Fake Controversy #4 – Trevor Noah

Here we go. Another bullshit controversy over nothing. Trevor Noah will be taking over the Daily Show, and already people are trying their best to take him down. Apparently he made some “offensive” tweets, years ago, that people have dug up in a sad attempt at investigative journalism.

I’ll keep this short and sweet, who cares? These are jokes. Get over it.

I’m really sick and tired of the constant faux outrage hurled at anyone who tweets even the mildest form of politically incorrect humor. Just leave the guy alone. If he was a genuine racist or sexist then I can see why people would be upset, but he isn’t. He’s not even a comedian I find very funny, but now these bloggers who have too much time on their hands (and who give all of use other bloggers a bad reputation), push me to the point where I’m forced to defend him.

To anyone who genuinely is trying to “protest” him, please leave this planet and never return.

A Conservative Victory Within Reach!

Using http://www.threehundredeight.com I like to provide some commentary to their numbers every once in a while. The trend of strong polling for the Conservative Party is continuing, and it looks like the question will be around if Harper can get another majority government. If he were to pull this off, it would truly be an astonishing victory. #Harper2015

The Greatest Bill Maher Monologue Of All Time!

As a conservative and a Catholic I take serious issue with many of the things Bill Maher has said during his career, but over the past year, he’s finally starting to turn things around. Anyone concerned with left-wing political correctness must see this clip. It warmed my heart!

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/maher-rips-deeply-stupid-pc-liberals-tells-media-matters-to-shut-the-fck-up/

The Battle For Niqabs: Democracy or Courts?

I’ve touched on this issue before, but I think the most resent example only highlights this massive problem in our democracy.

Back in 2011, Stephen Harper enacted a law that required women during the citizenship ceremony to reveal their face when making their oath to become Canadian. This is a very touchy subject, however it has the support of an overwhelming of Canadians (70%).

While my personal opinion is split (I lean more in favor of Harper however), what bothers me is that people are challenging this law in court.

What happened to democracy? I understand that there are many instances where a government could potentially infringe on someone’s constitutional freedoms, but this isn’t one of those cases. The niqab isn’t even a religious requirement.

In the future, let’s reserve the courts for serious challenges. We don’t need to run there every time the government makes a law we don’t like. It only hurts democracy in the long run.

University Budgeting

I wrote this for my school paper regarding budget cuts, but I think much of it can apply to any school facing the same thing

The amount of complaints I’ve heard regarding Laurier’s budget cuts over the past few weeks have been frustrating. As a member of the Students’ Union, we have no control what gets cut.

After voicing the concerns many have with the school, I feel extremely sympathetic to anyone who loses their job. But with my sympathy, comes an understanding of the university administration’s actions.

These cutbacks aren’t a villainous act of oppression brought on by an elitist/ corporate hegemony, but instead are fairly reasonable steps that are needed to reduce the looming deficit.

The fact is, 80 percent of the Laurier budget goes towards paying salaries and benefits. And any corporation that’s spending 80 percent of a budget on workers, should not be accused of trying to undermine them. The rhetoric I’ve heard over the past few weeks about how Laurier is somehow trying to hurt our fellow students and teachers is blatantly misleading.

I get that some people hate the idea that schools have budgets. Some profs and students have expressed the view that in the perfect world, schools wouldn’t run like a business, we would all come to engage in critical thought, and leave after 4 years feeling enlightened. But that’s not how the world works.

What I hear is a lot of complaints, and not enough suggestions about how this budgetary crisis can be solved without these cuts. What solutions does the university have? Raising tuition is out of the question for a host of reasons, so what’s the viable alternative?

What bothers me is that most students support budget cuts instead of tuition increases, but then try and demonize Laurier when they realize it’s their programs that might be affected. That only highlights the hypocrisy of this outrage.

I major in both Poli Sci and North American Studies. I love both my programs and all my profs, but if a serious cut was needed, I would understand if it were to come at my expense.

However it’s not really coming at the students’ expense. Sociology for example can still be pursued by students if they want. The faculty workers are the ones suffering, so I’m sympathetic to them, but when I hear these exaggerations about how the students will somehow lose all quality education, I roll my eyes.

The university has gone out of it’s way to target the less popular faculties, and ones that don’t tend to lead to jobs, in order to minimize the pain to students and teachers. And it’s not even cutting until the deficit is whipped out. It’s cutting just to minimize the impact. No tenured professors are getting fired, and it’s likely the most fair deal us students could ask for.

So while the “Outrage Brigade” is in full force, screaming up at the sky that our President Max Blouw is out to ruin our school, they neglect the facts.

Not to mention, I don’t think people understand the money that the profs make. Most of them make $165,000 a year, with a 6% increase annually. If the profs collectively agreed to stop the increase for a couple of years, many of these jobs would be saved.

University students of all people should understand what it’s like to stretch a budget. Sometimes we just don’t have the money to go to a bar, or go watch a movie. I personally had to give up buying more Nicki Minaj posters. (I got that calendar though)! The university is doing the responsible thing and reducing it’s operating costs, and it’s better for us all in the long run.

Harper Is Like Stalin?

So I had the displeasure of reading a long, uninformed rant, courtesy of rabble. Apart from getting numerous things wrong, and painting Harper as some sort of criminal, it ended off comparing our Prime Minister to Joseph Stalin. Ridiculous. The author wrote, “In his hyper-partisan style, putting the Party above the government, and above the country, he shares some disquieting features with Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin.

For more that a decade after he assumed power, Stalin did not even hold a government position in the USSR. He ruled as General Secretary of the Communist Party, full stop. He had no need of some useless government job, such as being President, until the Soviet Union was at war.”

This just highlights why we shouldn’t take anything from rabble seriously.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2015/03/harper-not-really-canadian-conservative#.VQG5tPZhrQk.facebook

Getting Offended From Comedy

I got into an argument with someone recently who insisted that “comedy can go too far.” And while I agree to some extent, this person has a pretty large list of topics that they deem unacceptable.

We’ve seen this trend recently over the past few years where social media activists have to prove a point by nagging people into meaningless apologies. And of course, comedians have been one of the prime targets of these bully tactics.

The controversy always plays out the same way. The comedian makes a joke (almost always a funny one), the social justice types complain that “X is not funny” or “there’s nothing funny about X”, and as my favorite comedian Bill Burr puts it, “you end up on the nightly news doing a split-screen with some blogger” trying to defend yourself.

This is just another example of political correctness ruining what used to be a fun, lively outlet for expression. What makes this even worse however, is that these protesters fundamentally don’t understand what comedy is. The best comedy consists of challenging political correctness in a funny way. The craft is supposed to offend, and it’s supposed to cover touchy issues. Not to mention, it’s the comedian’s show. The stage belongs to them, not the audience, and certainly not to people who watch a joke on YouTube.

This irony is obviously lost on people who’s job it is to be perpetually outraged at every opportunity, who have begun to actually destroy what has historically been one of the most progressive occupations in history.

That’s not to say that jokes can’t go too far, but the ones that cause controversy almost never do. The bottom line, is that a joke shouldn’t be considered offensive unless it’s a sincere thought from the person making it. These are jokes being told, not statements being made.

If we don’t look at the intent behind the joke, we are left with just words, which can be taken out of context, or misconstrued to mean anything. It’s like if someone who hates you makes a joke about your looks, and your best friend makes the same joke. The words might be the same, but the intent is different. When we isolate 12 seconds of an “offensive” stand up routine, and leave out all context, we aren’t accurately presenting the situation.

And to those people who believe that there are certain topics that shouldn’t be joked about, don’t realize how regressive and reactionary their thinking is.

Furthermore, one of the strangest things about all this is that the most horrific topics never receive backlash. Jerry Seinfeld, the world famous Jewish comedian, actually does jokes about the holocaust. And he’s not the only one. Louis CK, Gilbert Gottfried, Jon Stewart, and even Joan Rivers all make fun of that topic, and it never causes a stir. Instead, it’s jokes about petty identity politics that spur the anger.

And I think that basically sums up how inconsistent these bursts of outrage really are. When mass murder is being joked about regularly, finding anything else to be offended by is extremely petty. So let’s stop getting riled up every time someone says something we don’t like, grow some thicker skin, go down to a comedy club, and have a good time.

The Effects Of Low Oil Prices

Disclaimer: I wrote this piece with a friend of mine named Donnique Williams

Oil, by both value and volume, is undoubtedly the largest internationally traded good. This has brought about a less than stable hydrocarbon economy. While the price of oil has dropped substantially, it is imperative to note that the price of oil is linked to energy intensive service and goods production as well as the prices for other fuels.

Abrupt changes in this hydrocarbon economy, such as under or oversupply, breeds a wide array of ramifications on both oil producing and consuming countries.

The sharp dip in global oil prices convincingly qualifies for the abrupt changes category. An evaluation of the impact of the world is critical to fully understand how devastating or even beneficial such prolonged prices will have on involved parties.

Venezuela is one of the largest exporters of oil with some of the cheapest prices in petroleum. It was reported that subsidies cost the capital, Caracas, over $12 billion per year. In perhaps a politically obstinate move, President Nicolas Maduro has declared that the country will neither enforce higher prices or remove the subsidies. This is against the back drop of an over 60 per cent inflation, which has positioned the country to fall into a recessional spin.

Economic mismanagement has not helped their case. Interestingly, the government’s cautious approach in not increasing prices could possibly be because they wish not to have a repeat of the 1989 petrol price increase riots that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people.

Saudia Arabia, on the other hand, is the pearl of the oil producing world and is arguably the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries’ most influential member.

Saudi Arabia has such power that if it would cut back on its production, the global oil prices would return to to normal. However, Saudia Arabia has shown no indication of being a team player.

It is probable that the country’s nonchalance stems from its selfish desires to pressure the booming shale and oil industry of the United States and teach the members of OPEC discipline; but the most suspected reason is Saudia Arabia wants to knock out the competition.

The country has deep reserves, approximately worth $700 billion, and therefore can withstand low prices for a relatively long time. The logic behind this strategy is that the current affair of low oil prices will force higher cost producers such as Russia to shut down and in doing this, Saudi Arabia is optimistic about snapping up those newly available shares in the market; a long term plan, indeed, and a brilliant one at that.

However, onlookers must remember that Saudia Arabia employed this exact strategy in the 1980s and the result was a badly affected Saudia Arabian economy. Will the same strategy produce a different result?

Russia is another country heavily dependent on oil exports. It is one of the largest oil producers, with over 70 per cent of its income coming from the energy exportation sector.

The World Bank has predicted that Russia’s economy will downsize by 0.7 per cent if oil prices continue to slide. This forecast was built from the fact that the nation hemorrhages $2 billion for every $1 drop in oil prices.

This is beyond significant, but despite the assessment, Russia refuses to cut production citing that a cut in production will see an increase in demand by importer countries, and by extension the inevitable loss of their niche market.

Russia’s issues deepen even more: the western imposed sanctions on it over its support of the separatists in Eastern Ukraine has caused more harm than good. As a result, Russia’s chances of avoiding a recession are miniscule.

U.S. oil production levels are at their highest in 30 years. The extraction of gas and oil from shale formations via hydraulic fracking has been a major cause for the decrease in oil prices. Head of energy strategy at Citi, Seth Kleinman, said, “Shale has essentially severed the linkage between geopolitical turmoil in the Middle East, and oil price and equities.” This, in the American context, is an additional gain.

When discussing U.S. fracking, it’s also important to mention that it’s been a key factor in reducing greenhouse gases. President Obama has gone against many in the environmental movement that support him in order to push for natural gas extraction. Moreover, fracking has led to increased tensions between the U.S. and OPEC.

Like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and the other Gulf producers have accumulated massive reserves, which means they can absorb losses for some time as well without being devastated.

On the other hand, other OPEC members, including Nigeria, Iraq and Iran, are more limited in this regard, especially when one considers their great budgetary demands and dense populations. Their oil revenues must be consistent and sufficient at the same time. Elsewhere, the European countries have mixed feelings towards the situation.

With economies characterized by weak growth and low inflation, low oil prices are welcomed. Mathematics says that a 10 per cent decrease in prices will translate into a 0.1 per cent growth in economic output. A country like China, which is the largest net importer of oil, is set to benefit. Similarly, India imports over 70 per cent of its oil and thus, falling prices will ease the deficit on its current account. Low prices bring mixed blessings for Japan, even though it’s an importer of oil. The high inflation incited by the equally high oil prices is a critical political part of the current Japanese administration’s growth strategy to combat deflation.

And finally, for Canadians the drop in oil prices has also had mixed results.

For one, the consumers are happy. Seeing prices drop below a dollar a litre has made life easier for anyone with a car, but there’s a downside.

Provincial governments are having trouble balancing their books, and premiers like Kathleen Wynne are contemplating a carbon tax. While that would work with bringing government revenue up, the people at the bottom of the income scale would be hurt the most.

So globally, the ramifications from mass production of oil are numerous and intricate. While OPEC is aiming to get back the market share they’ve lost over the years, consumers are caught in a brutal tug-of-war.

It’s rumoured that OPEC will continue to produce more oil for at least two years, which leaves many governments scrambling for funds.

Hopefully, this crisis should serve as the ideal incentive for these countries to further diversify their economies.