la cause de la controverse...

... mais quand même pas sa source:

Hérouxville's Statement of Cultural Expectations

J'aime bien comment ils présentent ça - "pour que les conditions qui leur ont fait fuire ne sauront se reproduire ici."

Mais je ne comprends pas pourquoi les portes-paroles religieux s'y opposent tant - les pratiques interdites (explicitement non-désirées) ne sont pas des pratiques spirituelles mais bien culturelles. La laïcité force la suppression des expressions culturelles justement pour permettre l'harmonie entre tous et chacun, et consacre la religion à son état pur, c'est-à-dire à la spiritualité (communion entre soi et son dieu) en privé. Les artefacts (armes, bijoux, habits) sont des traditions culturelles provenant d'époques lointaines et qui ne sont pas justifiées s'ils violent leur raison d'être originale en créant un désaccord dans notre société.

Big Pharma

I'm just as leery of Big Pharma (and the entire stock market approach to capitalism) as I am of little witch-doctors popping up everywhere looking for a quick buck. At least you can (or at least try to) sue big pharma if something goes wrong, and hope for a settlement to keep it quiet if there is evidence (or credible appearance) of wrongdoing or negligence... try doing that with the local snake-oil salesman!

One day, by promoting independent thought and awareness, the internet is going to re-democratize our institutions and restore the sustainability of our economy. That is, unless/until Big Telecoms succeed in overturning Net Neutrality.

Assume yourselves!

Most logical, rational people make a decision based on the best possible outcome, take ownership of it, then focus their energies on accomplishing it. Others, however, focus on their energies into maneuvering all stakeholders into eliminating all options but one, so they can get what they wanted without taking any responsibility for it. That disgusts me.

Star Wars - in today's world

Chavez getting powers to rule by decree reminds me of Senator Palpatine scheming to get the council to grant him "emergency powers" to deal with the rebels...

All hail Darth Hugo!

Hedonism

"Mankind is safer when men seek pleasure than when they seek the power and the glory."
-Geoffrey Gorer, as reported by Michael Kesterton of the Globe and Mail, 2006-12-05

Plainte ridicule (part deux)

The Christian group challenging the supposed blasphemy Madonna's in show is not unlike some people's reactions to certain words (nigger, wetback, honky, jew, wop, etc). These are trigger words for people who have associated them with very strong emotions, but for everyone else, they are relatively harmless (if not indicative of poor taste and/or insentivity).
Emotions, good or bad, are what energize us to seek change (some degree more, or less) of their cause; although sometimes it may not be easy or possible to channel it appropriately, leading to further hurt of self or others.
I see no harm in the innocent use of these words, as long as there isn't any deliberate blame or derogation association, either explicit or implicit, intended specifically to arouse these emotions.
For example, calling me a honky means nothing; call me that if you want. but if you say I am nothing but a stupid honky or that I do/did something because I'm a honky are thoroughly inappropriate and unfair gross associations, whether accurate or applicable in that instance or not, that I simply will not stand for. Mel Gibson, I hope you're listening!

Plainte ridicule

It pleases me to see that specific interest groups can get sufficiently mobilized to challenge a perceived injustice through official channels, doubly so in that it also means the official channels have the respect and the credibility to make the challenge worthwhile.
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20070129/CPARTS03/701291087/1017/CPARTS
In this case, the court decided to halt the challenge, but even if the missile was a dud, I'm certain the intended recipient heard the shot being fired and expect that it caused her to reflect somewhat on her actions.

5-minute break for climate change

just received this tonight. I'm in! hard to say how effective it might be but hey, it's free and you have to do basically nothing for 5 minutes!

> Be part of the widest action plan of world's citizens against global
> warming and climate change!
>
> To protest against Climate change around the world, give the earth a 5
> minutes break. February 1st from 7:55 pm (19:55) to 8:00 pm (20:00),
> Everyone should close all lights and electric facilities for 5 big
> minutes. Do it respecting your local time zone, therefore the
> demonstration will be active according to time zones around the world.
>
> This isn't about sparing 5 minutes of hard labor and energy use, it is
> about protesting about something bigger. It is about raising the issue
> into political debates, be it in Canada or in Europe... or anywhere
> else.
>
> We hope for an important media coverage of this action, but for it to
> happen, we need everyone's participation.

the Desperates - misguided at best

posted the following on a CBC.ca article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_mallick/20070126.html
First off, I must say that this is the best description of the horrors of socially unacceptable addictions that I have ever read. However, I strongly disagree with the position that all drugs should be available to all adults: many leave trails only of destruction and despair, hurting not only the consumers but those that love them, more dangerous than alcohol in their extreme addictiveness. And how exactly would making all drugs available at fancy little boutiques prevent atrocities such as the one that inspired this article? I posit that official red-light districts offer much greater protection to these Desperates: routine medical exams, safe worksite, and more importantly, social acceptance (if at least from a peer support group) and a modicum of dignity. Fighting the conditions that lead to addictions is far more effective than picking up the pieces of the lives they have destroyed.

product ideas/patent suggestions for the clothing industry

In these days of low-rise pants, surely I am not the only one bothered by undershirts and shirts that creep up and out all the time. I would seriously consider buying adult-sized onesies (onepiece undershirt and briefs with appropriate uhm, logistical features).
Alternately, shirt restraints (imagine suspenders) that fasten the front and back shirttails together (although this would probably lose the tradeoff battle between logistic simplicity and crotch comfort).
Should either of these products make a credible (or even noteworthy) appearance on the market, it would encourage shirt manufacturers to counter-attack with an extra couple of inches along the torso. Either way, tall people win (or at least, catch up with what short people have been taking for granted for so long).

daylight technology

here's an example of a brilliant concept (though not cost-effective for residential applications): two parabolic mirrors focusing light on a large bundle of smaller bundles of optical fibers (each connected to a light "fixture" inside the house). It can even track the movement of the sun for optimum light! image

reinventing the wheel, using what's freely available, cutting out transformation processes, and undoing decades of bad economic modeling:

http://www.sundaytimes.lk/060806/ft/4.0.html

I love it.

Khan's "Coming Out" Hurrah and Conservative "Accountability"

Closet cases all around the world can follow his example:

-----Original Message----- (pared down and emphasis added)
WAJID KHAN JOINS CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS
January 5, 2007

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today welcomed Wajid Khan, Member of Parliament for Mississauga-Streetsville, as a Conservative member of Canada’s New Government.
The former Liberal MP volunteered to serve as the Prime Minister’s Special Advisor for Middle Eastern and Central Asian Affairs last June. As they worked together, the Prime Minister said, “both of us began to realize that politically, we have a lot in common.”

“I have come to admire the Prime Minister and his government over the last year,” said Mr. Khan. “Eventually I came to the conclusion that my ideals and priorities, and the interests of my constituents, would be better served if I sat as a Conservative MP.”

I can just imagine the setting in which they came to this realization: a little gazebo at twilight, Harper in a little Austrian postboy's outfit, Khan in a dress handmade from old curtains...


Anyway, I did a little research and pulled this discussion from Hansard:

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a democratic right to be represented by the political party that they elect to represent them. The Prime Minister offended all Canadians when he seduced the member for Vancouver Kingsway over into his camp and talked him into crossing the floor.

Floor crossing undermines the democratic process and fuels cynicism. Will the Prime Minister use his new accountability act to put an end to floor crossing and these musical chairs once and for all?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have ever been accused of seducing anyone, even my wife.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I do not think the government believes in true transparency and accountability any more than the last gang did. The Prime Minister will not even talk to the media. He holds his secret cabinet meetings at midnight in the Diefenbunker and he is stripping out the ATI provisions from the accountability act.

There is plenty of room in the accountability act to answer this serious concern that Canadians have. They care about this. They want the practice stopped. Will he commit today to ending the practice of floor crossing once and for all?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, I believe members of Parliament should have that freedom and be accountable to their constituents for their decisions at the next election.

Harper's smugness makes me sick; you could deepfry entire turkeys with that kind of crap.

courtesy wank

at least Canada's (self-proclaimed) New (ugh) Government has the finesse to tell us they are taking "real action our Government is taking to protect the health of Canadians and the environment" in curbing residential pollution, while committing to quintupling the dirty power-hungry exploitation of tar sands for our neighbour's Mall-Terrain-Vehicles and enable them to "punish" their current suppliers of oil who don't toe the line well enough.

-----Original Message----- (pared down and emphasis added)

PRIME MINISTER HARPER UNVEILS ECOENERGY RENEWABLE INITIATIVE
VICTORIA, January 19, 2007
[...]
"The ecoENERGY Renewable Initiative is yet another example of real action our Government is taking to protect the health of Canadians and the environment," said Minister Lunn. "It will help make renewable sources of heat and electricity a more affordable and realistic choice for more Canadians. We expect to add enough clean renewable electricity to power about one million homes."
[...]
This investment will create up to 4000 megawatts of renewable energy and is expected to deliver greenhouse gas emissions reductions equivalent to taking one million cars off the road, as well as significant reductions in other air pollutants. As such, it is an important part of the Government's suite of ecoENERGY Initiatives to boost clean energy supplies, help Canadians use energy more efficiently and reduce air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions from conventional energy sources.

pfah!
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the Liberal party was finally able to pressure them into doing at least SOMEthing about the environment. Although such prostitution may be good for western pocketbooks, raping the environment such does nothing for our national credibility!

normalization

Collaboration and group cohesion requires normalization of its members' expectations/behaviours/attitudes.
When there is no rational basis for either of two arguing parties to be right, but inexplicably, they both agree the "truth" needs to be determined and enforced.
They can:
(a) each hold their respective positions, agree to disagree and live parallel lives, forever guarded and cautious of not crossing each other's paths for fear of offending/insulting each other;
(b) agree to codify that blue is last, with exceptions made for purple, keeping bureaucrats, lawyers and journalists gainfully employed and future generations perplexed;
(c) recognize that the colour sequence is really a non-debatable personal aesthetic issue, ignore it, and move on to higher order needs for collaboration and social cohesion; or
(d) refuse to recognize the stupidity of the argument and nuke the hell out of each other until one emerges victorious (whether he/she still has their sense of sight at that point is moot).
Either way, there isn't a problem if all parties (and their respective supporters/followers, plus innocent bystanders) agree to the same solution and abide by the result. But that doesn't happen when one side has the arrogance to ignore what they're told and the other the desperation to do whatever they're told, now, does it...

Appalling Silence no more

We will have to repent in this generation,
not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people,
but for the appalling silence of the good people.
-Martin Luther King, Jr., (1929-1968) American clergyman and civil rights leader.

Couldn't agree more. Good thing the world invented blogs, else we'd all be going deaf.

card houses

Oppressive regimes give people a reason to free themselves; and
Benevolent regimes give people the means and the confidence to be free.
Either way, all socio-political structures are destined to fail.

Success

I recently read the "newsmaker of the year" article on Harper in Time Magazine (or was it Maclean's?). Aside from the suspiciously overly pro-conservative slant, the statement that Harper really started shining when he finally learned to trust his instincts struck me.

One or two days later, I read that one of Warren Buffet's words of wisdom is something like "Don't do anything you can't defend; if you don't understand why you're doing somehting, don't be doing it." This struck me too.

One highly rational, the other highly intuitive. Both are shining examples of success. There is no "best" between them, as the choice depends on the context (achieving authority/attaining power, or investing). Whose guidance should I follow? It probably depends on what objectives I seek and what kind of company I will have on that journey: the rich with an unquenchable thirst for money, or the societally ambitious and power hungry? Trouble is, I can't really stand (competition with) either crowd. I've long and often struggled between the two, never quite satisfied with either, and I suspect I am not alone, and this is probably one of the reasons these men have achieved such success. There must be another dimension in which I can exploit my potential; I just have to find it, quick and stick to it!

Warren Buffet's words of wisdom on Journalists and Society

from Forbes.com

Let's talk about the words of wisdom in your book. I like No. 44: The smarter the journalists are, the better off society is.

It's true. I mean, all of our information that we get now, whether it's for investment ideas or just the morality of life comes from the media. So we're really dependent on journalists for accuracy, and for the analysis of what's going on. You want intelligent people doing the job.

I would add: Intelligent people doing the job, with access to accurate information, and the freedom to print it.

religious (mis)understanding

"Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood."
-Marie Curie

Increasingly distant government

Touting increased accountability, yet creating another hierarchical level to further distance the select few ministers he appointed to cabinet with so many responsibilities that they can't discharge them efficiently by themselves. what a power hog. sigh.

PM Harper strengthens ministerial team
PM pledges active agenda for second year in office
4 January 2007
Ottawa, Ontario

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today presented a strengthened ministerial team to lead Canada’s New Government during its second year in office.
[...]
Six Secretaries of State have been appointed to play an important part in the Ministry.

Each of the Secretaries of State has been given a specific area of responsibility, in order to assist one or more Ministers consistent with previous Canadian practice and the practice in other Westminster governments. Secretaries of State will discharge this role in a number of ways, including:
• representing their Minister, or the Government, at events;

• meeting with stakeholders and other groups;

• demonstrating policy leadership on one or more specific initiatives relating to their assignment, and at the direction of the responsible Minister; and

• appearing on behalf of their Minister in Parliament and before its committees as may be required.

The Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip has been made a member of the Ministry in order to reflect the critical role of the Chief Government Whip in advancing the Government’s legislative and House agenda. This reflects the practice of some previous Canadian Ministries, as well as similar long-standing practice in the U.K.

Unlike Ministers, who will remain full members of the Cabinet, Secretaries of State will not be members of the Cabinet. (Senator LeBreton will remain a full Cabinet Minister). However, each Secretary of State will attend meetings of a Cabinet Committee, in keeping with his or her specific areas of responsibility.

As members of the Ministry, Secretaries of State have been sworn to the Privy Council. They will be bound by Cabinet solidarity, and will be bound to respect Cabinet confidences. Ministers will remain fully accountable for the powers vested by statute, and for the direction of government departments and agencies within their respective portfolios.

conservative spinning mills

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=4&id=1480

Prime Minister Harper will deliver a brief statement as Canada's New Government prepares to enter its second year in office.

wow - seems to me they just stopped celebrating their "100 days in office" - how quickly they change gears! but how much longer do we have to wait until they stop calling themselves Canada's "New" Government?
I'm pretty sure the parliamentary year does NOT start on January 1, so technically it would be rather misleading to call this a 'second' year in office... They must have recruited their media advisors from the infomercial/shopping networks.