Check out this video of Justin Trudeau calling the Environmental Minister a "piece of sh**" and then apologizing right after. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, huh? I secretly really like Justin Trudeau. I find it very entertaining actually, it adds some spice to Canadian politics that is lacking, according to those who don't follow the issues regularly. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting MPs and political actors should start to swearing to each other so that Canadian politics can have more appeal, but this remark in particular has given governmental politics slightly more attention than usual, and that it deserves.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Education System/Careers
By no means am I trying to discourage people from the necessary career or education paths. But rather, I'm hoping some of my complaints and concerns are things that other students think about to better prepare them for what is to come in the future and how important it is to stay positive and focused on what it is you would like to do! Enjoy.
Topics/Issues I've addressed in these videos:
- the education system
- economic inequality
- ethnic inequality
- the workplace environment
- post-graduate school
Topics/Issues I've addressed in these videos:
- the education system
- economic inequality
- ethnic inequality
- the workplace environment
- post-graduate school
PART 1
PART 2
PART 3
Monday, December 12, 2011
Why are the Percentages of Blacks so Small in Universities?
After three years of university, there is something that has been boggling my mind. Through my amazing program I have learned to analyze political phenomena from two different approaches. In the field of politics, many political theorists and analysts use either the "institutional approach", or the "societal approach" to try to explain how or why a political development has occurred.
I'm going to translate the institutional and societal approaches from the political setting to the social setting, to try and get us thinking about the possible answers to our question: Why are the percentage of blacks so small in universities?
This attempt to use political approaches to a contentious social issue is simply my way of thinking about the situation. Using very little empirical data, the analysis I'm doing is simply based on my prior knowledge of the university setting, and the black community setting. There are always, obviously, exceptions to every conclusion made or every cause brought forth. I just really want to get people thinking...
Institutional Approach= this approach assumes that institutions are created to shape the society, in other words, the causal arrow flows from the institutions to the society (institutions ----> society). The Charter of Rights and Freedoms for example, would have been created as a tool to shape the social and political and even cultural body of Canada.
In connection to the small percentage of blacks in universities:
The institutional approach would suggest that the institution of the university was created to enrol only certain groups of the society, or that it's standards shaped the body of people that would study in their institutions. A radical view to this approach would perceive the university, in it's initial days, as an attempt to enlighten and educate the predominately white body of people. A less radical view to this approach is that with the creation of the university, the amount of resources necessary to put into it's establishment only has allowed certain classes of people to be able to make use of the institution. In the past, as a result of racial dominance and slavery, blacks were thought of as of the lowest class, and didn't have the same financial opportunities as the white majority did which prevented them from attending university. In this case, it is the institution itself (of the university) that has attempted to shape the society (of blacks) to one that has a small percentage of university enrolment.
Societal Approach= this approach suggests that the conditions in society result in the creation of certain institutions; institutions such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for example was created as a reflection of society and for the purpose of fulfilling the needs of the society. This approach suggests that social forces are the main drivers of political development; the causal arrow flows from the society to the institutions (society----> institutions)
In the connection to the small percentage of blacks in universities:
This approach would suggest that the social trends and characteristics of the black community (in general) is the reason why there are such few blacks enrolled in university. A radical view of this approach would suggest that some of the common stereotypical activities that turn our to be trends in some black communities has stopped them from being qualified for university. This radicalist would suggest that the high percentage of teenage parenthood, the high high-school dropout rate, and the high crime rate in some black communities are all social factors that have driven them out of the spectrum of possible university applicants. In this case, it is the society (of blacks) that has prevented the institutions (of universities) from allowing them to have a comparable enrolment percentage to other races of people.
Now that both approached have been explained, here is what I think. I think both approaches are necessary to explain such a complex situation, and even with the use of these two approaches, the entirety of the situation would not be clearly explained. Being a third year student, I see the percentage of blacks in my classes getting smaller and smaller. It bugs me for the simple fact that I know no matter what your upbringing was, or how much money you have, every (non-mentally disordered) individual has the same capacity to learn. The way that you look has no correlation to your ability to be a scholar. The examples given above are not necessarily my views, but they are the views of many others and should be taken into consideration when addressing this topic.
Comment, enjoy :)
From the words of an intelligent young black man who beats the stereotypes:
"Well put. I believe it is a combination of the institutional approach which cultivated the initial make up of our society to set certain requirements and presets, and in turn, society has now been modeled to adhere to the standards which we place on institutions; using the societal approach. I feel we as black people, must further enhance our ambitions toward education, our expectations and accommodations for learning, and push the envelope on the expectations of black youth and students." - Troy Dennie, author of troydennie.blogspot.com
From the words of an intelligent young black man who beats the stereotypes:
"Well put. I believe it is a combination of the institutional approach which cultivated the initial make up of our society to set certain requirements and presets, and in turn, society has now been modeled to adhere to the standards which we place on institutions; using the societal approach. I feel we as black people, must further enhance our ambitions toward education, our expectations and accommodations for learning, and push the envelope on the expectations of black youth and students." - Troy Dennie, author of troydennie.blogspot.com
Relationships Series: Part Four
Question: Do you think you should only date people you can see yourself marrying in the future? See what we had to say!
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Canada and the US: Integration (Border Deal)
Firstly, I love Huffington Post Canada and CBC News for making the most concise but informative articles; they keep me up to date with ease! You are looking at a satisfied political junkie!
On a further note, the main issue of concern here is the Canada-US PERIMETER SECURITY NEW BORDER DEAL.
The below info, conclusions and summary were written by me.
In brief, the Obama government has proposed to the Harper government a new border agreement that will further integrate the Canada-US trading markets and essentially create a large degree of homogeneity between Canada and US laws, regulations and standards. For example, Canada's immigration laws will be lowered to the standard of the US's, for the sake of making border policy consistent. The two leaders have apparently been discussing and arranging for the implementation of the agreement since February, but the provisions of the agreement have not be finalized or shared with the public. This has led to much controversy within the Canadian political system. The Liberals are upset that Parliament has not been consulted with in regards to the agreement, and therefore have no accurate opinions to form about it besides the common criticism of the agreement being a threat to Canadian sovereignty.
Summary of the Agreement:
- $1-billion price tag
- to harmonize information sharing in order to ease trade, reduce border bottlenecks, and strengthen law enforcement cooperation
- institute a new, integrated entry-exit system that would allow officials on both sides of the border to know in real time who is coming into and out of their countries
How the agreement poses as a threat to Canadian sovereignty:
* privacy concerns: the sharing of information about each Canadian citizen poses as a threat to Canada's privacy, that is inherent in the country's right to being a sovereign body. It is not normal for a country to allow such a transparent flow of information with another country.
* Canada is being encouraged to submit to the policies and regulations of the US, which undermined their ability to making their own policies and regulations as a country; commentators suggest that the agreement is not a compromise of the two countries coming together to create policy, but rather it is an agreement that has resulted on the Canadian government agreeing to the demands of the American government.
* "play to fears that the conservatives are selling out this country's sovereignty and undermining privacy rights in exchange for some illusory access to American markets."
Possible 'pros' of the Agreement:
* Greater flow of trade, allowing for fluidity within the trading system in which we share with our biggest trading partner
* Further integration of markets: may allow for a better consistency in prices of goods and greater access of those goods in both countries
* Canada will get more power to track unemployment insurance recipients who skip the country and they also have greater power to monitor landed immigrants who don't spend enough time here to meet residency requirements
There are a few things I drew upon while reading up on these issues:
1- Executive Federalism- this is a practical example of executive federalism: decisions are being made between the elites of governments, with no consultation of other political actors. No referendum has been held, no public release of the negotiations or agreements have been released. Executive federalism is something that our country has established as one of it's main federal characteristics, but how far will we go? The further governments take executive federalism, the weaker the legitimacy of decision-making becomes.
2- Multilevel Governance- countries are becoming more and more susceptible to governing through multi-tier systems of governments: instead of the most important policies and issues being worked out through domestic or national agreements between the original two levels of government (federal and provincial/regional), countries are more and more likely to perform governance at the international level. Multilevel governance has been dominating 21st century political action, and I'm not sure whether the positives outweigh the negatives or vice versa. Some say that the popularity of national governments working more closely with other national governments as opposed to their own constituent governments either (1) enhances centralization by allowing the national government to make crucial decisions for the whole of the country or (2) enhances decentralization by forcing national governments to consult and cooperate with their constituent governments even more than before in regards to issues that will not only affect the country as a whole, but that will have direct implications on the regional markets, resources and policies.
3- Intergovernmental Relations- the lack of transparency in intergovernmental relations is clearly demonstrated through this situation: many government officials (MPs), never mind ordinary citizens or political activists have not seen the details of the agreement
Further Information:
*Interestingly, some Americans are even opposed to the new agreement: the American Civil Liberties Union notes that, "in general Canada's policies are not as bad as our own," the ACLU said the United States should be "improving its own policies"...
*NAFTA "superhighway"- Something that will be developed as a result of the agreement: Transportations trucks of goods and cargo will be able to travel from Mexico straight to Canada, with no border stops. Good or bad?
* "North American ID System"- government's in North America will have access to the information of every North American citizen regarding migration. They will know when each person leaves or enters a border, and a file will be kept on their activities. This information will no longer only be accessible to the country of the said citizen. Thoughts?
Some questions:
* Do you think that the protectionary efforts of the countries (especially of the US) is morally justifiable, considering the fact that these efforts may be an infringement on Canada's sovereignty?
*Do you think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks of this agreement as far as you know it, or vice versa?
*Do you agree with this famous quote: "Living next to the US is a little like sleeping with an elephant. You always wonder if they will roll over on you."- Pierre Trudeau. ?
Thanks for reading! Comment, enjoy.
On a further note, the main issue of concern here is the Canada-US PERIMETER SECURITY NEW BORDER DEAL.
The below info, conclusions and summary were written by me.
In brief, the Obama government has proposed to the Harper government a new border agreement that will further integrate the Canada-US trading markets and essentially create a large degree of homogeneity between Canada and US laws, regulations and standards. For example, Canada's immigration laws will be lowered to the standard of the US's, for the sake of making border policy consistent. The two leaders have apparently been discussing and arranging for the implementation of the agreement since February, but the provisions of the agreement have not be finalized or shared with the public. This has led to much controversy within the Canadian political system. The Liberals are upset that Parliament has not been consulted with in regards to the agreement, and therefore have no accurate opinions to form about it besides the common criticism of the agreement being a threat to Canadian sovereignty.
Summary of the Agreement:
- $1-billion price tag
- to harmonize information sharing in order to ease trade, reduce border bottlenecks, and strengthen law enforcement cooperation
- institute a new, integrated entry-exit system that would allow officials on both sides of the border to know in real time who is coming into and out of their countries
How the agreement poses as a threat to Canadian sovereignty:
* privacy concerns: the sharing of information about each Canadian citizen poses as a threat to Canada's privacy, that is inherent in the country's right to being a sovereign body. It is not normal for a country to allow such a transparent flow of information with another country.
* Canada is being encouraged to submit to the policies and regulations of the US, which undermined their ability to making their own policies and regulations as a country; commentators suggest that the agreement is not a compromise of the two countries coming together to create policy, but rather it is an agreement that has resulted on the Canadian government agreeing to the demands of the American government.
* "play to fears that the conservatives are selling out this country's sovereignty and undermining privacy rights in exchange for some illusory access to American markets."
Possible 'pros' of the Agreement:
* Greater flow of trade, allowing for fluidity within the trading system in which we share with our biggest trading partner
* Further integration of markets: may allow for a better consistency in prices of goods and greater access of those goods in both countries
* Canada will get more power to track unemployment insurance recipients who skip the country and they also have greater power to monitor landed immigrants who don't spend enough time here to meet residency requirements
There are a few things I drew upon while reading up on these issues:
1- Executive Federalism- this is a practical example of executive federalism: decisions are being made between the elites of governments, with no consultation of other political actors. No referendum has been held, no public release of the negotiations or agreements have been released. Executive federalism is something that our country has established as one of it's main federal characteristics, but how far will we go? The further governments take executive federalism, the weaker the legitimacy of decision-making becomes.
2- Multilevel Governance- countries are becoming more and more susceptible to governing through multi-tier systems of governments: instead of the most important policies and issues being worked out through domestic or national agreements between the original two levels of government (federal and provincial/regional), countries are more and more likely to perform governance at the international level. Multilevel governance has been dominating 21st century political action, and I'm not sure whether the positives outweigh the negatives or vice versa. Some say that the popularity of national governments working more closely with other national governments as opposed to their own constituent governments either (1) enhances centralization by allowing the national government to make crucial decisions for the whole of the country or (2) enhances decentralization by forcing national governments to consult and cooperate with their constituent governments even more than before in regards to issues that will not only affect the country as a whole, but that will have direct implications on the regional markets, resources and policies.
3- Intergovernmental Relations- the lack of transparency in intergovernmental relations is clearly demonstrated through this situation: many government officials (MPs), never mind ordinary citizens or political activists have not seen the details of the agreement
Further Information:
*Interestingly, some Americans are even opposed to the new agreement: the American Civil Liberties Union notes that, "in general Canada's policies are not as bad as our own," the ACLU said the United States should be "improving its own policies"...
*NAFTA "superhighway"- Something that will be developed as a result of the agreement: Transportations trucks of goods and cargo will be able to travel from Mexico straight to Canada, with no border stops. Good or bad?
* "North American ID System"- government's in North America will have access to the information of every North American citizen regarding migration. They will know when each person leaves or enters a border, and a file will be kept on their activities. This information will no longer only be accessible to the country of the said citizen. Thoughts?
Some questions:
* Do you think that the protectionary efforts of the countries (especially of the US) is morally justifiable, considering the fact that these efforts may be an infringement on Canada's sovereignty?
*Do you think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks of this agreement as far as you know it, or vice versa?
*Do you agree with this famous quote: "Living next to the US is a little like sleeping with an elephant. You always wonder if they will roll over on you."- Pierre Trudeau. ?
Thanks for reading! Comment, enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)