Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Opinion

Politicized Language: A harmless evolution of language or a step towards “1984″?

Published

1 minute read

Good chance you’ve noticed some new words lately, or new meanings for words that used to mean something else.  Terms like “birthing person” are new, and words like “racism” seem to be taking on a new meaning.  19 time Emmy Award Winning Journalist John Stossel is back with his take on “Politicized Language”

From StosselTV

“Social justice” activists are changing and redefining many words, from “birthing people”, “equity”, “mistress”, “violence”, to “racism”.

Is that a harmless evolution of language? Or a step towards “1984?”

Tim Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute argues that today’s language changes are dangerous. For example, one activist declared that “a transgender woman of color walking down the street and being called a man — [that] is an act of violence.” “It is quite chilling,” says Sandefur, the degree to which the social justice movement… is willing to control our language.”

“The only way that we have as human beings to deal with one another is through language, discussion, debate, deliberation. If we say that that’s a form of violence … then the only way left for us to relate to one another is through power,” he adds. I push back , saying that the social justice movement has good intentions.

—- So you don’t miss the weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://johnstossel.activehosted.com/f/1 —-

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

Economy

Meeting Ottawa’s new housing target will require more than $300 billion in additional financing every year until 2030

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Steven Globerman

Canada Needs to Save Much More to Finance an Ambitious Investment Agenda

To meet Ottawa’s ambitious new housing construction targets in order to restore affordability, the country needs more than $300 billion in additional financing every year from 2025 to 2030, finds a new report published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“To increase home building and restore business investment in key areas like technology to previous levels, Canada needs to become much more attractive to investors, both from within Canada and around the world,” said Steven Globerman, Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of Canada Needs to Save Much More to Finance an Ambitious Investment Agenda.

To restore housing affordability, the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), a Crown Corporation of the federal government, has estimated that about 3.5 million additional housing units need to be built by 2030 given expected construction rates.

The study finds that for the federal government to meet this housing construction goal, an estimated $331 to $364 billion in additional financing is needed annually from 2025-2030.

If business investment in key areas such as communications and IT are to return to previous levels, another roughly $13 billion is needed annually.

In total, this means Canada needs an additional $343 to $377 billion in financing annually over the next five years. To put this into perspective, this is equivalent to increasing the current Canadian savings rate by 50 per cent.

One option to mitigate the need for a drastic increase in the domestic savings rate is to attract more foreign investment, but that will require substantial policy reforms to make Canada a more attractive environment for foreign investors.

“It is very likely that the ambitious targets that have been set for homebuilding and business investment won’t be met, but even so, encouraging increased investment and higher domestic savings is a worthy policy pursuit,” Globerman said.

  • Both the Canadian government and policymakers from various organizations including the Bank of Canada have called for ambitious programs to increase capital investment in Canada, particularly investment focused on residential housing and productivity-enhancing business assets.
  • The ambitious domestic investment agenda will require a substantial increase in domestic savings in order to finance the necessary increased capital expenditure. The requisite increase has been largely ignored, to date, in policy proposals and surrounding discussion of those proposals.
  • The financial capital required to fund major investments in residential housing and even modest increases in business investment will require an increase in the domestic savings rate of as much as 50 percent. Alternatively, much larger inflows of long-term foreign capital investments into Canada beyond what has been realized over the past few decades will be required.
  • Such large increases in the domestic savings rate and in foreign capital inflows would require unrealistic and unsustainably high real interest rates. The implication is that the federal government’s investment goals, especially with regard to increasing the supply of residential housing, are unrealizable over the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, implementing policies to encourage increased domestic savings and channeling those savings into high priority investment activities should be a public policy imperative.

Read The Full Report

Steven Globerman

Senior Fellow and Addington Chair in Measurement, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Digital ID

Wales Becomes First UK Testbed for Citywide AI-Powered Facial Recognition Surveillance

Published on

Wales is that part of the UK the authorities have picked as the testbed for the first citywide deployment of what some consider to currently be the most radical form of mass biometric surveillance in public places – “AI”-powered live facial recognition.
What is likely to be the reason behind the “trial,” privacy campaigners are warning, is the eventual permanent deployment of this type of biometric surveillance throughout the country.
South Wales Police said that Cardiff will be covered by a network of CCTV cameras with facial recognition tech embedded in them, while the excuse is providing security during the international Six Nations rugby event. But the police also characterized the move as “semi-permanent.”
This appears to be a distinction between what the police in the UK have used thus far to carry out surveillance based on live facial recognition: vans with one camera.
The decision to move to position a host of cameras in the central zone of Cardiff makes this a significant expansion of the technique.
And while the police are reassuring citizens that expanding live facial recognition “really enhances” law enforcement’s ability to do their job –  the Big Brother Watch privacy group slammed the move as a “shocking” development and the creation of an “Orwellian biometric surveillance zone.”
And while capturing everyone’s biometric data, and in that way, according to Big Brother Watch’s Senior Advocacy Officer Madeleine Stone, turning Brits into “walking barcodes” and “a nation of suspects” – in terms of solving crime, this is proving to be a waste of public money.
“This network of facial recognition cameras will make it impossible for Cardiff residents and visitors to opt out of a biometric police identity check,” Stone underlined.
And yet, over the three years that live facial recognition has been in use at sporting venues (only) – the use of the technology has not led to any arrests.
“No other democracy in the world spies on its population with live facial recognition in this cavalier and chilling way,” Stone warned, adding, “South Wales Police must immediately stop this dystopian trial.”
The technology works by capturing the faces of every person passing through an area covered, in real time, to then compare them to a database of those described in reports as “wanted criminals.”
However, when South Wales Police spoke about who is on their “watchlist,” it also included people “banned from the area” and those “who pose a risk to the public.”
Continue Reading

Trending

X