convenience or democracy?

given that a truly democratic society needs a well-informed and empowered electorate;

given that, when one has too many choices in front of them, they cannot easily commit to a particular option confident that they will be satisfied with it ("embarras du choix");

knowing that humans, as investors and consumers, will wait until the dust has settled and a clear winner can be announced (or at least confidently predicted) (examples beta vs VHS, blu-ray vs hd-dvd) before investing heavily in a particular technology and/or buying that equipment;

knowing that once investors and consumers converge on a particular technology, it becomes the de facto standard and the people behind it are propelled into high financial/social/political status (which enables them to suppress/oppress the competition even more);

I am starting to understand that entrenching freedoms of speech, religion, etc were deliberately applied in the constitutions of our fine countries to ensure that no one interest group could gain a power advantage over another. with so many groups competing for our interests, our support and/or our allegiance, we generally ignore them and carry on with our own merry ways, content in waiting for the dust to settle before having to choose sides (at which point it may be a matter of life or death). the multitude of social options protected by our laws have effectively been a societal paralyzer (we have no single-recognized system of lords, kings, princes, marshals, bishops, etc in our society). This paralysis is fundamental to an effective democracy where all can thrive side by side as equals, without fear of retribution, competition nor profound compromise.

Bill C-10, currently before the Senate, threatens that social harmony.

Bill C-10 originated years ago under the Liberals and was carried forward by the Conservatives. It will allow the Heritage minister and/or a secret group of political appointees (unknown to, and with no accountability to, the people) to withdraw eligibility for tax credits for a television or movie production deemed "against the public interest" at any time, without justification. Examples cited in its defence are extreme violence, pedophilia, or other such "senseless" content that is not educational and threatens "our good tastes."

Seemingly harmless at first glance. But what are the ramifications on the entertainment industry? Producers need private investment, and private investors need a certain degree of confidence in the projected numbers before parting with their money. Bill C-10 puts those projections, and therefore private funding, at risk. Removing that lever will oblige producers to rely a lot more heavily on ticket sales. Resulting productions will therefore be lower-budget, less appealing, and a whole lot more conventional. (just look at what happened when the evening news, which the networks once provided as a public service, were forced to be at least revenue-neutral: they had to cater to an disinterested public in order to generate the required advertising revenue, and voila, today's info-tainment industry).

Bill C-10 will have a similar effect: anything even perceived to be controversial (at least the kind of controversial that encourages consideration of alternate viewpoints, intelligent debate and generates informed discussion) or even potentially inconvenient politically, will be avoided, and democracy will be starved of yet another pillar.

Social paralysis resulting from an excess of available philosophical options is a threat - but only to groups with delusions of grandeur, private agendas and an insatiable appetite for power. To the ordinary people like you and I who want to live and let live, there is no greater ally. The arts industry should not be subservient to government pollsters. C-10 must be amended to reflect that.

People get what they are willing to pay for, and ultimately, what they deserve.

Those who give up freedom in favour of security deserve neither and lose both.

parking like an a-hole

print and pack your own parking notices:
http://youparklikeanasshole.com

in case you see others like these:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/93742085@N00/pool/

(edited to add hyperlinks to please some people)

more Neo-Con rhetoric exposed

IN RECENT MONTHS, the standard mantra of Canadian defence analysts has been that NATO is not "stepping up to the plate" in southern Afghanistan. As most European countries are unfamiliar with the rules of North American baseball, this phrase has undoubtedly left our maligned allies somewhat confused.

What would leave our NATO partners even more perplexed would be Canada's claim that as a nation, we are "punching above our weight" in the international defence ring. This assessment has been so oft espoused by retired generals and tub-thumping historians that even the esteemed former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley has begun to believe this mantra.
Included in Manley's independent report on extending Canada's commitment to Afghanistan was the caveat that NATO needed to furnish another 1,000 combat troops to reinforce our contingent in Kandahar. While most other NATO countries have declined Manley's request as though Canada were offering them the Ebola virus, France has hinted that it may provide an additional 700 soldiers.

Although this reinforcement has yet to be officially announced, the minute the rumour began circulating that the French troops would be heading into the less volatile eastern provinces and not Kandahar, the tub-thumpers hastily renewed their "bash France" chorus. "Shirkers!" shouted the chest-beating Colonel Blimps, while other commentators pointed at the massive manpower of France's armed forces as further proof that they should be doing more to help us.
One enraged reader wrote to me recently to opine that after more than 100,000 Canadians lost their lives in two world wars fighting for France, "we shouldn't have to beg them for support."
As this whole issue has obviously touched a nerve within our defence community, perhaps it is time to take a little of the emotion out of the debate and replace it with rational argument.

First of all, for comparison purposes, I think it is necessary to establish some common groundwork. France has a population of roughly 64 million people, while there are just over 33 million residents in Canada. Although not exactly scientific, if collective defence is to be borne by nations' citizens on an equal basis, France would be required to roughly double Canada's contribution to international security.

So let's have a look at how we actually stack up against those "shirking Frenchies." First of all, France maintains a standing regular force of 348,000. To match that output, Canada should field 174,000 full-time troops instead of the paltry 62,000 we have enrolled.

In 2007, France spent US$59.6 billion on their defence budget. Half of that would be $28.8 billion, but Canada only spent 50 per cent of that total (roughly $15 billion) on our military last year.

France spends 2.4 per cent of its GDP on its military. Canada has a faster growing economy and one-third of France's international public debt, yet we spend just 1.2 per cent of our GDP on national defence.
Based on these numbers, as a nation, we are, in fact, punching well below our weight.

So let's narrow the focus down to our admittedly much under-sized military. Given the fact that we have 2,900 troops deployed overseas on international missions, this must put those "shirking Frenchies" to shame. With all those retired Canadian officers pointing the finger of guilt at France, surely our troops can take pride in the fact that they are shouldering a bigger burden of responsibility than their French counterparts.

Once again, we need to examine the numbers. Given their former colonial responsibilities in the Caribbean, Africa and Middle East, France has more than 33,000 troops deployed abroad at all times. While the tub-thumpers will be quick to point out that some of France's missions are not currently considered "hot," at least 11,000 of those troops are in fact engaged in stabilization missions. France also maintains a surge capability to manage unforeseen crises such as the one that erupted in Lebanon in 2006.
By contrast, Canada has all of its deployable military eggs in one basket labelled Afghanistan.
As Defence Minister Peter MacKay heads to the NATO summit next month, he needs to remember that the self-inflating propaganda and rhetoric that plays out so well at home is not substantiated by fact.
Canada has been a lightweight within the NATO alliance for decades. That, coupled with the fact that we didn't just ask for Kandahar but demanded it, makes us look even more foolish now that we're in over our heads and demanding support. )
Scott Taylor, editor-in-chief of Espirit de Corps magazine

city never sleeps, but time does stop in New York

I love it - wish I had the time (and genius) to do that kind of stunt here too.

What greater gift can we offer, but to break people's routines and make them wonder?

> http://current.com/items/88830919_time_stops_at_grand_central

mint madness

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/05/canadian-mint-we-own.html
that's just plain stupid. I sincerely hope that's made up.
Anyway, 2008 marks the 150th year of the penny in Canada, you might have seen the posters at bus stops and such. From wikipedia: "The first Canadian cents were struck in 1858..."
The penny, strike that, the "one cent piece," SHOULD BE ABOLISHED.
Why are people still attached to this shinny copper (coloured) coin? Is it because they think they'll get ripped off by vendors who round up? Well, let them read the following about inflation and Canadian history:

While consumer price data prior to 1914 are unavailable, a broader measure of inflation, the gross domestic product (GDP) deflator, is available back to 1870 (Leacy 1983). While the CPI and GDP
deflator can diverge, they tend to move together over time. Since 1870, with annual GDP inflation averaging 3.6 per cent, the Canadian dollar has lost more than 96 per cent of its value. Again, this is equivalent to saying one Canadian dollar in 1870 would have the purchasing power of roughly $26.70 in today’s money.

So, for those who are attached to the penny, don't understand inflation, and can't do math quickly, let me paraphrase that to say that in today's prices, the smallest coin back in 1870 was worth more than the 25c piece today. Working it the other way around, today's penny was worth about .04cents back then. They obviously didn't feel anything that insignificant was necessary back then, so why should we?
Meanwhile, taxpayers are payrolling the lawyers suing the city of Toronto, and the advertising campaign for the 150th year of the coin. And you're worried about being shortchanged at the till for the rare cash transaction? ha! literally penny-wise pound stupid.

telephone number conventions

with 10-digit dialing, why do people/business still write the area code in brackets? the reason why it was put in parentheses is because it was optional. Guess what? NOT ANY MORE. sheesh. use a hyphen (or even a dot if you insist) but fergoshsakes, drop the parentheses already!

Open letter to my employer

frustrate[1,transitive verb]

Pronunciation:

\ˈfrəs-ˌtrāt\

Etymology:

Middle English, from Latin frustratus, past participle of frustrare to deceive, frustrate, from frustra in error, in vain

(1): to make ineffectual : bring to nothing (2): impede, obstruct b: to make invalid or of no effect

Thanks, Mr. Employer, for your gross negligence in submitting an old, non-compliant resumé on a bid to extend my current position, instead of the up to date one that I tailored specifically for this purpose. If you wish to contact me, I'll either be in the unemployment line or begging at the heals of your competition.