Raising Minimum Wages is Hardly Misguided

Today I read an article penned by two men from the Fraser Institute, who argued that it was wrong for governments across Canada to be hiking minimum wages (Misguided minimum wage policies hurt workers).  The Fraser Institute is well-known for its conservative economic ideas.  In many cases, I agree with what folks from this think-tank have to say, but in this case I think that they couldn't be more wrong.

The two co-authors of the aforementioned article argue that most people who are in minimum wage jobs do not actually come from low-income households.  Many of them are young people who are still living with their parents.  I wonder, has it ever occurred to the folks at the Fraser Institute that these young people are still living with their parents because they can't earn enough to live on their own?  I guess not.  Indeed, for a lot of compassion-less conservatives out there, low wage work is all about paying your dues.  Yes, I agree that when a person begins entering the workforce, he or she cannot expect an executive-level salary. I also contend, however, that no worker, especially a young person who's trying to pay for school or at least make enough money to live out on his or her own needs to accept a wage that keeps them in perpetual poverty.

We now live in a country where good jobs with good salaries are extremely hard to come by. Instead, many people are forced to make do with precarious employment that offers no job security and no benefits.  So I would say that if this is the only kind of employment that many folks can get, particularly when they're young and just starting out in the workforce, the least employers can do is pay them a living wage.  Now of course, some people on the right, like the two men that wrote the article that appeared in the Toronto Sun, will always tell you that when governments raise the minimum wage, employers are less likely to hire and more likely to get rid of workers to keep costs down.  I don't believe this argument for a second.  In fact, I would contend that whether the minimum wage is as low as $10 per hour or as high as $20 per hour, all businesses will try to employ as few people as possible so that they can make as much profit as possible.  It's just a basic principle of capitalism, people!  If you want to make more money, you want less people doing more work.  Is it any wonder then why multi-million or even multi-billion dollar corporations that make record profits still manage to find excuses to lay off workers?

The truth is that as long as minimum wages stay too low for people to live on, many will be trapped in a cycle of poverty.  Young people in particular will be the biggest losers.  Many of them will end up living with their parents well into their 30's because they can't earn enough money to live on their own.  Would the folks at the Fraser Institute like to tell me how this is good for the economy?  It doesn't take an economist to know that people in low-wage jobs will contribute less in taxes and won't have any disposable income to spend on anything but the essentials. Indeed, any economist will probably tell you that when people don't have money, they don't buy things, so the people who sell those things make less money, forcing them to cut back on their own purchases and lay off workers. So I just don't see how keeping wages low, especially minimum wages that are themselves usually not enough for people to live on, is going to make our economy better.

Liberals' Cynical Use of Immigrants Continues

Last week, I read that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government plans to get rid of the language requirements for new immigrants to Canada.  Whereas his father sought to create a country where everyone spoke both English and French, his son seems to be intent on creating a country where people speak neither English nor French.  I wasn't surprised to hear about this latest move by our new Liberal taskmasters.  It just confirmed my worst fear that the government of Trudeau the younger would take multiculturalism where it has never gone before.  Furthermore, the Liberals have become emboldened by the popularity of their actions on the Syrian refugee crisis.  Indeed, it seems that as soon as the Grits swept to power, almost everyone in Canada started hopping on the refugee bandwagon.  By now, maybe you're asking me if I oppose taking in Syrian refugees.  Certainly not! In fact, I'm very happy that the new government of Canada has undertaken a massive effort to bring refugees from Syria into this country.  What I question is the motivation behind this effort. Trudeau's Liberals would have you believe that they're helping these people out of compassion.  Yeah, right. There is only one reason that the Liberals are taking in thousands of Syrian refugees and it can all be summed up in one word: votes.

Now just to be fair, all parties in Canada try to use the so-called immigrant or ethnic vote to their advantage.  But no one does this better and more successfully than the Liberal Party, going back to the days of the first Prime Minister Trudeau.  In fact, Pierre Trudeau didn't just use immigration to get votes.  He used to it re-make Canada in his image.  For instance, Trudeau flooded his home province of Quebec with immigrants whom he believed would become loyal federalists and Liberal voters.  Does anyone remember the 1995 Quebec referendum when then provincial premier, Jacques Parizeau blamed the defeat of the independence campaign on money and the "ethnic vote"?  A lot of people, including myself at the time, believed that his remarks constituted outright racism.  But the truth isn't so simple.  He made these remarks because he knew his history.  He knew that just a couple of decades earlier, Trudeau sought to flood Quebec with new immigrants who he believed would be loyal to his vision of a united, multicultural Canada.  Had he not done this, Quebec may very well have been celebrating its 20th year of independence last year.  But of course, Trudeau wasn't just thinking about Quebec when he liberalized Canada's immigration policies.  He wanted to flood all of Canada with new immigrants whom he believed would become loyal Liberal voters.  I would contend that this is one of the biggest reasons why the Liberal Party is sometimes called Canada's natural governing party, for they have been using immigration as a tool of social engineering to ensure that this country's future generations will be generations of Liberal voters.

The Grits' latest plan to do away with language requirements for newcomers to Canada is just a continuation of their ongoing, cynical use of immigrants as pawns to solidify their power over this country.  Why should they care if new immigrants to this country can't speak English or French well enough to fit in to Canadian society, even after they've become citizens?  After all, one doesn't have to understand too much of either official language to be able vote Liberal come election time.

What If Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders Becomes the Next U.S. President? A Grim Future Awaits the World Either Way

Up until about a year ago, few would have thought that either Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders would have a chance in hell of winning their respective party's presidential nomination.  But now as the primaries have recently begun, the prospect of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders vying for the U.S. presidency in this year's upcoming election has become much more likely.  So I'm now asking myself, what if one of these two men became the President of the United States?

Bernie Sanders: A More Just, But Much Weaker America

Right now, more and more Americans want to "feel the Bern," as the slogan goes.  But why? Probably because he's doing exactly what current U.S. President Barack Obama did when he first ran for president in 2008.  He's giving people hope - hope for a more just America.  There is, however, one significant difference.  Sanders openly describes himself as a "democratic socialist" and promotes policies like universal health care and free post-secondary education.  Who would have ever thought that a person preaching socialism, "democratic" or otherwise, would be a viable candidate for the U.S. presidency?  If Sanders were to be elected president, it would be as significant as when Barack Obama became the first non-white person to ascend to America's highest office.  Whereas Obama broke through the country's still formidable racial barriers, Sanders has the chance to break through America's ideological barriers and become the country's first president elected on a socialist platform.

I don't know if Sanders would be able to push through his entire agenda.  It will inevitably depend on what kind of Congress he has to convince.  Chances are, however, that he will be able to make some significant changes.  But those changes will come with a price tag - a big price tag, which may include the U.S. having to give up its status as the world's sole superpower, thereby leaving itself and its allies extremely vulnerable.  The reason is that policies like universal health care and free college education cost a lot of money.  That money will have to come from somewhere, and I'm betting that much if not most of it will come from what the U.S. now spends on defense.  I predict that should Bernie Sanders win the U.S. Presidency, the American military machine will be massively scaled down.  Bases will be closed, troop numbers will be reduced, funding for new technology and equipment will not materialize and the number of American ships, submarines and planes with significantly decrease.  At the same time, America's rivals, countries like Russia, China and Iran, all ruled by brutal, power-hungry dictators, will increase their military spending and expand their armies, navies and air forces.  Should a major global conflict ensue, such as the Third World War that I have talked about in some of my previous posts, the U.S. will find itself outnumbered and outgunned.  So as a citizen of both Canada and Israel, two countries that would undoubtedly call on the U.S. in a time of global war, you won't blame me if I see the prospect of a Bernie Sanders presidency as extremely unnerving.

Donald Trump: A Fast-Track to World War III

I see World War III as being inevitable, but not for the next decade or two.  Should Donald Trump win the U.S. Presidency, however, it may come a lot sooner.  Call him what you want, a bigot, arrogant, whatever, but the fact of the matter is that he's deadly serious. And his rise to Commander-in-Chief of the biggest military machine in human history may have deadly consequences.  Donald Trump has proven to be a firebrand loose cannon on the campaign trail and I doubt that he would be any different as President of the United States.  I would also describe him as a megalomaniac, very similar to Russia's Vladimir Putin.  It's no wonder then that Trump has said a positive thing or two about the Russian dictator.  But make no mistake, should Trump become president, any semblance of friendship between him and Putin will quickly disappear, for once American and Russian interests conflict with each other, which has been happening a lot lately, the egos of the two power-hungry men will inevitably collide, leading to the outbreak of the Third World War much sooner than I have anticipated.

Alternatives?

As I've already said, I don't think that there's any stopping World War III from happening, but I think the American people will be making a big mistake if they elect either Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump as their next president.  The former will make America much weaker than Obama has already made it, while the latter will push the U.S. into a global conflict before his first term even ends.  The only advice I can give to Americans is to elect someone that won't lead the country on such a radical path that will endanger its security and that of its allies. 

Can Israel Annex the West Bank Without Compromising the State's Jewish Identity?

Many Jews and Israelis including myself would love to see Israel formally annex Judea and Samaria, otherwise known as the West Bank.  But of course, many people say that doing so would compromise Israel's Jewish identity because there are as many as three million Palestinian Arabs now living in the disputed territory.  Assuming that they were all given the full rights of Israeli citizenship, Israel would be left with a razor-thin Jewish majority that would become a minority within a decade or two. My problem with this argument, mostly put forth by leftists and proponents of the so-called two-state solution, is that it wrongfully assumes that Israel would have to give all of the Palestinian Arabs living in Judea and Samaria citizenship.  I would actually contend that Israel has no obligation to make Palestinians in the West Bank citizens.  Predictably, my opponents will counter by saying that if Israel doesn't give these Palestinians citizenship, it will become an apartheid state.  Also not true.

Those of you who know the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict will know that after the 1948 War of Independence, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan formally annexed the territory that most of the world now calls the West Bank and gave all the inhabitants thereof Jordanian citizenship.  Jordan took responsibility for the Palestinian residents of the territory - a responsibility that it cannot just wipe away at the stroke of a pen.  Hence, if Palestinians now living in the Biblical Jewish territories of Judea and Samaria want to be in a country where they have the rights that citizenship gives people, most notably voting rights, then they are free to go to Jordan.  Besides, what the world now calls Jordan rightfully belongs to the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians, for it was wrongly seized from them and given to the Hashemites by the British (see: Jordan: The Real Occupied Palestine).

Moreover, if Israel did decide to annex Judea and Samaria without giving the Palestinian residents therein citizenship, it certainly wouldn't be the first time a country has withheld citizenship from some of its residents in order to protect its identity.  In fact, many countries in the Arab world do the same thing and receive little or no international condemnation for doing so.  For example, the majority of the people residing in the United Arab Emirates are not Emiratis or even Arabs.  They're mostly non-Arab guest workers and permanent residents.  In order to protect its national identity, the UAE grants citizenship only to those deemed to be descendants of the indigenous Arab population. A similar situation also exists in countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, where there are sizable, non-indigenous populations whose people are not afforded the rights of citizenship.  And guess which group of people never get full rights of citizenship in Arab countries?  Give up?  It's the Palestinians!  That's right.  For all the talk from dictators and despots about Arab brotherhood, Palestinians living in the various Arab states are given few if any rights, let alone citizenship.  In Lebanon, for example, a Palestinian not only has no vote; he or she cannot even be a doctor, lawyer, or member of any other distinguished and respected profession.  In fact, the only place in which any Palestinian is given full, equal rights of citizenship is in the State of Israel.  Even Palestinians in Jordan do not really enjoy all the rights that should come with being a citizen, because although they have a vote, they cannot change their country's government, which is under the firm control of the Hashemite dynasty, whose origins lie in Mecca rather than what we now call Jordan.  So Israel should certainly be forgiven if it decides to annex Judea and Samaria without giving the millions of Palestinians therein citizenship in order to protect its identity and preserve Jewish independence.

I believe that if Israel does eventually decide to formally annex the West Bank, the Palestinian residents should be given the same rights that permanent residents of any modern, democratic country are given, which include the right to work, freedom of movement and access to social services. Indeed, I think that if Palestinians in Judea and Samaria were offered such rights, they would welcome annexation. It's generally known, for example, that Palestinian residents on the eastern side of Jerusalem, would prefer to remain part of Israel rather than part of a dysfunctional Palestinian state led by corrupt despots.  That being said, Israel could only promise the Palestinians the rights that permanent resident status would give them if they agreed to put an end to their terrorist activities and accept the existence of the State of Israel.    

Netanyahu Strives to Improve the Lives of Minorities in Israel, and so do I

This past week, the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took a big step towards improving the lives of minority communities in Israel.  His government passed a plan worth NIS 15 billion (nearly 4 billion U.S. dollars) to invest in the infrastructure of Arab municipalities (see: Gov't approves NIS 15 billion to invest in Arab municipalities).  The plan is designed to narrow the significant gaps that exist in areas like transportation, education and housing that exist between minority communities and the Jewish majority.  By pushing through this program, Netanyahu has reaffirmed Israel's commitment to the fair treatment of its non-Jewish ethnic and religious minorities. Unfortunately, the media and many leaders in the international community have made Israel look like the worst place on Earth to be if you're an Arab or part of some other minority group.  The truth is, however, that Israel is light years ahead of its neighbors in the Middle East in terms of protecting the rights and interests of minorities.  In fact, Israel may even be ahead of some countries in the West when it comes to the treatment of minorities.  For example, the Arab citizens of Israel enjoy on average a much higher standard of living than most of their kinsmen in the Arab states.  This isn't to say, however, that Israel can't improve the lot of minorities any more than it already has.  Indeed, there are plenty of other steps that Netanyahu and his government can and should take to improve the status and well-being of Israel's non-Jewish citizens.

One major issue that comes to mind in regards to discrimination against Israel's non-Jewish citizens is the issue of land rights.  The fact of the matter is that the way land is allocated to the country's citizens is unfair to those who are not Jewish.  For example, the government bodies charged with making and administering land policy are not required to have non-Jewish representation.  The law does require, however, that half of the members of the council which heads the Israel Lands Administration be from the Jewish National Fund (JNF).  The JNF, like the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization, is a quasi-national institution that pre-dates the State of Israel itself.  The representation of the JNF in government institutions like the Israel Lands Administration is very problematic for minorities because it is accountable exclusively to Jews - and not just the Jewish citizens of Israel, but rather Jews around the world.  Hence, giving an organization like the JNF representation in a regulatory body that determines land policy in the state is not just unfair to Israel's non-Jewish citizens, but it also gives undue power to foreign Jews who are not citizens of Israel, hence compromising Israeli sovereignty.  I should also add that as the law stands in Israel now, state land cannot be transferred to anyone, except to the Jewish National Fund, which gives residency rights on its land exclusively to Jews and no one else.  In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that the JNF's practice of selling its land only to Jews was illegal, however the ruling did not set a nation-wide precedent. Moreover, a law passed in 2011 has given some communities another way to prevent non-Jews from putting down roots in the form of admission committees, which can reject a potential resident if he or she is "unsuitable to the social life of the community...or the social and cultural fabric of the town (see: "Admissions Committees Law" - Cooperative Societies Ordinance - Amendment No. 8).  In my humble opinion, the next step that Netanyahu and his government should take to improve the status and well-being of Israel's non-Jewish citizens is to kick the JNF and the rest of the quasi-national, dinosaur organizations out of the state's land and planning institutions and ensure fair representation for minority communities.

Another step that I think Netanyahu and his government should take is to eliminate legal discrimination based on non-Jewish citizens' refusal to accept the definition of Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state."  I would submit that non-Jewish citizens need only recognize the State of Israel, period.  Simply recognizing the State of Israel implies recognizing a Jewish state, because Israel as a non-Jewish state wouldn't be Israel.  Hence, I don't believe it is necessary for the Israeli government to outlaw participation of political parties or withdraw government funding from minority institutions just because they choose to commemorate the so-called Nakba and don't accept the government's definition of what Israel is.  If political parties, organizations or institutions actively call for the destruction of Israel, that's a totally different story and they should be punished to the full extent of the law.  But having another opinion on how Israel should be defined or how its history should be defined is not a just basis for discrimination.  Besides, there are parties and politicians currently sitting in Netanyahu's government from the Haredi parties who surely do not accept Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, because of their belief that a Jewishness and modern democracy don't mix - yet I don't see anyone trying to ban Haredim or their parties from participating in Israeli politics, nor do I see funding reduced for Haredi institutions that teach anything but democracy and equal rights.  Does anyone else see the double standard here, because I certainly do.

I've studied Israel's policies towards its non-Jewish minorities for years and have written more on the subject of minority rights in Israel than I can remember, as have many well-known scholars and political figures.  I have only highlighted a couple of issues in this post that I believe are the most pressing in regards to Israel's non-Jewish citizens, but of course this is not the whole story.  If you want to know more about Israeli policies that some of the country's non-Jewish citizens claim are discriminatory, please visit The Discriminatory Laws Database as published by Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel.  Please note, however, that Adalah's views are not necessarily my own.  For example, the organization implies that Israel's flag and coat of arms should be changed because they exclude non-Jewish citizens.  While I agree that Israel should do what it can to ensure full equality between Jewish and non-Jewish citizens, I do not support the notion of dumping our Jewish national identity, because to do so would be to destroy Israel itself.

Proud to be Non-Conformist

All my life, I've had trouble fitting in.  Being left out is no fun.  But you know what's worse than being left out?  Selling out - something that a lot of people have tried to make me do.  For example, I have been told more times than I can remember to be more physically active and eat healthier.  Yes, it's true, I don't live a healthy lifestyle.  I eat a lot of fatty foods and I seldom eat any fruits or vegetables, but I'm not going to apologize for that and I'm not going to change it just because other people want me to, no matter how close they are to me.  They can have my double cheeseburger when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!  

And as for not being physically active, I make no apologies for that either.  I don't care if you're a loved one or a medical professional.  Stop bugging me about my weight, stop telling me to work out and stop judging me for wanting to be sedentary.  I'm sorry, but the gym is not my friend, has never been my friend and never will be my friend.  Furthermore, I'm sick and tired of people bragging about their healthy lifestyles and how much they hit the gym.  If that's the way you choose to live, that's fine.  Just don't expect me to live that way.  Besides, I'm sure that many people who say they're happy about living a healthy lifestyle were once couch potatoes like myself.  Well congratulations, folks!  Way to sell out.  You're not living a healthy lifestyle because you wanted to.  You're doing it because you gave in to the pressure to do it.

The same goes for people who take an interest in something just because everyone else is doing it. I remember reading the short story of someone who was bullied and teased at school because he was one of those "nerdy" types who studied a lot.  Then he decided to do what the other kids were doing and he was finally accepted.  But to me, this isn't a happy ending.  This is a story of surrender.  Yes, it's true that if you don't think like everyone else and don't have the same interests that everyone else does, you'll probably have a very hard time fitting in.  But that doesn't mean that you should give up who you are.  And if you do want to change who you are or what your interests are, you should only do it on your terms and when you feel like it, not when someone else tells you to.  

I spent the better part of my life trying to adapt to the customs of my peers in order to fit in, without seeing any results.  So by the time I hit my 20's, I decided that I wouldn't try to fit in anymore.  I may be lonely, but at least I have my dignity in knowing that I have not surrendered who I am. Besides, history remembers those who didn't go with the flow and tried to change the world around them rather than conforming to it.  This is the way I would like to be remembered.    

Is a Negotiated Peace Possible in Syria?

Recently, Syrian opposition groups met in Saudi Arabia to discuss prospects for a peaceful settlement of the country's four year old civil war.  These groups hardly present a united front, for although they all seek to depose dictator Bashar Al-Assad, they each have their own agenda and their own vision for the war-torn country, as do their external supporters throughout the international community.  Iran and Russia support President Assad, while the West, Saudi Arabia and most other Sunni Arab states as well as Turkey support the groups fighting to overthrow him.  With so many conflicting interests, it's hard to imagine a peaceful resolution to the conflict.  I believe, however, that a peace agreement may still be possible and I think I also have a good idea of what such an arrangement would look like.

A Two-State Solution for Syria?

The question of whether President Assad stays or goes is not the only impediment to peace in Syria, though I believe it is probably the biggest one.  My thinking is that a compromise arrangement is possible whereby Assad would be removed as Syria's president, but would be the leader of a newly independent Latakia.  Latakia is Syria's coastal region and the area in which the Alawite Muslim sect forms the overwhelming majority of the population.  Assad himself is an Alawite Muslim and the bulk of his support and power base comes from his co-religionists in Latakia.  The region is also home to the Russian naval base that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin wants to retain at all costs.  By allowing Latakia to break away from the rest of Syria, it may be possible to placate the demands and interests of Russia and Iran, because Russia would get to keep the naval base and Iran would maintain its foothold in the region.  At the same time, what remains of Syria would be free of Bashar Al-Assad and his Alawite-led regime.

Now of course, simply removing Assad and giving him a new state in Latakia to rule wouldn't resolve the Syrian conflict entirely.  As I've already said, the myriad of opposition groups in the country all have their own agendas and axes to grind.  There are so-called moderate opposition groups, like the Free Syrian Army and ethnically-based opposition groups, such as the Kurds in Syria's northeast.  Then there are the Islamist movements, the most prominent of which is of course the so-called Islamic State.  No one in the international community wants to hand power in Syria to the Islamic State or any other Islamist terrorist group, though just to be fair, leaders in the Sunni Arab states and Turkey are widely suspected of clandestinely supporting Islamists as part of their efforts to depose President Assad.  You know the old saying, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  I think, however, that once the issue of Assad is removed, the leaders of the Middle East region will concentrate on making Syria stable again by supporting the more moderate groups against the Islamists led by the Islamic State.  With international support, these moderate forces will be able to form a stable government in Damascus that can exercise control of the country.

Key to maintaining this control will be the Kurds in the country's northeast.  The Kurds have had the greatest success in holding back the Islamic State in both Syria and Iraq.  Hence, if Syria minus Latakia wants to keep existing as a country, its new leaders will have to accept Kurdish autonomy in exchange for their help in keeping the Islamic State in check.

Now just to be clear, although I've written here about what I think a peaceful resolution to the Syrian civil war may look like, I don't believe that it is the ideal outcome.  Indeed, if it were up to me, Latakia would be a separate state, but not with Assad as its leader.  The only place that I believe Assad belongs is in the docket of the International Criminal Court.