy and armed resistance by civilian militias -- which one hopes is the path that ultimately the First Nations will consider if all else fails.  

But for now, apathetic Canadians will just order that 4th beer on the patio.  At least we have a government that we deserve - lacking complete transparency and integrity.  
Tweet Follow @TheIdeasOfMarch

Dirty Oil Spills: Coming soon to a neighbourhood in BC...

While Canadian citizens were busy posting cutesy pics of their cats and nauseating selfies from Boxing Day sales lineups, Stephen Harper's Joint Review Panel sneaked in the green light for the Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline project.  I guess a democracy is only as good as its citizens.

Ironically, in the same week, images of the North Dakota oil spill appeared.  Surprisingly, when you type in "North Dakota oil spill" in Google Image Search, the first 75 pictures that come up do not show you any of those scary images of mushrooming fireballs exploding in the air -- like the one below: 

Oil spill in North Dakota, Dec. 2013

For me, David Suzuki's comments are the perfect thought-provoking summary: 

"Coastal native communities are desperate for economic development. They need jobs, they tell us that every time...So the economy is very important to them.  That's why their unified opposition to Northern Gateway is all the more striking.

They're telling us some things are simply more important than money, and no one is getting that."

Ha!  Try telling that to a nation obsessed with consumption and Boxing day sales. 

Tweet Follow @TheIdeasOfMarch

Genocide? A reminder of Canada's ugly past - and present

It is good to have humbling reminders of Canada's ugly past -- and present -- when the all-Canadian itch to fight other people's wars raises its head and we send our holier-than-thou jets to bomb other regions to help their populace.  Why not look at what we are our doing to aboriginal lands and people in our backyard first?  

Hence, I found this campaign asking UN to term Canada's treatment of its aboriginals as genocide, quite relevant.  This video helped me understand why this issue was important -- and former Prime Minister Paul Martin agrees. 

Even today, land-grab and forceful disruption of aboriginal people in Canada continues, with just one small example being the Fish Lake in BC.  

Tweet Follow @TheIdeasOfMarch

Dear St. Mary's University, the correct word is RAPE

The news coverage around the 'froshing' at St. Mary's University is nauseatingly cute:  It is not "unconsensual sex".  It is called RAPE.  And Mr. Premier of Nova Scotia, they are not "kids".  They are ADULTS in their 20s.  And this is more than "disturbing".  It is unacceptable and ILLEGAL. 

For starters, the news media can start calling a spade a spade, and call rape what it is:  RAPE.  ADULTS not kids.  And let's end this stupid "froshing" by neanderthals.  It does not belong to an institution of learning (loosely speaking). 

And "Sensitivity seminar" is NOT a solution for these ADULTS.  They should be required to complete 60 days of full time community service with rape victims, for a start, so they never again consider RAPING of UNDERAGE women a joke. 

Tweet Follow @TheIdeasOfMarch

Air Canada's score: Women 0, Cosmetics Industry 1

Air Canada's 360 magazine shows an image of women being trained in the "art of proper makeup application and grooming" to be flight attendants.  I found it ironic that 50 years later, the "art" has become so ubiquitous that Air Canada doesn't have to pay women to learn it.  Media conditioning by the cosmetic industry has ensured that everyone (including women) expects makeup and women to go together. 

Score: Women 0, Feminism -1, Cosmetics Industry 1.   #MediaConditioningWorks.

Tweet Follow @TheIdeasOfMarch

Gun owners shoot themselves - self-eliminating problem?

Call me mean but this news made me smile: Gun-owners and gun dealers shooting themselves and their friends and family. At gun shows too.

It actually made me laugh!  I have heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy but this is more like a self-healing problem. If all the gun owners accidentally shot themselves, the debate over gun control laws would be over!

Tweet Follow @TheIdeasOfMarch

Another smart CEO? Another B2C Social Media Disaster? Why 3 CEOs made the same mistake.

Behind every B2C social media disaster, there seems to be a smart, successful CEO who chose to stay oblivious and arrogant. 

Question 1: Imagine you are a rock star. (Or famous politician). You are waiting for a delayed flight at the airport. Someone comes running to you and tells you excitedly that there are 1,500 of your fans -- 3 plane loads full -- two gates down from where you are at, dying to talk to you. Would you not at least go shake some hands, sign some autographs and get some pictures taken?

Question 2: Imagine you are at a tradeshow and someone tells you that 10,000 of your most loyally engaged customers are packed in the hall 50 feet away from you. Would you not go and talk to some of them to hear what they have to say? Or even better, say something to them and get their instant feedback?

Question 3: Imagine your VP of Product Marketing comes running to you and tells you excitedly that there are TWO MILLION of your company's loyally engaged fans, waiting to hear from you on Twitter and to tell you in great detail about exactly how they experience your product, how you can improve it and how they want you to succeed. Would you not start some conversations, sharing your thoughts with them once a week (or month!), monitoring the feedback and spend at least 15 minutes daily on your Flipboard social news aggregation app to skim through your fans comments?

If you answered "NO" to the above, then your business deserves the disasters that come your way -- and they are coming, sooner than you think!

It is not just biblical punishment for arrogance. There was a time when product marketers would pay top dollar for focus groups, market research, consumer surveys and other such niceties to find out what their consumers were REALLY thinking, how they experienced their products, etc.

Then the world changed in 2011. But business schools could not change. How could they? Their faculty still guards their "proprietary" Powerpoint slides like an ironically ancient treasure in an open world where someone paid $120 million for a company called "SlideSHARE"! Marketing MBAs are still being taught the "cutting edge" ways that worked in 2002 -- just about as relevant as an e-book on surviving a dinosaur stampede.

So today, when social media tools offer powerful monitoring and feedback gathering capabilities, B2C high-tech companies (who are expected to be particularly savvy when it came to social media management) seem to be lost at sea.

Consider these case studies of 3 CEOs of high-tech companies, well poised to take advantage of the active social communities they are blessed with yet failing to do so resulting in a shrinkage of their customer base.

1. CEO raises pricing, makes a video, then apologizes and backtracks. 
Company:  Netflix 
Business:  Online movie and game rentals
Facebook:  3.6 million fans
Twitter:  250,000 followers
Mistake:  Did not consult customer base BEFORE unilaterally changing service offerings and pricing.
IMPACT: Customers started leaving in protest, hurting Netflix stocks and revenue. 
EVENTUALLY: Netflix reversed its changes after an apology.

2. CEO raises pricing, customers flee, makes a video, then apologizes and backtracks. 

Company:  SmugMug 
Business:  Photo-sharing and photography e-commerce
Facebook:  102,000 fans
Twitter:  35,000 followers
MISTAKE:  Did not consult customer base BEFORE unilaterally changing service offerings and pricing.
IMPACT: Customers packed up and left for other competitors, discovering along the alternative had better functionality anyways. 
EVENTUALLY:  SmugMug reversed its pricing strategy allowing subscribers with lower priced packages the ecommerce functionality as before. 

3. CEO supports a political initiative, customers flee, then apologizes and backtracks.   

Company:  GoDaddy 
Business:  Web domains and hosting services provider
Facebook:  173,000 fans
Twitter:  161,000 followers
MISTAKE:  Did not consult customer base BEFORE coming out in support of a troublesome online piracy act.
IMPACT: Customers picked up and left for the competitor who offered special pricing to facilitate the exodus. 

EVENTUALLY:  GoDaddy reversed its stance and came out against the piracy act.

4. CEO changes terms of use, customers get furious, then apologizes and backtracks.

Company: Instagram

Business:  Photo sharing social network

Facebook:  2.5 million+ fans

Twitter: 13 million+ followers

MISTAKE:  Did not consult user community BEFORE changing privacy terms...

.....

Sorry, I promised to limit myself to 3 cases.  But you are hopefully starting to see the pattern here?

The Solution - Change the "AFTER" to "BEFORE"

Companies are either oblivious to the room full of hundreds of thousands of loyal fans or just too terrified to engage this fan following in a meaningful way to shape their decisions and public stance on issues. Or perhaps just too lazy. Or arrogant. Whatever the cause, they are not communicating with their fans BEFORE making key decisions.  Instead, they prefer the embarrassment of eating humble pie AFTER the harm is done and issuing apologies and begging for forgiveness. 

These CEOs agree with my assertions. Instagram's CEO acknowledged "we failed to communicate".  The CEO of Netflix went a step further in saying "I slid into arrogance". 

Moral of the Story

Mr. CEO, go on your Twitter or Facebook page, shake hands with a few fans, sign a few autographs and listen to the hundreds of thousands of people who have something to tell you.  Just LISTEN.  There are tools available to help you with that.  

Listen not once or twice.  Listen for 30 minutes every day.  Remember what the doctor said about a tweet a day?

ARTICLE SPECIFIC

Tweet Follow @TheIdeasOfMarch

What Instagram and SmugMug don't get about "pro" photography - and GoPro does

It is ironic to see two businesses built on photography, demonstrating such a lack of understanding of what the democratization of photography means:  Everyone is a "Pro" photographer.  Doesn't matter if they are not. They THINK they are and that is enough.  Smart businesses like GoPro get it and capitalize on it.  SmugMug and Instagram are still struggling with it.

Back in August, photo-hosting ecommerce site SmugMug pulled off a Netflix in its unilateral price increase, as high as 60% while taking away the ability to sell photos online for the "non-Pros".  

In its explanation, SmugMug's CEO cited rising storage costs (which did not make sense as storage costs for everything are declining, not increasing).  More importantly, he cited "Pros" using more storage.  There were some snobbish "Pros" who jumped to SmugMug's defence saying any "Pro" who makes a living by selling photography would not mind paying $100 extra to do so. 

The problem is that everyone thinks they are a pro!  Not just those who carry 3 cameras to a wedding photography shoot to pay their rent.  Every consumer is a prosumer, every prosumer is a pro.  It doesn't matter if the snobs don't think so and if the "real" pros don't agree.  Every consumer sees themselves as a pro, their photography as art, their Friday night drunk shots in a cheap club as images worthy of celebrity worship in People magazine... and so on.  

Are you with me Instagram?  You are not stealing these drunk fools' photos.  Your privacy policy changes were perceived as stealing these pros' art!  You are not doing ad sales.  You are involved in an art museum heist!  Fire that dinosaur executive from the 1980s who just wants to "monetize" everything.  Connect to your customers over social media networks -- like yourself -- to understand what they want. 

Eventually there was an exodus of customers.  SmugMug reacted in November and gave back the "non-pros" the option to sell photos. And Instagram reversed its policy changes. 

Welcome to the democratization of "pro" photography.  The memo was sent 10 years ago. 

Tweet Follow @TheIdeasOfMarch

Harpocracy: PM wants to stop bad business by doing it one more time

Stephen Harper acknowledges there is a bad trend of China taking over oil sands and that it has to stop -- except he will stop it by doing it one MORE time? Harpocracy, anyone?

At least he finally acknowledges what I pointed out in my first blog post earlier this year that the flow of foreign money in the tar sands is disturbing and cannot be in Canada's best interest. 

Yet all this "strict, tough-talk" can be ignored as just green-washing because he went ahead and authorized another $15 billion buyout of Canada's tar sands. 

Harpocracy - Yes, let's stop it, by doing it once more

Tweet Follow @TheIdeasOfMarch

Mayan temples banned for Mayans, tourists still welcome

Mexico banned the Maya from holding their ceremonies and rites at the Mayan temples to preserve the cultural heritage (for tourists?).  Did that sound as ridiculous to you as it did to me?

Let me see.  A Mayan temple would be a place where the Mayans go to perform their rites.  Just because they were conquered does not mean the temple is not sacred to them any more?  Or that they should be BANNED from using it for its original purpose?

Preserving the Mayan heritage, presumably for tourists, by banning the Mayans. That makes my head spin. 

Tweet Follow @TheIdeasOfMarch

Canadians are a funny people who deserve a Harpocracy.

Now only if all the Canadians rooting for Obama like crazy could take only about HALF as much interest in their OWN elections - and VOTE, our cities wont have to suffer Rob Ford and Stephen Harper won't be auctioning away Aboriginal & environmental rights to China, without subjecting China to litigation in Canadian courts.  How many Canadian Obamaphiles know what Harper signed on Oct. 31??

Yet, everyone knows why Obama is great for USA! Oh Canada! For how long would you fight other people's wars and take more interest in your neighbours' politics than your own Harpocracy?

It is cute to see you get all excited about some Prince getting married in UK and "no change" in government in USA.  But when you snap out of your euphoria, you may want to put out some fires in your backyard.

Tweet Follow @TheIdeasOfMarch

Canada Customs asks useless questions, wastes time -- and my money

The transcript of the questions asked by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officer provides much fodder for laughter once you are over the initial frustration. It is borderline insanity (I like the double pun) when you compare the interviews going to and coming back from USA on a recent business trip. 

Going to USA, as a foreign visitor: 

US Customs: Where you going? 
Soothsayer: San Francisco. 
US Customs: What for? 
Soothsayer: To attend a business conference. 
US Customs: For how long? 
Soothsayer: 5 days.
US Customs: *wave of the hand*.... Next?

Coming back "HOME" to Canada, as a Canadian citizen bearing a Canadian passport, with a 'business' trip indicated on my form, declaring $0 in purchases: 

CBSA: Where are you coming from? 
Soothsayer: San Francisco. 
CBSA: Do you have any alcohol or cigarettes on you? 
Soothsayer: No. (Read the form I just handed to you.  It is already indicated on that.)
CBSA: Did you go anywhere else from San Francisco? 
Soothsayer: No.  (Funny question? Do you normally ask people if they went somewhere else?  Just because I am wearing my Vibrams makes you think I am not coming back STRAIGHT from a business trip? Well, my line of work tolerates that!  Also, I am coming back on a 6 hours red-eye flight -- sorry for not looking my sharpest for you at 6am but as a rule of thumb, I don't usually dress up to impress people my taxes pay for.  There is a mugshot of me on the passport showing how I look like when I am dressed.  Oh, and by the way, I did go for a clothing optional personal retreat south of San Francisco, but that information is Not Your Fucking Business (NYFB). Next question?)
CBSA: Where did you stay when you were in San Francisco? 
Soothsayer: The Marriott.  (There are 23 Marriott properties in the San Francisco area but a useless idiotic question like that did not deserve further elaboration in the answer. NYFB.) 
CBSA: *Leafs through the passport pages, fishing for something else to hang on to... Oh you travel a lot to Mexico? 
Soothsayer:  *silence*. (I travel a lot, period, dumbass, period. NYFB.)
CBSA: 2 times this year?!
Soothsayer:  Three. (NYFB)
CBSA: Oh, 3 times this year?!!
Soothsayer:  *silence*.  (Actually in the last 12 months, it is 5 times.  Also visited Australia 2 times this year. How come your eyes didn't perk up on that? What about my trip to Indonesia and Hawaii?  Did that not set off any alarm?  I wonder if you will be able to hold your coffee if I tell you I am visiting Mexico again next month? NYFB)
CBSA: What do you do in Mexico? Do you go for business or pleasure? 
Soothsayer: Vacation. (NYFB)
CBSA: *continues leafing through the passport, starting to feel the awkwardness of my curt responses and sensing that he is running out of my courtesy*... Errm.. Where do you stay when you go to Mexico? 
Soothsayer: *silence*.  I counted to 5 on a special, slow count before giving him the most blank, stupid look I could muster at 7am as I slowly responded,
 "A resort?".  (Seriously?  What is your IQ?  Who hired you for this job?  Where else do you think 99.99% of Canadians traveling to Mexico for a vacation stay?  Your aunt's basement? What was the answer you were looking for?  I would have told you I stay at my drug baron friend's cabana overlooking the ocean? Why are you re-opening the file on that trip anyways? I already answered and satisfied one of your equally retarded colleagues when coming back from THAT trip!  You have asked me 9 questions, only 2 of which are directly relevant to this trip and only 1 of which serves any purpose for the Government of Canada!). 

Finally this ordeal ended silently.  I think CBSA boy sensed that one of us was going to explode either in comical laughter or in frustration.  

Hey CBSA boy, what happened to "Welcome back to Canada", "Welcome back home" or just a simple "Welcome back"? How about showing some courtesy to the business travelers who just went and generated some revenue for Canada, generated their own salary to pay their taxes which in turn pay for your salary to harass them when they come back?  Wow, the ridiculous viciousness of this cycle just blew my mind! 

Oh and by the way, I stay in a cabana overlooking the ocean in Mexico.  And you didn't ask but in case you were interested, when in Indonesia, I stay in a hut in the rice paddies. 

Tweet Follow @TheIdeasOfMarch

TD Bank treats Iranian borns like Japanese Canadians in 1941

TD Canada reminds me of the shameful treatment of Japanese Canadians in 1941 during World War II in its xenophobic treatment of Iranian Canadians. Disturbing news -- TD Canada bank cancelled bank accounts for several Canadian customers whose origin is from Iran.  To me, discriminating against a Canadian citizen merely on the basis of their ethnic origin is a racist and xenophobic measure.  Treating one bonafide Canadian citizen differently from another based on their country of birth is a mockery of the Canadian citizenship ceremony, the oath of allegiance and the Canadian passport.  It serves as a reminder that corporations and the Canadian government can shamelessly revert to treating some citizens as 2nd-class citizens for their own political interests. 


I don't care about what is happening in Iran -- it is immaterial.  The country has not attacked Canada in the last 70 years nor is Canada at war with Iran. But WAIT -- that is EXACTLY the point!  EVEN IF Canada was at war with Iran, discriminating against Canadian citizens based on their origin evokes this country's shameful tarnished legacy of abusing and discriminating against Canadians of Japanese origins 70 years ago during World War II. 


I am not of Iranian origin.  However I strongly believe that the country of birth should not be used as an excuse to discriminate against Canadian citizens.  Whose turn would it be NEXT? "Jamaican-Canadians"? "Israeli-Canadians"? "Ukrainian Canadians"?  "Polish-Canadians"? 


Tell TD Canada Trust on their Twitter and Facebook pages that "T-H-E-Y" ARE just "Canadians". 


I am cancelling my two accounts with TD Canada tomorrow. I encourage everyone to cancel and move their accounts away from TD Canada and send a strong message to the corporation to respect the oath of citizenship. **UPDATE**: Share your story about switching from TD Canada at this website: "Switch in Solidarity".

Please also join the Facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/CondemnTDonIranians. 

Tweet Follow @TheIdeasOfMarch

Harpocracy: Shell wants nuclear power in Canadian tar sands while Germany goes Nuclear free

Another example of how Harpocracy allows the Canadian energy sector to act ridiculously: while post-Fukushima Germany is shutting down nuclear plants to go nuclear-free and leveraging solar energy to consume less non-renewable energy resources, meeting 50% of national demand on a weekend from solar, Shell is suggesting using nuclear power in Canada -- keep reading, it gets better -- to extract tar sands oil.  This coming from Shell with a tarnished track record of massive oil leaks in Nigeria and in the North Sea in UK waters.

Using nuclear power to extract tar sands oil which is already taxing the environment with higher emissions -- can ethical oil get any dirtier?  Is this a breakdown of sensible Economics?  Spending dirty energy to find more dirty energy?  Sounds like a vicious cycle!!

In 50 years, would the world look back at Canada's short-sighted policies scornfully? 

Manulife Financial offers me a future but no e-statements (like 125 years ago)

Manulife has the nerve to offer me a "future" -- while acting like a company born in 1887.    

They do not offer e-statements via email or on their website, at least not for my group RRSP. I would not lose much sleep over this first world problem but it was still very surprising that a Canadian financial institution would not offer electronic statements in 2012!  That they would squander such an easy green-washing opportunity and not even pretend that they care a little bit about not chopping down trees while reducing their costs!  


Out of curiousity, I went to their website's CSR section.  The first paragraph reads: 

Manulife’s approach to corporate social responsibility around the world aligns with our focus on delivering strong, reliable, trustworthy and forward-thinking solutions for our clients and for the communities where we work. 

Forward-thinking solutions? In Manulife-speak, it means smoke flares.

Tweet Follow @TheIdeasOfMarch

WestJet, please don't ask silly, redundant questions!

Bad user interface is usually annoying to me.  It shows a lack of attention to detail and a lack of respect for the audience. 


Consider this example from WestJet's website which asks the same question two different ways when making a reservation.  I wonder what happens if you select "Master" for the title but then select "Female" as the gender.  Would the system accept it?  I did not try it -- was too busy completing my reservation.  That is the point WestJet. Don't ask me silly redundant questions when I am in a rush trying to finalize my reservation!

Tweet Follow @TheIdeasOfMarch