The Paradox of Higher Education Part II

This is part II of my recent essay, The "Higher Education" Paradox.

Here is a definition of astronomy from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

astronomy

noun

as·tron·o·my

plural astronomies

Simple Definition

: the study of objects and matter outside the earth's atmosphere and of their physical and chemical properties

The Merriam-Webster entry goes on to explain the difference between astronomy and astrology.

Did you know?

The Difference Between Astronomy and Astrology

Some may find it easy to confuse astronomy and astrology. At one time, these two words actually were synonymous (that is, astronomy once meant what astrology means today), but they have since moved apart from each other. In current use, astronomy is concerned with “the study of objects and matter outside the earth's atmosphere,” while astrology is the purported divination of how stars and planets influence our lives. Put bluntly, astronomy is a science, and astrology is not.

When I was in Grade 11 at Westmount High School, one of the courses I took was physics. Due to the time of day, perhaps, second period in the morning, or the monotonous drone of the teacher, my routine was the same every single day. I would sit down in my spot at the lab bench, put my head down, and sleep for the next forty-five minutes. One day, the teacher interupted my studies to ask me if I was okay. I told him I was fine and went back to sleep. I was always partially awake during lab exercises because I had to stand and perform certain motions. Thanks to those exercises, I managed to pick up a thing or two pertaining to the science of physics. But not much.

I dropped out of Grade 13 at HCI after not quite completing the first semester and started working for a living. A short while later, I borrowed a copy of Isaac Asimov's book, "The Universe." I loved it. While reading it, I realized that some of the physics I had picked up osmotically in Grade 11 helped me to understand some of the concepts Asimov described, like the Doppler Effect, and why it had led astronomers to conclude that the universe was expanding.

That experience helped me realize that there was some value in education and motivated me to take another stab at Grade 13 with a focus on math and science. I got my diploma.

A few years later, I studied chemistry at Mohawk College.

The point I am trying to make is that I have a certain understanding of what science is and how it works.

Here is an example of "Indigenous Astronomy." This is not what I think of when I think of "astronomy." And when this is promoted as a form of astronomy, it's an example of what I call government-funded BULLSHIT.

Imagine you are a young student who has been taught "astronomy" in this woman's class. The odds are high that you will have a very different understanding of "astronomy" from mine. If this type of pedagogy continues to spread in Canada's so-called "education" system, God help us all.

Related

Kathleen Stock: The scandal of Jason Arday

This Latest Hate Hoax Proves That Academia Is A Fraud With No Standards | Ep. 1823

Update:

The "Higher Education" Paradox

One thing I have noticed over the years is that too many of the supposedly "Educated" people I have met, read, or watched online, rarely know what they are talking about. Or maybe I am the idiot. So I have been told in many of my encounters, in person, and on social media. Censors at the Hamilton Spectator seem to consider my level of idiocy so profound that they consider it a violation of their "Community Standards" and delete about half of my comments on their "news" and opinion articles.

I met an old high school acquaintance one night in the early 1980s at the Winking Judge pub. It was around the time Canada was still reeling from the double-digit inflation of the print and spend effects of the first Trudeau administration. Catching up, he revealed that he had graduated from university, I think it was McMaster, with a degree in economics and was now employed in that capacity with the Ontario government.

Since inflation was a hot topic at that time, I described the Monetarist Theory of Inflation to him. His response surprised the hell out of me.

"Hmmm, I've never heard of that! It kind of makes sense."

I didn't say anything but I was thinking, "You have a university degree in economics but you have never heard of the Monetarist Theory of Inflation. WTF kind of education is that?"

My second thought was, "It figures you got a government job."

Over the next forty plus years I have had many similar such encounters.

Another personal observation of the degradation in the value of academic credentials occurred while I was attending the Chemical Engineering Technician program at Mohawk college.

In September, 1981, there were over forty students in the class. Some had to stand in the classrooms for lack of seats. That problem started to rectify almost immediately. Within a few months, many had dropped out and there was plenty of seating. How much government money had been pissed away by that, I do no know. By the time graduation rolled around, two years later, there were only a few of us left. I can't remember exactly how many, but it was something like 11 or 14.

Among the graduates were two guys who took three years to complete the two-year program. One of my lab partners also graduated. I've never known anyone to work as hard as he did, yet learn nothing. As the last semester wound down, I observed him and another struggling student at the front of the class asking the teacher to explain acid/base reactions. That was something we were supposed to have learned in the first semester.

Already well advanced in my libertarian/conservative thinking, I noted the event as just one more example of the failure of government-engineered programs to achieve their purported goals, indeed they usually accomplish the exact opposite, and to accomplish this at the cost of massive missallocation of human resources and capital. And I was a little ticked off. These guys would have the same credential as me, but neither were competent. What would the value of a Mohawk College Chemical Technician's Diploma have if that Chemical Engineering Technician "Graduate" were hired on that basis, only to blow up or release a deadly gas into the employer's lab?

One of those guys got a job working on an assembly line, which is what he wanted to do all along. He entered the college course under pressure from his parents. Two years of his life were wasted in addition to the tax dollars wasted on his "education." Well, he did learn what a graduated cylinder is, and what a gas is. But was it worth all of those subsidies?

As an example of the danger he represented, I will describe what happened in the lab one day. After forty-plus years, the details are a little foggy, but the salient point is still fresh. We were doing something involving orlon fibres. Part of the procedure involved collecting 5 mL of hydrazine sulphate solution in a graduated cylinder. My lab partner could barely read. He had slightly adapted to this learning deficit by reading the lab instructions out loud. As he read his procedure notes aloud, he would use a different word every time he encountered the word, "Orlon." It came out variously as "Orion," Olean," and "Oreo," etc. Made me think of cookies. Then it struck me. I told him one of the reasons he was having such difficulty with this program was that he could not read. I suggested he consider taking a remedial reading course. He was insulted. He indignantly informed me that he had won awards for literature at this high school. Yeah. Even in the early 1980s, Ontario schools were graduating students who could not read, and colleges like Mohawk were accepting them. This signaled a potential problem, I thought, especially in the vacinity of hazardous materials.

The quality of his high school's history department was no better than their literature department. One time, I asked him if he knew who Adolf Hitler was. Without hesitation, he replied, "Of course, everybody knows that. Hitler was an Australian who defected to the Nazis." Maybe he read it wrong?

Back to the hydrazine sulphate. When he read those words, he said, "Hydrogen Sulfide" (H2S.) H2S is a deadly gas. While working on an oil rig outside of High River, Alberta, we hit H2S. I was not on shift at the time. The night crew hit the H2S. They were lucky the driller ignored the consultant's command to crack open the drill pipe before ordering a roughneck to test for the gas, or the whole crew might have died. They completed their work wearing supplied-air respirators (SARs). When I woke up that morning, the smell of rotten eggs permeated the camp.There were no SARs in the lab at Mohawk. I don't know which college that consultant attended.

So my lab partner picked up a 10 mL graduated cylinder and started ambling toward the fume hood where a canister of deadly H2S was waiting. I did not immediately warn him. I wanted to see how far he would go. To his credit, he stopped about halfway to the fume hood, scratched his head, and walked back to me. He said, "How am I supposed to collect 5 mL of hydrogen sulfide? It's a gas." I explained to him that the recipe did not call for H2S, and reminded him again about the advisability of a remedial reading course.

Six Months Later

I received a call from the Mohawk placement office in late September, 1983. The guy on the phone asked me if I would be interested in working in a research lab in Kingston, Ontario. He sounded almost frantic. We're counting on you to get this job. It will give Mohawk a foot in the door for future graduates. The first two guys we sent up failed the technical interviews miserably. I asked for the names of the two failed candidates. They were the two who took three years to complete the two year course. I knew they were the wrong choice because, in class, whenever they answered a question, they got the answer wrong almost 100% of the time. I was thinking, "Well, duh!" Not that the technical questions were difficult. I recall a question about gas laws, like "what happens to the volume of a gas if its temperature is increased?"

Speaking of science, when my youngest son was in Grade 8, I asked him what his favourite subject was. He said, "Science." Then I asked him what he was learning in science class. I was expecting a list of basic scientific concepts like precipitation, evaporation, freezing, sublimation, and so on; the kind of stuff I learned in public school. Instead, his answer stunned me. "Global Warming." (This is how they baste their chickens for future votes.)

Another time, I was with my daughter, who would have been in about Grade 6 at the time when we heard the name "Al Gore" mentioned on the radio. I asked her if she knew who Al Gore was. Her answer blew me away, too. "Yes. We saw his movie in school."

These kids were not being taught science. They were being propagandized. At public expense. More tax dollars were being pissed away to make con artists like Al Gore rich.

One thing I noticed an social media during the Covid mass hysteria event was the number of people who would confidently urge sceptics to "Believe in the science." This was when it occurred to me, based on the insights my kids gave me, that the word "Science" had different meanings to different people. And that a lot of naive young minds exposed to climate scam propaganda in "Science" classes walked away believing that the word "Science" was nothing more than a series of declarations made by their woke teachers and so-called "Scientists." And that many, perhaps most of them had never actually been exposed to any real science. (See Retired Hamilton cabbie gets himself on list of fake scientists declaring climate emergency. Get the "list of fake scientists" part. They fixed that in the paper edition.)

Finally, which political parties attract support from the cohorts with supposedly "Higher Educations?"

I asked Brave.

First, the Americans.

Which party do better educated Americans vote for?

Americans with college degrees now predominantly vote for the Democratic Party, marking a significant reversal from the mid-20th century when higher education correlated with Republican support. This "diploma divide" has widened since roughly 2000, with college-educated voters drifting toward Democrats while those without four-year degrees have shifted toward the Republicans.

Current polling data highlights this split:

Bachelor’s degree or higher: The Democratic Party holds a 13-point advantage (55% Democratic vs. 42% Republican).

Postgraduate degrees: The Democratic lead is even starker, with 61% identifying as or leaning Democratic compared to 37% Republican.

Without a bachelor’s degree: The Republican Party holds a 6-point advantage (51% Republican vs. 45% Democratic).

This realignment is driven by cultural and social factors, as college-educated Americans tend to be more liberal on issues like social values and environmental policy, while non-college voters increasingly prioritize populist economic messages associated with the GOP. (Duh!)

What about Canadians?

Which party do better educated Canadians vote for?

Better educated Canadians in Canada tend to vote for left-leaning parties, specifically the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party (NDP), while support for the Conservative Party has increasingly concentrated among less educated voters since the 1990s.

Liberal and NDP Support: University-educated voters are significantly more likely to support the Liberals and NDP, a trend attributed to their socially liberal positions and focus on issues like climate change and social equity.

Conservative Decline: The Conservative Party has seen a substantial decline in support from higher-educated demographics, with the party becoming increasingly reliant on voters with lower education levels.

Economic vs. Cultural Divide: While higher education correlates with left-leaning voting, higher income remains a stronger predictor of right-leaning support; however, the "diploma divide" has become a dominant factor, with educated voters prioritizing cultural and social values over pure economic self-interest.

Recent Trends: Despite the general trend, some recent polling indicates a shift among young, less economically secure voters toward the Conservatives, though this group does not necessarily represent the highest education levels.

"Highest education levels." Like the "economist" who had never heard of the Monetarist Theory of Inflation?

Need I say more? The higher the "Education" the greater the odds that they are dumber than two buckets of shit. They are not "Better educated." They are more thoroughly brainwashed.

I knew how this would evolve as a result of my visit to the McMaster University Bookstore, circa 1982. I browsed the polisci and economics sections to find some free-market oriented books. What I saw was that most of the available books consisted of left wing horseshit, Marxism, etc. As the result says, "University-educated voters are significantly more likely to support the Liberals and NDP, a trend attributed to their socially liberal positions and focus on issues like climate change and social equity." There's no mystery here because they have been marinated in commie ideology since Kindergarten.

Conclusion.

This phenomenon is not just endemic to Canada and the USA. It prevails across all of Western Civilization from Europe to Australia and New Zealand. The new word is wokery, but it goes back a lot further. The worm really started to turn in the 1960s. The weak and congenitally useless are now in charge. Just look at your elected representatives. And it has been accelerating.

Second Conclusion

Western civilization is fucked. It will take 1,000 years to extricate ourselves from this muck, if we ever do. I don't want to travel on this ship of fools but I don't think I have much choice.

Marshal McLuhan said, "To make an invisible environment visible, we must step outside it," and "Once you see the boundaries of your environment, they are no longer the boundaries of your environment."

When it comes to chicken dancer thinking, I have always been an outsider, a part of the lunatic fringe. I have been observing the evolution of chicken dancer "thinking" from the outside for fifty years. Ayn Rand was right. What I see leaves me with no sense of optimism. I hope I am wrong.

Now on to what inspired this rant. It's well worth a read.

On the rot in higher education

Part II

And then there is the matter of Jason Arday.

More on Jason Arday

A Horny Man is Not Free Updated with META AI Assistance

Open Prison Canada

A Horny Man is Not Free

An Exploration of Proposals for the Achievement of Greater Human Equity. It's Time to License/Regulate Sex

Preface

I am re-posting an essay I wrote over two decades ago. I neglected to record the original date, but the context indicates it was written during the early years of the Mike Harris regime in Ontario. This same essay appears on an old website I built in 1998. Therefore, these data points indicate the essay was written after Mike Harris was elected 1995, and before the website was built in 1998.

The idea of this essay was to take the state of the world at the time, and apply "progressive," (I.E. leftist, communist, socialist, "liberal," Liberal (Ontario and Canada today) and fascist,) "thinking" to sketch a rough outline as to how we should expect the left to react once they got around to sticking their noses deeper into human affairs.

I have attempted to correct some of the common spellig and gammatical errors as of this posting, but not all of them. I have left the rest of the essay in original form even though I would have written it differently today. However, I have added a few of my current comments in [RED.]

Introduction

A great hue and cry have arisen in the wake of the electoral victory of Mike Harris and his Progressive Conservative government in Ontario. Numerous protests have erupted over various changes introduced by the Harris government, such as reductions in welfare spending and changes to labour legislation, calling them "Right wing" and "mean-spirited" etc.

The reaction is somewhat exaggerated. Ontario will, to the relief of the majority of its citizens, remain heavily socialized. The Harris cutbacks will inevitably be reversed by future governments citing the failure of the 'free market' policies of Harris and Co. At that time, the process of equalization can continue on its inexorable journey. [The Liberals have been straight-jacketing the province for fifteen years as of this posting.]

Socialists of all stripes must prepare for the future. A future full of activity for not only does the issue of full economic equality beckon but equality on other fronts must be addressed as well. This essay takes a look at another important area of human existence which has, so far, resisted significant egalitarian attention.

A serious social problem currently exists in the world which has not, to date, been referred to as a 'crisis' by government or the mass media. Yet this problem has consequences which, at least, equal and probably surpass the severity of, for example, homelessness, high medical insurance premiums, and traffic congestion. Indeed, Billions of people in the world currently engage in an activity which has no official oversight or guidelines, no regulation and perhaps worst of all, isn't taxed.

Everyone, at one time or another, becomes involved in the pursuit of romance. Due to the sad lack of government intervention in this area, the romance marketplace is, more or less, governed entirely by the outdated principle of Laissez Faire. The law of the jungle prevails. The distribution of satisfaction is unequal. It's a dog eat dog world.

Over one hundred million acts of sexual intercourse occur daily. Too many individuals engage in this activity with little or no training and as many more are ill-equipped to deal with its possible consequences (910,000 conceptions and 350,000 cases of sexually transmitted disease daily).

In Canada, intercourse probably happens around half a million times daily. So far, government has taken a hands-off approach to the problem of unregulated sex in this great land. The number of people who fall in love without official consent or guidance is also high. The consequences of this neglect are devastating.

Problems and Solutions

Parental Competence

Some people who have intercourse end up having children. Many, perhaps a majority, lack the qualifications to become good parents. At present, there are no regulations governing this crucial aspect of life.

Some have suggested that licensing parents would go a long way towards solving the problem of parental incompetence. Unfortunately, philoprogenitive behaviour has consequences that go far beyond successful engineering of children. Licensing parents, therefore, constitutes only a band-aid solution to a small part of a large problem.

The regulation and licensing of sex and romance would have positive effects in many other areas of government policy, including health, welfare, redistributive justice, discrimination and, of course, revenue enhancement.

It is almost universally agreed that compulsory education of children serves the public interest. The pubic interest might also be well served by a mandatory regime of sex and romance education for everyone who intends to become romantically involved at some time in their lives.

Those who successfully complete the program might be issued an S&R (Sex and Romance) card. The card might come with a magnetic stripe and photo ID to facilitate easy identification of conjugating couples. The license could be renewable annually at which time retesting might also take place. [Today, it would all be done with an app.]

A potential problem that exists wrt state indoctrination of children in the public school system is that some misguided parents may have very different opinions respecting morality and politics. Such parents would, no doubt, attempt to inflict upon their children ideas and beliefs which are at odds to those officially sanctioned by the public school system. [Or the Ontario Liberal government] Children exposed to such contradictory influences shall become confused and efforts by the state to inculcate correct values shall be frustrated.

The regulation and licensing of sex could ensure that applicants display the politically correct attitude before being issued permits for the activity under consideration. This would help weed out those deluded potential parents who exhibit any tendency for harmful or mistaken beliefs and opinions which undercut the best efforts of the state to achieve the opposite. [see: New Ontario law allows govt to seize children if parents oppose their 'gender identity' - RT]

Such a policy, if implemented, could be counted upon to streamline the process by which citizens are engineered to have correct opinions. With a successful regime of artificial selection, other programs and government departments, such as the Human Rights Commission, the corrections system and, of course, enforcement divisions of various government revenue departments could be reduced or eliminated.

Health

Sexually transmitted diseases impose a burden on the socialized medical system. The smoking of cigarettes after sex, often glamorized in the movies, imposes further stress upon the costs of medicare.

Precedents have already been set for government intrusion into the private sphere. Mandatory seat belt laws have been justified in part by the claim that reduced automobile injuries lower the cost of our socialized medicare system. "Rights imply responsibilities" was how one of Ontario's officials put it when seat belt use became mandatory. The government's campaign against cigarette smoking is largely motivated by similar concerns.

Similarities exist between addiction to drugs and addiction to sex. Drug addicts will lie, cheat and steal to support their habit. So will sex addicts. Addicts will often fight over drugs. Some men fight over women. Finally, those who engage in either activity run the risk of getting a lethal dose.

Our government has chosen prohibition as a means of fighting the non-approved use of drugs. Prohibition of sex might be tried but it would likely encounter a serious problem. That's right... enforcement.

Requiring citizens to have an S&R License could be an excellent means of reducing the incidence of sexually transmitted disease. Testing for venereal diseases could be included as part of the annual license renewal procedure. Those testing positive could be fined, imprisoned or (worse?) have their licenses suspended.

Applicants could be required to provide notarized documentation detailing the frequency and variety of sexual encounters. Failure to convince the license issuer that sufficient precautions had been taken against disease could result in demerit points leading to possible socialized medicare premium surcharges or the loss of some tax credits.

To placate those applicants who might consider these requirements an abominable invasion of privacy attention should be drawn to the income tax which long ago abolished privacy.

As with taxpayers, there could be a declaration of sexplayer rights which would include the following statement paraphrasing that found on the back of the yearly tax guide under the heading "Privacy and confidentiality": "You are entitled to expect that we will use the sexual and romantic information you provide us only for purposes the law allows".

Of course you could also be "entitled to expect" perpetual orgasms for the degree of obligation it imposes on the government. Yep, you are even "entitled to expect" to actually receive a cheque for 1.645671 million dollars the next time you get one of those magazine subscription offers in the mail.

Redistributive Justice

The distribution of sexual pleasure is unequal. The equality of opportunity that some argue exists hardly compensates for the inequality of OUTCOME or SUCCESS. Having sex appeal, good looks, a sense of humour, a 'great personality', musical talent, brains and money often give the possessor priority in mate selection over individuals not similarly endowed. In many cases, the qualities mentioned are due entirely to the luck of the draw at birth.

With the declining influence of some religions, with changing attitudes, and as the welfare state sends out the signal that having children is THE road to a comfortable middle class standard of living the old restrictions on the number of partners one has are weakened.

Some people have multiple partners while others have none. How long can this manifestly unfair situation be allowed to escape official notice? It's past time for interventionist governments to take an active role in the redistribution of sex and love. A horny man is not free. The current Incel phenomenon is worth studying in this context.

The government of Denmark has taken a step in the right direction by using public money to provide the services of prostitutes to handicapped individuals. In some ways, this is rather offensive. Why should someone be paid to perform services which one should be willing to perform for free out of a sense of "social justice," duty and obligation? Do these prostitutes not already have the right to numerous benefits offered by their welfare state? Rights imply obligations do they not?

The resulting distribution of romantic satisfaction is 'unfair'. One of the key functions of government, implicit in the overwhelming majority of discussions of government policy, is that it should make life 'fair'.

Numerous policies are adopted with the aim of achieving fair taxation, fair employment practices, fair housing policy, fair competition, fair prices, fair trade etc. Clearly, given the importance of satisfactory romantic affairs, prevailing attitudes should lead to a willing acceptance of a much greater government presence in the romantic lives of it's citizens.

[It starts innocently enough, as in the short report below. Eventually, it will be adopted by "progressive" governments with uniformed enforcers on the public payroll. Or it could be implemented the same way as anti-tobacco behaviour control, with fines for looking at attractive females, etc.]

▶ Watch on YouTube: Report on social policy / Denmark example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bEK1fL7HGo

The government should therefore set up a new ministry. Call it "Togetherness Canada". Like some private dating services it could use computers to match up it's members. Unlike private dating services, which attempt to match up compatible couples, a procedure which relies too strongly upon the anarchy of the marketplace, Togetherness Canada would have 'fairness' as it's prime objective although compatibility should remain a part of its mandate. Also, unlike private services, membership would be mandatory.

No government oversight or regulations exist to ensure that couples who marry or co-habit are actually compatible. The costs to society as a result of individuals making the wrong choices appear in the form of family violence and the emotional trauma suffered by children whose parents are going through expensive divorce proceedings, chasing down deadbeat ex-husbands who refuse to make support payments, psychological counseling of couples having difficulties and more.

Obviously, many of these problems are the result of people getting hitched up who really don't know what they're getting themselves into.

Some deluded fools might think that individuals can make their own decisions in these matters; that freedom carries with it the possibility that the wrong choice might be made, and the responsibility to accept the consequences of failure as well as the rewards of success. This might be OK in a world where everyone is omniscient but such is, of course, not the case on this planet.

Clearly then, there is an important role for knowledgeable experts, chosen by politicians and endowed with special coercive powers, to ensure that no individual be permitted to make serious decisions without appropriate oversight.

Anti-discrimination

Discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, mental or physical handicap, income, receipt of social assistance, age, personal hygiene, the type of car one drives, whether or not one can play a guitar and, of course, gender are known to be rampant. Sexual orientation is unique in that it leads to numerous instances of reverse discrimination.

Such widespread discrimination is scandalous in a society which demands that all groups be proportionately represented in the statistics which measure success. On the grounds that discrimination can severely damage the self esteem of members of certain designated groups, such discrimination is prohibited by law in the areas of, for example, employment and housing. Should it not also be prohibited in the vital area of romantic happiness?

Some people report emotional devastation when rejected by present or potential lovers almost as severe as that which accompanies having a lease application turned down in a rent controlled city.

The emotional impact of the competition for sex and love can be overpowering for some people. Failure to achieve one's desires can, in some cases, lead to drug addiction, drunkenness, financial problems and even murder and/or suicide. [See, for example, the cases of Elliot Rodger, and Alek Minassian] The housing and medicare crises are exacerbated by the existence of this sociosexual injustice.

Systemic discrimination is also a serious problem. Often, the opportunities for satisfying or other romantic relationships are not properly advertised. Instead, contact is made orally, through family and friends, through social clubs or church affiliations, and through bars, street corners, alleyways and public restrooms.

Seldom do prospective lovers advertise in minority publications. Bad breath or extreme body odour may frustrate the ambitions of a potential suitor if the suit(ee) has not taken reasonable measures to provide mouthwash or soap.

Part of the mandate of Togetherness Canada should include a mandate for the achievement of Love Equity.

All members having received the benefits of compulsory education should have the basic skill necessary to write reports. Thus there should be no problem with the additional requirement, modeled along the lines of the (former) Ontario NDP government's Employment Equity Act (Bill 79), that all members submit a Love Equity plan that sets goals and timetables and describes what the individual will do to break down the barriers and give all suitors equal opportunity in the sexplace.

An overview of Bill 79 published by the Ontario Ministry of Citizenship indicated that Employment Equity plans should include "positive measures to help members of designated groups secure equitable treatment in the workplace -- for example, mentoring or bridging programs".

Sex equity plans would have to include similar measures to assist members in meeting, dating, marrying and satisfying members of designated groups.

Sections of the EEA also required "supportive measures that benefit all employees -- for instance, flexible working hours".

Of course, no Love Equity program would be complete without borrowing from another part of Bill 79, "accommodation measures -- for example, providing a work related technical device that would enable a person with a disability to do the job."

Technical devices with love equity applications which enable a person with a disability to do the job are already on the market.

Love Equity could create jobs as well. From California, always at the forefront, it seems, in the battle for social justice, we can get an idea of what this might mean in practice. From Reason Magazine Brickbats section (July, 1994):

"The city of Los Angeles has ordered a nude dancing club to take down or modify a shower enclosure where it's ladies perform. The reason: The shower isn't handicapped accessible. If the owners want to keep the shower, they'll have to redesign it so that a woman in a wheelchair can perform in it."

Think of the boom in bedroom renovations.

Finally, to make the new legislation truly progressive the concerns of animal rights activists must be addressed. Question 23 on Togetherness Canada's compatibility form, "are you a leg man or a breast man?" Question 24, "are you allergic to wool?"

Bilingualism

In recognition of the fact that Canada is a nation with two founding peoples Canadians have become accustomed to having French imposed upon them by law. While some might feel that French is really being forced down their throats, French kissing should, nevertheless, be made mandatory.

Prostitution

Certainly all forms of prostitution should be legalized since prostitution has great egalitarian value. Other benefits of legalization would be government regulation, oversight and taxation. Bringing prostitution into the realm of legitimate business would make it easier to prosecute prostitutes who refuse to service members of designated groups under existing human rights statutes.

Or...

The whole prostitution industry could be nationalized. With prostitutes joining the public payroll their services could be distributed for free like other social services. Of course they would want to be represented by the usual public sector unions. An orgy of collective bargaining may well ensue.

Revenue

Unlike other forms of amusement, governments receive almost no revenues from sexual activity.

My estimate of the frequency of intercourse in Canada represents a potentially huge source of revenue for governments at all levels. It is perhaps a little odd that governments have not yet tapped into this activity as a potential source of revenue. At ten bucks a crack, the government could raise 5 million dollars daily from this activity. That's a respectable 1.825 BILLION dollars a year!

A survey of the rates charged in sex markets where vendors prefer to be compensated in cash would give the revenue minister some idea of how high this tax could go before the tax base goes flaccid. The tax might be initially set to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) rate, ie. it could be set at 7% of the going street rate.

These tax rates could be adjusted to influence birth rates in Keynesian fashion. No more baby booms.

Enforcement

The question of enforcement of government regulations in the romance marketplace must be addressed. Many will consider enforcement to be an impossible task due to the difficulty of detection and the tendency of most participants to avoid complaining.

Detection of a couple falling in love would be extremely difficult as it is often difficult or impossible, even for the individuals concerned, to know when this is happening.

Unlike falling in love, which occurs on some kind of a continuum, lovemaking is usually discrete. Having instituted a licensing regime for all eligible citizens, enforcement would consist largely of routing out and exposing citizens who are engaged in illicit sex... a fun job for some.. no doubt it would add variety to the jobs of those police officers currently assigned to monitoring the comings and goings in public restrooms.

Police enforcement could be augmented by the requirement that licensed individuals fill out annual sex returns. This could be made part of the annual retesting procedure. If everyone were required to complete and file an official form, say a T4-2 specifying date, time and partner, every time they had sex a paper trail would exist which would aid in catching offenders by finding unmatched forms. It would be a serious offense to make a false statement.

The frequency of sheet laundering can be affected by the level of sexual activity. The U.S. has taken measures against the crime of money laundering such as those under the Bank Secrecy Act which require Currency Transaction Reports for transactions involving $10,000 or more. Similar measures might be employed to help zero in on lawbreakers by, for example, requiring that all retailers submit Spray'n Wash Transaction Reports. These measures could be coupled with random spot checks.

The police could then break into homes of unlicensed individuals, suspected of breaking the law, in the same way that those drug warriors do on the TV show COPS. These special officers would have to be equipped with bullet proof vests since it would often be impossible to quickly determine whether the suspect has a gun or is just having a good time.

Sex audits could be combined with tax audits. "So Mr. Smith, according to your cost-of-living statement for last year you purchased a new mattress. Something wrong with the old one was there? Hmmmm?"

Conclusion

For the majority of Canadians, the standard refrain in response to any conceivable problem that exists is 'There ought to be a law.' The notion that legislators, through the use of police, judges and jailers, can achieve all sorts of wonderful things, from housing to job creation to education to curing appendicitis, has been almost completely accepted by the bulk of the population.

Disagreements that exist focus on details rather than upon the basic principle. Moves by the government to ensure fairness in the romantic affairs of the citizenry should be welcomed with little dissent.

We have looked at several social policy areas which would be positively affected by a strict regime of sexual regulation. We have seen that such regulation would carry with it benefits pertaining to family values, health, redistributive justice and anti-discrimination.

We have also seen that cash strapped governments have an excellent source of revenue to tap. For the first time in history the taxpayer won't mind getting screwed.

The time to act is now. Canadians are ready. The current, so called, right wing trend will be quickly reversed when Canadians finally realize just how much they love their socialism. That will be the time to swiftly implement the recommended regime.

The End

---

The discussion that sparked my decision to revisit this topic.

The Incel Rebellion - Roger Devlin

▶ Watch on YouTube: The Incel Rebellion - Roger Devlin - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ2ahf8JvJU

---

More on Sexual Socialism

This topic opens up all kinds of hilarious new dimensions. Monty Python is now completely out of date. None of their comedic absurdities came close to predicting what is going on now.

Male Student Accuses Female Student of Sexual Assault. She Says He Wanted Revenge. - Reason.com

---

▶ Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA6id4--BDg

Originally written 1995-1998 during Mike Harris era Ontario. Re-posted May 2018 with [RED] annotations. Blogspot-ready HTML preserve of uncleblock.blogspot.com - YouTube LINK version (no iframes)

On Nootka Slavery and Marriage

I am currently reading, "The Native Races [of the Pacific states], Volume 1, Wild Tribes," by Hubert Howe Bancroft. I am interested in learning about the various tribes that will be governing British Columbia once the NDP has finished handing all of it's powers, and the people's cash over to the Indigenous population of the province in accordance with DRIPA.

Given the popularity of this initiative with BC chicken dancers and other communists, it behooves one to wonder whether they will like the new arrangement's cultural practices.

Here is a section on Nootka slavery and marriage. It's fascinating reading all on its own. === Slavery is practiced by all the tribes, and the slave-trade forms an important part of their commerce. Slaves are about the only property that must not be sacrificed to acquire the ever-desired reputation for liberality. Only rich men—according to some authorities only the nobles—may hold slaves. War and kidnapping supply the slave-market, and no captive, whatever his rank in his own tribe, can escape this fate, except by a heavy ransom offered soon after he is taken, and before his whereabouts becomes unknown to his friends. Children of slaves, whose fathers are never known, are forever slaves. The power of the owner is arbitrary and unlimited over the actions and life of the slave, but a cruel exercise of his power seems of rare occurrence, and, save the hard labor required, the material condition of the slave is but little worse than that of the common free people, since he is sheltered by the same roof and partakes of the same food as his master. Socially the slave is despised; his hair is cut short, and his very name becomes a term of reproach. Female slaves are prostituted for hire, especially in the vicinity of white settlements. A runaway slave is generally seized and resold by the first tribe he meets.[301]

THE NOOTKA FAMILY. The Nootka may have as many wives as he can buy, but as prices are high, polygamy is practically restricted to the chiefs, who are careful not to form alliances with 196families beneath them in rank. Especially particular as to rank are the chiefs in choosing their first wife, always preferring the daughters of noble families of another tribe. Courtship consists in an offer of presents by the lover to the girl's father, accompanied generally by lengthy speeches of friends on both sides, extolling the value of the man and his gift, and the attractions of the bride. After the bargain is concluded, a period of feasting follows if the parties are rich, but this is not necessary as a part of the marriage ceremony. Betrothals are often made by parents while the parties are yet children, mutual deposits of blankets and other property being made as securities for the fulfillment of the contract, which is rarely broken. Girls marry at an average age of sixteen. The common Nootka obtains his one bride from his own rank also by a present of blankets, much more humble than that of his rich neighbor, and is assisted in his overtures by perhaps a single friend instead of being followed by the whole tribe. Courtship among this class is not altogether without the attentions which render it so charming in civilized life; as when the fond girl lovingly caresses and searches her lover's head, always giving him the fattest of her discoveries. Wives are not ill treated, and although somewhat overworked, the division of labor is not so oppressive as among many Indian tribes. Men build houses, make boats and implements, hunt and fish; women prepare the fish and game for winter use, cook, manufacture cloth and clothing, and increase the stock of food by gathering berries and shell-fish; and most of this work among the richer class is done by slaves. Wives are consulted in matters of trade, and in fact seem to be nearly on terms of equality with their husbands, except that they are excluded from some public feasts and ceremonies. There is much reason to suppose that before the advent of the whites, the Nootka wife was comparatively faithful to her lord, that chastity was regarded as a desirable female quality, and offenses against it severely punished. The females so freely brought on board the vessels of early voyagers and offered 197to the men, were perhaps slaves, who are everywhere prostituted for gain, so that the fathers of their children are never known. Women rarely have more than two or three children, and cease bearing at about twenty-five, frequently preventing the increase of their family by abortions. Pregnancy and childbirth affect them but little. The male child is named at birth, but his name is afterwards frequently changed. He is suckled by the mother until three or four years old, and at an early age begins to learn the arts of fishing by which he is to live. Children are not quarrelsome among themselves, and are regarded by both parents with some show of affection and pride. Girls at puberty are closely confined for several days, and given a little water but no food; they are kept particularly from the sun or fire, to see either of which at this period would be a lasting disgrace. At such times feasts are given by the parents. Divorces or separations may be had at will by either party, but a strict division of property and return of betrothal presents is expected, the woman being allowed not only the property she brought her husband, and articles manufactured by her in wedlock, but a certain proportion of the common wealth. Such property as belongs to the father and is not distributed in gifts during his life, or destroyed at his death, is inherited by the eldest son. ===

"As when the fond girl lovingly caresses and searches her lover's head, always giving him the fattest of her discoveries." Is he talking about lice? I recall from Samuel Hearne's life with the Northern Indians he lived with were fond of picking the lice from their clothing and eating them.

"There is a bit of humour where Berton ("My Country." Sept. 17 2002) describes how they enjoyed picking the lice out of their hair and clothes and eating them. (You vill eat zee bugs!) Another delicacy was warble flies from rotting flesh. It says Hearne didn't eat the lice and flies because he didn't want to risk acquiring a taste for them, knowing they might be unavailable when he returned home. (or, at least, for another 200+ years.)" (Open Prison Diary February 28, 2025. "Ordering Fried Rice?" I.E. Flied Lice.)

Note: I'm not being judgmental here. Anyone familiar with the filth and squalor common to the English and Europeans until quite recently will know not to feel smug. Evidence abounds that, between the climate scam policies of woke politicians, and the rapid proliferation of homeless camps may well take us all back 500 years.

The July Jobs Report

Reviews

This is a classic Uncle Block piece - META AI

---

The post satirically proposes managing panhandlers at local Hamilton intersections (e.g., James & Mohawk), renting out wheelchairs, using mobile debit terminals, or renting chicken costumes to rebrand panhandling as "street entertainment." - GEMINI AI

The July 2026 jobs report claims that employment increased by more than 75,000 jobs. But Chris Baker points out that an amazing 44,000 of these jobs represent "self-employment."

Baker has done some interesting analysis of the recent Canada jobs report. I think he is on to something. And it gave me some ideas to kick around.

One of the smartest entrepreneurial initiatives I have seen involves self-employed individuals fabricating signs out of cardboard and standing in the dividers at busy intersections. This can be thought of as an excellent first step for anyone climbing the entrepreneurial ladder since it requires zero capital, no schooling or licensing, and compliance with the Income Tax Act is, as they say, voluntary.

If standing on a traffic island with a carboard sign can be considered a form of 'employment' these days it opens the possibility of other opportunities. Displaying a carboard sign for hours on end for a couple of hundred bucks is small potatoes for a big thinker like me. I would buy a used accessible taxi and some used wheelchairs. Then I would provide a service to a crew of homeless people and drive them to various intersections, like James and Mohawk, or Centennial and Queenston, for a fare equivalent to the statutory cab fare. In addition, I would charge a reasonable price for wheelchair rental. Cash up front. I would not hire anyone on an hourly or commission basis because I wouldn't trust them to report their earnings honestly. If the business takes off, I would consider equipping my gig workers with Moneris debit machines. For an additional fee. Cash up front. Plus a deposit on the machine.

Oh! And that gives me another idea. I could invest in some chicken costumes to rent to the staff. If they were to dance around a bit, elbows up style, then they wouldn't be strictly begging. They would be providing entertainment. That might increase donations from Liberals. (Who am I kidding? Liberals are only generous with other people's money.)

That reminds me of the time a cab driver I knew parked his cab on Haymarket St., behind the GO station in the hope of snagging a fare coming up the stairs from the rear of the station, instead of exiting at the front of the station where the legal cab stand stood. He decided to supplement his earnings there by panhandling. When queried about his activity by a GO constable, he replied, "I can't make enough money driving a cab, so I had to take on a second job." I heard that when the taxi boss caught wind of this he hit the roof and suspended that driver for two weeks. Back then, the thought of calling panhandling a "second job," sounded ridiculous, but not anymore.

Heck. While we're at it, why not also include drug dealing, fraud, and other crimes, like jewelry store smash-and-grabs as a form of employment?

A few decades ago there was a movement to consider housework as a form of employment. (See my essay from over twenty-five years ago - The Wages for Housework Campaign - Time to reformulate our understanding?)

If we were to grant a degree of legitimacy to the Wages for Housework Campaign idea, it opens up a whole panoply of activities that people could call, 'jobs.' I changed my tire last Wednesday, so I guess I could argue that I was 'employed.' If you're planning on doing some fishing this summer, you could call that a job, I suppose, if you bring the carp home and eat them.

Maybe I could find a field somewhere and start digging holes and filling them back in again. Some might disqualify that as a real job because it accomplishes nothing that anyone would voluntarily pay me to do. Then again, we can look to Carney's baby, the Pathways Project as another perfect example of $16.5 billion being invested in a scheme that also accomplishes nothing. People will be employed, and Carney's cronies will rake in the cash from their carbon credits scam, but it won't accomplish climate stasis, and the average tax payer will derive absolutely zero benefit from it. Even less than zero as those carbon credits form part of the price they pay for all goods and services. The Carney crony lucre has to come from somewhere.

That project reminds me of this machine...

I have a sneaking suspicion that a good chunk of the 44,000 "self-employed" jobs number is Uber drivers and food delivery guys. Curiously, Brave search reports that the number of Toronto rideshare drivers has dropped from 80,000 in 2025 to about 70,000 today. That aside, if the total demand for taxi rides doesn't change much over the short term, as additional drivers enter the field, the earnings of each driver is reduced proportionately. So while there may be an increase in 'jobs,' there is no corresponding increase in aggregate earnings nor in work done. Therefore, each "enterpreneur" makes less.

Also worth noting is, as demand for taxi rides declines during a recession, desperate job seekers resort to taxi driving to get by, thus producing a double whammy. Likewise for food deliveries.

---

I thought my essay was rather funny. Then I ran it by Google's Gemini. I thought their response was even funnier. How dare they call my entrepreneurial ideas 'absurd.' This is what Gemini says about my essay:

Here is an analysis of the blog post **"The July Jobs Report"** published on *Open Prison Canada* (August 10, 2026):
---
### 1. Core Premise & Primary Data Point

The article opens with headline figures from Canada's July 2026 labor force data:

* **Headline Claim:** Total employment grew by over **75,000 jobs**.

* **Critique (via Chris Baker):** **44,000** (nearly 60%) of those reported gains were in **self-employment** rather than traditional wage or salary employment.
The author uses this disparity to argue that headline employment figures can be misleading indicators of economic health.

---
### 2. Main Economic Arguments

* **Quality vs. Quantity of Jobs:** High self-employment growth in a weak economy often signals gig-economy saturation or informal survival strategies rather than organic business expansion or rising demand.
* **The Gig Economy & Income Dilution:** The post focuses on rideshare and food delivery drivers (e.g., Uber). The author notes that when more people enter a gig market where aggregate consumer demand is stagnant or falling, individual worker earnings drop even though official "job count" statistics increase.
* **Measurement & Definition of "Work":** The author questions what actually constitutes a "job" in official statistics, arguing that counting low-margin, desperate self-employment under state labor metrics obscures underemployment and economic stress.

---

### 3. Satirical & Rhetorical Framing

To drive home the argument about expanding definitions of employment, the author relies heavily on hyperbole and local Hamilton anecdotes:

* **Absurd "Entrepreneurial" Schemes:**

The post satirically proposes managing panhandlers at local Hamilton intersections (e.g., James & Mohawk), renting out wheelchairs, using mobile debit terminals, or renting chicken costumes to rebrand panhandling as "street entertainment."

* **Personal Anecdote:** Recalls a former Hamilton cab driver who panhandled behind the GO station and defended it to police as taking on a "second job."

* **Reductio ad Absurdum:** Questions whether unpaid domestic tasks (e.g., changing a tire, fishing for food) or illicit activities (drug dealing, theft) could similarly be counted as employment if informal income-generating or labor activities are treated as valid metrics.

---

### 4. Broader Political & Institutional Commentary

Beyond labor statistics, the author incorporates broader conservative/libertarian-leaning critiques:

* **Government Programs & Productivity:** Compares non-productive labor to major government-backed capital initiatives (referencing Mark Carney and the Pathways Project), alleging that large investments in carbon offset schemes fail to deliver tangible economic value to taxpayers.

* **Partisan Context:** Expresses skepticism toward federal Liberal economic policy, framing government labor reporting and spending as performative rather than productive.

---

### Summary Takeaway

The post is a **satirical commentary on labor market indicators**, using a specific statistical discrepancy (44,000 out of 75,000 jobs being self-employed) to argue that official employment figures disguise underemployment, gig-work saturation, and economic stagnation in Canada.

---

A Meta AI Review

analyze this: https://uncleblock.blogspot.com/2026/08/the-july-jobs-report.html

This is a classic Uncle Block piece - part labour market analysis, part Hamilton street-level satire, part reductio ad absurdum. Here's what's actually going on in it:

## 1. The core claim you're making

Headline StatsCan number: **+75,000+ jobs in July 2026.** Your hook, via Chris Baker: **44,000 of those are self-employment** - about 58% of the gain.

Your argument: when that much of the gain is self-employment in a weak economy, the headline is misleading. It's not new demand creating productive jobs, it's people creating their own low-margin work to survive.

You embedded Gemini's summary of your own post inside the post, which then summarizes it back as:

> Quality vs Quantity of jobs, gig saturation + income dilution, and what counts as a "job" at all.

That self-referential loop is actually the thesis.

## 2. Does the data pattern check out?

StatsCan's Labour Force Survey is notoriously noisy month-to-month. For context:

* July 2025: Canada *lost* 40,800 jobs after gaining 83,100 in June * Other months in 2025-26: reporting often notes "self-employment was little changed" when full-time wage work does the heavy lifting

So a month where 44k / 75k is self-employed *would* be an outlier, and worth flagging. Historically, spikes in self-employment during downturns are a well-documented pattern - people enter Uber, food delivery, odd jobs when wage hiring stalls. It doesn't increase total rides or deliveries, it just splits the same pie thinner.

Your note about Toronto rideshare drivers dropping from 80k to 70k via Brave search - I couldn't verify that in official StatCan/ City data. The logic you draw from it is right though: if demand is flat, more drivers = lower earnings per driver, even while the "job count" goes up.

## 3. The economic mechanics you're nailing

This is the strongest part, and you get it right in plain language:

**Income dilution:** In gig markets where aggregate demand is relatively fixed short-term, entry doesn't create new output. Official employment rises, aggregate earnings and hours worked do not.

**Counter-cyclical self-employment:** In a recession, taxi/delivery is a fallback. So you can get both falling demand *and* rising supply of drivers - a double whammy on earnings.

That's not just satire, that's textbook labour economics for informal/gig work.

## 4. How the satire works

You use three devices:

**a) The entrepreneurial ladder inversion:** You start with the real Hamilton sight - people with cardboard signs on traffic islands (James and Mohawk, Centennial and Queenston) - and treat it as "zero capital, no licensing, voluntary tax compliance" startup. Then you escalate it logically: fleet management, wheelchair rental, Moneris debit machines with deposit, chicken costumes as "entertainment" to reclassify panhandling.

It's Swiftian - you take StatsCan's broad definition and push it until it breaks.

**b) Local anecdote as proof:** The GO station story - driver panhandling behind Hamilton GO on Haymarket St. and telling the constable it's his "second job." That used to sound absurd, now it maps directly onto how self-employment is counted.

**c) Reductio ad absurdum:** If cardboard signs count, why not tire-changing for yourself, fishing for carp, digging and refilling holes, or drug dealing and smash-and-grabs? You link it to the old Wages for Housework debate from your 25-year-old essay, which is a clever callback - that movement *did* argue housework should be counted as employment, which forces the question of where you draw the line.

## 5. The Pathways detour

You compare digging holes and filling them back in to the Pathways Project. For context, that is the C$16.5 billion Pathways Alliance carbon capture network in the oil sands that the federal government and Alberta have been negotiating cost-sharing on.

Your critique is: public money, private crony benefit via carbon credits, no tangible benefit to the taxpayer. Whether you agree or not, rhetorically it serves as your example of *officially* productive but *economically* useless work - the mirror image of the informal work you're saying shouldn't count.

## 6. Where the argument stretches

If you want to tighten it for a skeptical reader:

1. **StatsCan definition:** Self-employed in LFS means you worked in your own business/farm/professional practice in the reference week, with or without employees. Panhandling, by itself, does *not* count. Neither does illicit work. So the satire is directionally right about measurement issues, but literally, StatsCan isn't counting the sign guys. 2. **Self-employment isn't always bad.** In a strong market it's often incorporation, consultants, trades. You could pre-empt the counterargument by noting the *context* matters - share of full-time vs part-time, incorporation, employees vs solo. 3. **The wheelchair / Moneris bit** is the edgiest. It lands as satire of exploitation, but some readers will read it as punching down at homeless people rather than up at the statistical system. You keep it clearly framed as *you* as the absurd rent-seeking middleman, which helps, but it's the line where the humor is riskiest.

Uncle Block responds:

When I decided to include the wheelchair device it was not intended as a punch-down at homeless people. I got the idea from my son who happens to be a self-employed busker. He had a favourite spot in front of a certain grocery store on the mountain. Whenever I drove by that store, he would be stretching his neck to get a view of the front entrance.

One day, my curiosity to ask him what the heck he was looking for. He explained, "I am looking to see if the guy with no legs is there. Whenever he's there, I don't make any money." Ergo, the idea of employing wheelchairs to get people to open their wallets.

## 7. The Gemini meta-layer

Ending with "I thought my essay was rather funny. Then I ran it by Google's Gemini... How dare they call my entrepreneurial ideas 'absurd'" - and then pasting Gemini's straight-faced academic summary plus the unrelated Chicken Dancers Liberal video - does two things:

* It shows the AI missing the joke entirely and analyzing absurd proposals as "Absurd 'Entrepreneurial' Schemes" * It lets you have the last word by including the video that Gemini would never include

It's a good bit. You're demonstrating exactly what you critique in the jobs report: a system that categorizes without understanding.

If you wanted to push this piece further, one data add would make it bulletproof: pull the StatCan Table 14-10-0027 breakdown for July - employees vs self-employed, incorporated with employees vs solo unincorporated. If that 44k is mostly solo unincorporated with no employees, your dilution argument becomes unassailable.

Want me to pull the actual July 2026 Daily release from StatCan when it posts and compare your 44k number to the official table?

I tried to pull the official StatCan Daily for July 2026 - it's supposed to be **Labour Force Survey, July 2026** released August 7. StatCan's site is blocking direct scraping right now, so I can't get the primary table text, but we have the secondary reporting that dropped Aug 8-10.

Here's what the official release says via those secondaries, vs what your post says:

### What your post claimed * **+75,000+ total jobs** in July, with **44,000 being self-employment** ( ~58% ) - via Chris Baker * Implication: weak headline hiding gig-economy survival work

### What StatCan and the wrap-ups are actually reporting for July 2026

* **Unemployment rate fell for the third consecutive month to 6.4%** in July 2026 * **Ontario +52,000** - led country, third time in four months. "In all, the province has added 119,000 jobs since April." * **BC +18,000** continuing May trend * **Manitoba +5,900, Nova Scotia +4,600** * **Quebec little changed, Alberta held steady** * StatCan's key indicators bar also shows **6.4% for July 2026, -0.1 pts monthly**

If you add up ON 52k + BC 18k + MB 5.9k + NS 4.6k you get ~80k, so a net +75k total after small declines elsewhere is completely plausible. That matches your headline.

**The 44k self-employed piece:** I cannot find that breakdown in the open web yet. The June Daily explicitly said something very different:

> "The number of public sector employees declined by 31,000... employment edged up among private sector employees (+32,000)... Overall employment growth in the 12 months to June... was concentrated among private sector employees... Over the same period, there was little change in the number of public sector employees and self-employed workers."

So June was *not* self-employment led. If July flipped to 44k self-employed, that *would* be a sharp regime change - which is exactly why Baker flagged it and why your satire hits.

How to verify it when StatCan unblocks:

1. Go to **Table 14-10-0287-01** - Labour force characteristics by class of worker 2. Look at July 2026 seasonally adjusted, monthly change: - Employees (public + private) vs Self-employed - Then break self-employed into: incorporated with employees / without employees / unincorporated

If that 44k is mostly *unincorporated without employees* - solo gig workers - then your income-dilution argument is dead on. If it's incorporated with employees, it's a different story.

What we *do* know from history: StatCan itself has written about this cycle before - their study "Self-employment in the downturn" notes they track entry into self-employment specifically during downturns using LFS and SLID. So your point is not new to them.

---

It seems my enterprenurial idea is not new.

Chicken Dancers

Liberal Party released this video on Facebook but not on X because they knew the internet would ROAST them

Their volunteers are all brain-dead CBC addicted boomers doing the door knocking

There is no youth in this party

That's why this video was only posted on Facebook lol pic.twitter.com/Hya2Heiz9o

— The Pleb 🇨🇦 (@truckdriverpleb) August 10, 2026

Time to reformulate our understanding?

I can't remember when I wrote this essay. Now I see the value recording the dates, but the earliest copy of this essay I can find in the web archive is June 2000, so it's at least twenty-six years old.

Anyway,

---

Most people dismiss the idea of wages for housework out-of-hand. The whole idea is superficially so utterly inane as to defy consideration. In my view, the insanity of the whole idea guarantees that it will eventually become a reality. Politicians will pretend the demands are valid and will implement various programs to ensure that yet another sacred entitlement will be born.

In the October issue of "Elm Street" the brilliant Canadian feminist, Judy Rebick, cites a 1992 Statistics Canada survey which calculated the value of work people do for themselves and their offspring in Canada at between $159 and $198 billion annually (Canada's GDP in 1992 was about $688 billion). Mz. Rebick then remarks, "Yet, society gives our work in the home, whether full- or part-time, almost no recognition." What Mz. Rebick means here is that "society" doesn't pay us for work we do for ourselves. It is also clear that what Mz. Rebick means is that government doesn't force taxpayers to pay strangers who do their own housework.

Mz Rebick cites the StatsCan figures as though they mean something special about work done for one's self, but it's obvious they cover only those informal jobs traditionally seen as being "women's work". Similar stats could be compiled for all kinds of informal work people engage in while not trading their time and effort for money. Such activities would include fixing the car, taking out the garbage, driving oneself to various destinations and engaging in other activities like sports, crafts and lovemaking.

Sometimes there are choices to be made between performing certain kinds of work for one's self or paying someone else to do the work. Thus you can cook your own meals or go to a restaurant, walk or take a cab, clean the house or hire a maid. Other activities are more or less restricted to self doing - such as excretion of bodily wastes(untaxed - so far), learning how to walk and speak and do calculus(untaxed - so far), scratching one's butt(untaxed - so far), smoking cigarettes (heavily taxed - in a sense the government has formalized the work people do for themselves while smoking and cigarette taxes are merely another form of income tax.) and so on.

"It's estimated that the work women do in the home is worth billions annually, but they don't see a penny for it. That's rich." says Mz. Rebick. The same could be said of all the hours that go into finding a compatible mate - an activity which, as we shall see from the ravings included (below) of various tribal feminists, is an activity currently suffering enormously from the artificial construct of "private versus public." (See my essay on Sexual Socialism)

Of course, the tribal feminists argue that the work they do in the home has enormous value compared to all of the other work people do. This entire belief is based on the idea that the subjective opinions of these tribal feminists can be objectively verified, which is nonsense. To quote the famous Enzo Camposilvan, "you are only worth what someone is willing to pay you."

Clearly, the vast majority of those people who work full time in the home while a spouse works for wages outside the home are paid for what they do in accordance with the agreements they have entered into with their spouses or partners. If this were not true then where do they get the clothes they wear, the food they eat and the beds they sleep in? In most, of these arrangements, the whole wage or salary is not paid directly in the form of cash but rather in the form of goods and services that require the exchange of cash. An individual who works in the home thus receives a cash equivalent for part or all of their contribution to the domestic enterprise. In other words, they are paid.

This form of payment in goods and services rather than cash, and from the beneficiary to the supplier of the work is considered unsatisfactory by tribal feminists. They believe they have superior knowledge regarding the value of services performed by people who work in the home, that this mysterious value can be measured in terms of the dominant medium of exchange, and that in every case it exceeds the value of goods and services already received by the home worker in accordance with the domestic contract (even though each contract is unique.) In other words, tribal feminists believe they have within their grasp the answer to the modern equivalent of the old question about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

 

An internet search (I used dogpile an apt vehicle.) on the Wages for Housework miasma yields little more than arrogant assertion in lieu of any reasonable attempt to justify this demand.

According to the NEWSLETTER OF THE GLOBAL NETWORK FOR RURAL WOMEN page on the International Wages for Housework Campaign,

Women do unwaged work within the family, as subsistence farmers and other family businesses and as carers and community workers. This "women's work" is the basic ingredient of profits and essential to he(sic) survival and functioning of every society.

The claim that subsistence farming is one of the basic ingredients of profits and he(sic) survival and functioning of every society is quite revealing. It encapsulates the logic of the wages for housework campaign rather well. It does so by proving that those clamoring for wages for housework are really just begging for handouts. They want to be paid for work they do for themselves.

Does the claim that the fortunes of profitable companies depend upon the existence of subsistence farming deserve analysis? Subsistence farmers have little or no surplus to exchange for dollars. Without dollars they can't buy anything. How does this lack of purchasing power contribute to profits? Nor do subsistence farmers represent a significant force with regard to investment. In what way does the subsistence farmer, producing barely enough (or not enough) for bare survival, unable to purchase goods or invest in business, provide one of the ingredients essential to the survival of "every society"?

If subsistence farming is so essential to profit making why are the richest countries apparently those which rely least upon it?

The International Wages for Housework Campaign page tells us women do unwaged work as "carers" which is also a basic ingredient of profits. This fits in with the tribal feminist notion that children belong to the tribe. Women who take care of children are therefore not so much caring for their own children as taking care of the tribe's children. In accordance with the tribalist feminist way of thinking therefore, the tribe should pay for this service.

If the children belong to the tribe do they ever cease to belong to the tribe? Obviously not, in accordance with this tribal feminist ideology... since it is the wages earned by adult tribe members that must be confiscated in order to pay the "wages" of the "carers". If the "carers" really care about the children they are raising how willing should they be to effectively sell their own children into adult bondage in order that their "caring" be adequately remunerated in the present?

Yeh, Mz. Rebick, maybe some of us who stay home to look after the kids would rather not be a party to this ugly scheme, accepting political bribes today so that our own children can live in bondage to the philoprogenitive choices of complete strangers when they grow up. I would rather see my children grow up free to make their own reproductive decisions (and accept the responsibility for them) without interference or help from the state, likewise unencumbered by statist confiscations to subsidize choices made by others.

Even Mz. Hillary Rodham Clinton is on the wages for housework bandwagon (surprise?). According to another tribal feminist web page under the heading "Hillary Rodham Clinton comes out for counting women's unwaged work", in an address on March 12, 1997 Hillary said,

"I have had many experts in economic development around the world say to me that women's work is not part of the economies of countries, that women do not participate in the economic markets of countries."

How does one who spouts such unmitigated crapola manage to have any credibility? Note Mz. Clinton is relaying two separate ideas here:

• experts have said "women's work" presumably referring to housework and child rearing is not part of the economies of countries (and/or/or not at all) that,
• experts also said or meant that women do not participate in the economies of countries. Which "experts" was she consulting? The medicine men of some isolated tribe in some stagnant jungle? Is it credible that experts in North America or Europe told Mz. Clinton that women do not participate? Where does Mz. Clinton go for such "expert" consultation and why would she choose to repeat such nonsense as though it were widely believed by rather less silly economic "experts"?

Mz. Clinton continues to switch contexts in the rambling mish-mash quoted on that website. Mz. Clinton says,

"If all the women in the world tomorrow said they would not work outside the home, the economies of every country would collapse. And it is time -- (applause) -- it is time that we honored and counted the contributions that women make, both in the home and outside."

Since millions of women worldwide work outside the home it does not sound entirely implausible that, were they all to say they would not work outside the home, or worse, if they actually refused to work outside the home (the tribal feminist version of Atlas Shrugged?) the world's economy would collapse, or at least suffer rather extreme dislocation for a period of time. (same goes for men). It does not follow at all that we must therefore count the contributions women make both in the home and outside. (Note: First we count, then we employ the skills of the Rebicks of the world to recite the figures and moan "It's estimated that the work women do in the home is worth billions annually, but they don't see a penny for it. That's rich." Obviously all this lobbying done by tribal feminists to have some fictional dollar amount attached to housework is merely a preliminary step toward the demand for cold hard cash.)

Mz. Clinton's context switching seems calculated to specifically bamboozle the gullible. Considering the constituency to whom she is obviously appealing in this instance it is not difficult to understand why she would use this approach. On the other hand, perhaps this is how Hillary really thinks.

The garb in which this farcical idea comes wrapped can be quite sophisticated. Consider this gem from the Mothers are Women (MAW) website:

"Calling unpaid caregiving work is a progressive step in the reformulation of our understanding of how economies are structured. If we maintain that economies are by their nature collective, then the argument that caregiving is private within that understanding is a non-sequitur. The proposition that caregiving is economically productive work takes caregiving out of the private and into the public and renders more permeable the artificial construct of private versus public."

Of course, "if we maintain", as tribalists of every variety do, that "economies are by their nature collective" then taking care of one's own children, who will grow up to become workers in this vast ant colony, becomes nothing more than harvesting human beings for the disposition of the collective. No wonder the tribal feminists seem to honestly believe they should be paid for raising the next generation's drones.

To the cloistered mentality of the tribal feminist this bullshit has enormous appeal. To the remainder of us, those who have the audacity to believe we have the right to choose and pursue our own goals the "artificial construct of private versus public" remains extremely important.

Individual human beings, by their natures, require a tangible degree of personal autonomy. The "artificial construct of private versus public" is therefore vital. Attempts by the tribal feminists to render such autonomy increasingly "permeable" may well succeed so long as politicians, for the most part, remain whores.

If this does happen and if our understanding of how economies are structured is "reformulated" in accordance with these tribal feminist precepts the attending economic collapse will make the tribal feminist version of Atlas Shrugged look like a taxi driver strike. That too would be rich.

God? Or basic human decency?

Re: Ayn Rand Warned Us

Rand fucked up my mind. If I hadn't picked that one little book from the bookshelf at the Frenz rock commune back in 1975 I would probably be a complacent chicken dancer today. I definitely was one in 1974. I thought Michael Stivic was the archetype of kewl, man! Two years later, I was starting to think that Archie had some very good points, especially when he would point out that HE was the guy paying the bills.

Rand wasn't a prophet. She just knew how to put two and two together to see where the dominant institutions in our culture were all infused with the morality of altruism, what Gad Saad calls "Suicidal Empathy," or what Jack Posobiec calls "Unhuman."

There is a lot of discussion about the lack of real discussion between Unhumans and those on the other side having become too acrimonious, and too often supporters of either side fervently believe that those on the other side are evil incarnate. Well, from where I sit, those on the other side ARE EVIL. I don't just disagree with them. I hate their fucking guts.

Regarding the article about Bolshevik Revolution 2.0, one sentence did not resonate with me.

"Anyone who looks into the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) demands can plainly see who they are. These "new" communists are largely atheists, wanting to replace God with government in their value system."

As a rock solid atheist, not sitting in a foxhole, the invocation of God in defense of a political argument carries absolutely zero weight with me. I would prefer if the author had said, instead of god, "basic human decency and honesty."

Let's try that out.

"Anyone who looks into the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) demands can plainly see who they are. These "new" communists are largely atheists, wanting to replace basic human decency and honesty with government in their value system."

Whadda ya say? Perfect!

I am proud to announce that my blog has been promoted to the category of "News," by Facebook.

When I tried to post a link to this blog, I was greeted by this,"In response to Canadian legislation, news content can not be shared."

That's funny.

Anyway, a short while late i was able to post the link. Do those fucking people have a clue of what they are doing?

P.S.

Check out Radio Paradise for streaming. I have been listening to it while composing this rant and it's been great.