Trevor Dailey's Weblog

Making London a Little Bit Sweeter

Province Helps Natra Open Factory and Create Jobs

February 3, 2014 1:00 p.m.

Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Employment

Ontario is helping Natra set up a chocolate manufacturing facility in London that will create 56 new jobs in the community.

Support from the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund will help Natra expand to Ontario to meet growing demand from the North American market. Currently, the company makes chocolate bars, spreads and other specialty products at factories in Spain, France and Belgium. The new London facility will be part of Natra's consumer goods division.

Modelled on the proven Eastern Ontario Development Fund, the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund is helping to create jobs and diversify the economy by encouraging regional businesses to pursue innovation and new markets. Together these two funds have created and retained more than 24,000 jobs and strengthened local economies.

Creating local jobs and growing the economy is part of the government's economic plan to invest in people, build modern infrastructure and support a dynamic and innovative business climate.

Quick Facts

Ontario is providing a loan of $2,851,000 towards this project. Natra is a publicly traded multinational company based in Spain and one of the leading companies in Europe specializing in chocolate products and cocoa derivatives.

We can stop here. This large and very successful company, Natra, whose products are growing in consumer demand, and is a publicly traded company, is not willing to raise $2,851,000 of its own money to build another factory. The Ontario government is spending $50,910 of taxpayer money to so-called create just one of these 56 new jobs. Would you spend that amount to give one person a job? I certainly would not.

The Ontario government, billions of dollars in debt because of its reckless spending, continues to shovel money from hard working taxpayers of this province to companies that have no good reason why they will not raise capital themselves, except that the government of Ontario is handing out free bags of taxpayers' money. This is not what tax money should be used for.

Ontario Ministry Of Finance 2012 - 2013

Total Revenue: $113.369 billion

Total Expense: $122.589 billion

Deficit: $9.220 billion

Why are other business, some that are Natra's competitors, having to pay corporate taxes that are going to subsidize Natra? Why are people in the province of Ontario, most whom don't even live and work in London, having their tax money spent to subsidize Natra? Fortunately, some companies still raise their own capital, and do not go to government for taxpayer money handouts that the government uses to buy votes,  and to meddle in the market place. Natra gives me the impression that it is saying to the people of London that it will build a new factory and create needed jobs, but only if Natra gets paid first. You don't pay someone to give you a job.

The average yearly unemployment rate as a percentage (.4 and below rounded down, .5 and above rounded up) for London, Ontario, Canada from 1997 to 2013, the only years complete data is available, is 8%. There is no correlation between government spending tax money on "job creation" and the unemployment rate. Unfortunately, this grease the palm attitude of business and government seems to me to be growing in Ontario.

Since October 2012, the government has committed $36 million through Southwestern Ontario Development Funding, leveraging a total investment of $340 million. These investments have helped to create over 1,800 new jobs and retained more than 7,200 existing jobs in the region.

Taxpayers paid 10% of the $340 million total.

Taxpayers paid $4000 for each one of the 9000 jobs.

Taxpayers paid $20,000 for each new job.

Taxpayers paid $5000 for each job that already existed.

Ontario lost 39,000 jobs in December, 2013.

If government could create jobs by giving away our tax money, we would have zero unemployment. We don't. Government can only directly hire a person to "create" a job. 

Companies create employment via good business models, innovation, free markets, private investment, and the government staying out of the way. I think it is time all companies like Natra and government understood this, and tax money handouts to companies by government to "create jobs" was ended.

The giant food producer, Dr. Oetker, has finally completed a $113 million frozen pizza factory in London, Ontario after years of construction in a taxpayer funded deal lauded by London City Mayor Joe Fontana. This factory cost Ontario taxpayers $19 million, and could employ 125 people. The Ontario government spent $100 million of taxpayer's money to upgrade the road system near the factory as part of the deal with Dr. Oetker.

Taxpayers paid 16% of the $113 million total cost.

Taxpayers paid 100% of the $100 million total cost.

Taxpayers paid $1,704,000 for each of the 125 new jobs.

McGuinty Government Invests In New Manufacturing Plant That Will Create Jobs In Belleville

March 6, 2008

Kellogg is opening its first new North American manufacturing plant in more than 20 years with the help of the Ontario government.

Ontario will invest $9.7 million to support Kellogg's new $97-million plant which will produce Mini-Wheats cereal. Kellogg will hire about 100 new employees for the plant....

With 2007 sales of nearly $12 billion, Kellogg is the world's leading cereal producer and a leading producer of convenience foods. Kellogg products are manufactured in 18 countries and sold in more than 180 countries around the world.

"Kellogg's investment is a vote of confidence in the strength of Ontario's manufacturing sector. Companies like Kellogg prove that Ontario is the place to be when you want the best-educated, most innovative and highly skilled workers."

Dalton McGuinty Premier of Ontario

Approximately 500 jobs will be lost by the end of 2014 after the Kellogg Cereal plant in London closes.

© Trevor Dailey

Source for unemployment rate data: Unemployment Rates for the EI Economic Regions (1996 to 2014)

There were beans in a bowl on the kitchen counter top when she walked over.

"Whatcha making?", she asked as she took a bean from the bowl, and placed the single bean into her mouth.

"I'm not sure yet. Something with these beans. I'll likely mix 'em in with something" I replied, half ignoring her, as I still was thinking about what I was making. She removed another bean from the bowl, and placed it into her mouth.

"You like beans?," I asked rhetorically, noticing her obvious bean stealing.

"I like kinky beans," she said, taking her third bean from the bowl to eat, and then her hand returning for a fourth bean soon after.

"Those," I said, as I looked at her in a slightly stern manner, "are called kidney beans"

"Kinky beans," she said in a matter of fact response as another bean disappeared into her mouth.

"Kidney beans," I said correcting her.

"No," she said in a more correcting tone than mine, "Kinky beans," putting her emphasis on the word "kinky'.

I contemplated what she had said.

"Kidney beans," I spoke with a little more assertion, "they're called kidney beans because the bean resembles the shape of a kidney. I'm pretty sure that is why they are called kidney beans".

She held the bean she had just grabbed from the bowl up to my eyes, the ends of the bean pinched between the tips of her thumb and middle finger.

"These are called kinky beans because the bean has a kink in it." She traced the shape of the bean with the tip of her forefinger of her other hand.

"See? A kinky bean." The bean was gone with a toss into her mouth, and she turned and left the kitchen.

"Makes sense," I said quietly to myself examining one of the kinky beans from the bowl. A few moments later, I was stopped preparing our meal with the intrusion of a sudden thought:

"What does the word kink mean, anyway?".

This thought drove me to consult the dictionary definition of the word, kink:

a sharp twist or curve in something that is otherwise straight.

"Wait a minute," I thought then looking up the work, sharp:

(of a bend, angle, or turn) making a sudden change of direction.

Examining the bean closely, I was now convinced this was no so-called kinky bean! I waited for her to return to the kitchen for me to reveal the results of my investigation to her. As I was pretending I was preoccupied with the food preparation, she stood beside me gathering some items from the counter top.

"You know," I said confidently, "those aren't kinky beans."

"Aren't what?," was her reply, turning her head to look at me.

I repeated, "Those aren't kinky beans. A kink is a sharp twist or curve in something that is otherwise straight," impressing myself with my memorization, "and the word sharp means a sudden change of direction, like in a bend, angle or turn," I asserted.

I held a bean up to her eyes as she had done previously with me to demonstrate the lack of a kink in the shape of the bean. My desire to exult held back.

She stared expressionless at me before she broke out into a big open mouth smile with the sound of laughter, gave me a tight hug, a quick kiss to my lips, and then she walked away, her laughter still audible. My smug feeling disappeared as my illusion fell away.

I turned my attention to the bowl of beans.

"Kinky beans," I said to myself. I quietly laughed, shaking my head.

Turning to look at her, oblivious to me in the other room, a large smile grew on my face.

"You're the greatest," I said to her.

© Trevor Dailey

When I was in my early 20s, poker was the name of the game with my group of friends. My interest in playing poker led me to learning how to cheat at cards. There were a few books at the library that I read over and over. I learned to be a card-sharp. I tested my cheating skills out on family and friends. All the cheats worked flawlessly, and more importantly, without detection. I felt ready to take on the world.

My friend held a New Year's Eve party at his house each year. It was a place to meet old friends, and to make new friends. There were always a few poker games that would spring up around. We all played for fun, and I was about to have a lot of fun, as I sat down at a table and joined three other players for a friendly game of poker. No one at the table knew I could cheat. This was a perfect place to test my skills. To see if I had the skills to deceive these experienced players.

As we played, a small group of spectators gathered to watch. This was not unusual. What was out of the ordinary, for me, was there was a very attractive woman standing across from me watching the game. She was well dressed, with shiny hair, and beautiful eyes. She was alone at the party. She politely applauded at each hand won by each player, but she seemed to add a little extra when I won. I had been playing straight, but I wanted to know if she was in fact interested in me. I decided it was within my means to determine if she was indeed interested in me. I decided to start cheating.

A few hands went by until I felt the moment right to play crooked. I won. I looked up at her. My suspicions appeared correct. A few more hands were played, then I built up the pot, and I stole it all with a cheating winning hand. She was much more enthusiastic in her reaction to my winning the huge pot than to my winning before. After some observation of her, I decided to win the game entirely. I cleaned the other players out, and I pulled my pile of chips over to me with a smile, and with great delight from her. The crowd dispersed, on to the other games being played, the other players congratulated me on my playing with a shaking of my hand, and moved on. She sat down at the table.

Then she spoke to me. In a silky smooth, velvet like foreign accent that I could not quite place she asked me if I would help her learn to play cards better by having a few games with her. Without hesitation, I said yes. I felt like I was James Bond, and she looked and sounded like a 'Bond girl'. I pushed half of my chips over to her. We began.

As we played, and she won a few, but lost more. I didn't cheat. There was no reason to. That was until she hit a streak of luck. Beginner's luck. She started to win more often, and my stack of chips started to be whittled away. This wasn't good. I was supposed to be teaching her how to play, but she could clean me out! That would be far too embarrassing for me. The teacher losing to the student is something I could not have. I would cheat, win all her chips, and then reveal to her I had cheated. I would then teach her how to cheat. That would really impress her! I waited for the right moment.

My cheating hand came into play. She beat it. She won. Surprised, I thought it must be more of her luck. No matter, another turn came soon enough. I lost again! Something wasn't right. This had never happened before. What was I doing wrong? My attention soon became completely involved in trying to beat her hand with my cheating. I cheated more and more often. I lost each and every time I played a cheating hand! What was going on here? This made no sense. There was no way she could beat my cheats. No way! Those cheats worked every time! My cheats were bulletproof. They worked! It wasn't long before every hand I played was loaded. She crushed every one I played.

The game ended with my last chips being lost to her on yet another one of my dirty hands. In disbelief, I stared at my last played cards, bewildered, trying to understand what had happened. She leaned in close. I looked up, my eyes meeting hers. Her cherry lip gloss lips formed a slight whimsical smile. Her perfumed scent engulfed me. Without a trace of a foreign accent, she spoke these words to me:

"You like to cheat at cards, don't you?"

Smiling, she left the table, and disappeared.

© Trevor Dailey

***SCENE OPENS***

This is, Fries.

Frays.

What?

It is pronounced Frays, not fries.

I apologize, Freeze.

[Quietly to himself] It's Frays. Victor Frays.

***NEXT SCENE***

Every test is coming up negative! Why can't they find what is wrong!

They don't know what it is, but at least they know what it isn't.

What it isn't; but that's not killing you!

***NEXT SCENE***

I could put you in the cryonics chamber. It would place you in suspended animation. You could sleep until the doctors find what is wrong. Until they find a cure. Nora, I won't let you die!

***NEXT SCENE***

[Tears. Touching outside of cryonics chamber containing Nora.] Sleep now, my love, sleep. I'll be back to wake you soon. I promise.

***NEXT SCENE***

[Frays walking home alone at night in winter snowfall.]

***NEXT SCENE***

[Winter. Camera panning from deliberately left open bedroom window with curtains blowing in the cold wind to a bed with a shivering Frays.]

***NEXT SCENE***

You had no right to put her in there in the first place!

You can't do that! You can't...

[Interrupts.] I can't do what?! You work for me! I tell you what you can and cannot do! You don't tell me! [Aside] Shut it off. Take it down and open it up. Get her out of there.

No! She'll die! You'll kill her! No! [Frays breaks away. Chamber crashes to ground in struggle. Frays is injured from his contact with the spilled contents of the damaged chamber. Frays flees]

***NEXT SCENE***

[Winter. Snowing. Close. Headstone. "Nora Frays". Strange gloved hand is shown placing flowers.]

***NEXT SCENE***

This is a device I was working on. Do you recognize it?

No.

Of course, I had to modify it to make it into what it is now. It's a weapon.

Listen, we can make a deal. I'll...

[Interrupts] A weapon that will instantly freeze solid anything I fire it at. Let me show you how well it works. See this flower? It was her favourite kind. [Flower is frozen solid with weapon] [Referring to frozen flower] It looks beautiful, doesn't it? [Referring to the weapon] It is also able to kill.

Listen to me. I'll give you anything you want, just....

[Interrupts] Nora! Give me Nora! Give me back my Nora! [Aims weapon]

No! Listen to me! Frays! Please! Frays!

It's Freeze. Victor Freeze.

***SCENE CLOSES***

© Trevor Dailey

grammar

noun

the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics. [usu. with adj. ] a particular analysis of the system and structure of language or of a specific language. a book on grammar : my old Latin grammar. a set of actual or presumed prescriptive notions about correct use of a language : it was not bad grammar, just dialect. the basic elements of an area of knowledge or skill : the grammar of wine. Computing a set of rules governing what strings are valid or allowable in a language or text. ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French gramaire, via Latin from Greek grammatike (tekhne) '(art) of letters,' from gramma, grammat- 'letter of the alphabet, thing written.

Oxford Dictionary

English teachers, linguists, editors, and authors know more about English grammar than I do. I only strive to improve and correct my grammar. As I write, I am frequently looking words up in the dictionary, and I am checking my grammar. No, it is not perfect. I go back often and read my blog entries, and many times I am making edits to try to make my grammar better. Perhaps, one could call me some kind of obsessive grammarian. This might be what I am. Why do I feel proper grammar, as as close to it as I can get, is important?

Humans communicate in may ways with each other. One of these ways is the written language. I learned English, and being Canadian, a handful of French too. My preference for communication has long been the written word, although I do not 'text' nor 'tweet' or use other popular so-called social media. Believe it or not, I do not speak the way I write. In fact, I hardly speak at all in most cases. Written communication is always more difficult than the spoken word. Many times, what I wrote was not what I meant when it was read. Humans use visual and audio cues to understand what another person means. Voice tone, facial expressions, and body language are key parts of human communication. Think about saying the words, "I love you", and you might get my meaning.

The written word is sometimes silent and expressionless, unless one is a good writer. More than once, I have received an email that has caused me to suspect the email was written in code, the email that I am unable to make sense of. It could be the lack of punctuation, or the words in the sentences appear to have no purpose. There is a type of etiquette to writing, perhaps lost with the current generation's instant messaging, but there is also the grammar. These are the rules for communication. Why do we need these rules?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your English. Rules of grammar are important because these rules establish how we communicate. One reason is I think, when everyone understands and uses the rules correctly, confusion and misunderstanding is lowered. This is the English language. This is English grammar. English grammar is the manual on how to speak and write English correctly so we are all using the same English. One may argue English, like all languages, evolves and it changes. Read or listen to a Shakespeare play as proof the English language has evolved! This, I do not dispute, but change can bring confusion where meaning becomes blurred.

In radiocommunication parlance, codes are used. The reason for these codes is similar to the rules of grammar, to keep communications as clear as possible. One of the most popular codes is known as the 10 Code, and from the 10 Code comes 10-4. Many people are familiar with this 10 code. It means, OK, message received (acknowledgment). That is, until it means something else. As the 10 Code evolves, some radio users are using 10-4 to mean different things, or shortening a 10 Code to just the last number, like the codes 10-20 and 10-21. Some of the problems with this is it deviates from the 10 Code radio users are supposed to follow to be reasonably sure we can communicate with each other. I know what 10-(number) means. That 10 at the beginning tells me it is a 10 Code, the second number tells me which 10 Code it is, and therefore the meaning. When the 10 Codes are changed, or shortened, it can create confusion. The 10 Codes are from 10-1 to 10-200, but there are many gaps. This is so users may add a 10 code that is not appropriate to the established 10 Codes for their group's use, but users are not supposed to change the existing 10-Codes because this would create confusion. I will say it is similar for grammar.

In English grammar, some rules are established, and other rules should be modified as long as everyone understands what language we are writing or speaking. Yes, the use of poor grammar annoys me, and so do some changes to language that I disagree with. I do not correct the poor grammar of any person unless I am asked to. Instead, I try to make my grammar as correct as it can be, and my English may sound as strange a Shakespeare play to some people.

© Trevor Dailey