authenticity vs managing expectations

This came across my desk today.  Resonates.  Capturing it here to help process/integrate.

The more critical you are of others, the more difficult it is for you to reveal your true self to the world around you. When you have not allowed others to be less than perfect, does it not only follow that you cannot be less than perfect? And since you know you aren't perfect, how can you possibly reveal yourself? Creating an environment for authenticity requires that we give others the space to be authentic as well. We intuitively know that we can't require something of others that we haven't required of ourselves.

Couple observations, no particular order.
1. i recognize i used to be very critical of others, especially late teens through 20s as a defence mechanism.  i even took pride in it: i recall at one point feeling pumped about learning that a friend's friend liked being around when I was there because i said funny/clever things at his expense (though usually to divert attention from my own shortcomings).  looking back, i was a jackass.  NV, since you are one of the very few people I know know about this mostly anonymous blog, I can apologize here.  I am sorry for having been a jackass.  you can quietly accept it or bring it up next time you're in town, i'd prefer the latter to clear the air.
2. the para starts with an attribution that I don't quite agree with.  yes of course if you are critical of others it's a very bad move, strategically, to reveal your own faults because you surround yourself with people who likely want the satisfaction of taking you down.  rather, i suspect it is very difficult to reveal your true self because you are ashamed of it, which is why you are so critical of others (correlation not causation). 
3. feels like i grew up with one parent telling me i'm perfect and the other constantly reminding me i'm a danger toward others and indirectly blaming me for being inconvenient or worse. As a result, i learned to be very cynical and trust no one, not even myself, about my ability (or inability) to decide what I'm good at, what I'm good for, and what is good enough for me/others.
4. I think over time I've swung too far the other way from where I was in point 1 above.  Wanting to be perfect at every new thing quickly left me wanting positive feedback/approval from others.  inevitably i would hit a point where natural talent isn't enough to keep the compliments coming (external motivation), i would start doubting my ability to progress, and would start criticizing my ambitions maybe like a drinking problem - i'd get drunk on attention, but after a while my judgment would get cloudy and I'd lose sight of what I was really doing it for, followed by regret for having gotten drunk (on attention for whatever it was while it lasted) in the first place.  I'm aware of that pattern now, and am practicing being mindful of my emotions so as not to go down that rabbit hole.  back to main thread in point 4, I think I've swung too far the other way and my go-to defence mechanism is now to chronically undersell my abilities, to the point where I actively complain about not being good enough. it works to get support and attention in the short term, when I surprise people with my real abilities - but my ability to perform is dependent on their ongoing compliments, which eventually run dry and which I have trouble deciding whether I can accept them as genuine or not (see point 3).  i have learned it also makes people feel stupid for trying to help me when i clearly didn't need it.  feels really inauthentic, but keep doing it because of point 3.
5. i recently made a conscious decision to clear the air with someone I made really uncomfortable a few years ago.  i was drunk on attention (point 4) and when that ceased, I started being a real jackass (point 1). it lasted a few months. I knew I had to apologize, and did shortly thereafter, but it still bothered me - i didn't know what to ask forgiveness for.  anyway, just yesterday I took an opportunity to come clean, shed the defensive BS and admit the awkward truth about my emotional state at the time.  it went reasonably well, and the authenticity feels good.

Not sure where this leaves me, or what's next.  One thing is for sure, the little chances I've been taking in the past year to be increasingly authentic have been paying off.  Admitting my core inadequacies little by little takes the pressure off, and I'm getting better at not being so aggressively defensive all the time about the lesser things. I am trying to be more realistic in my abilities and interests, and more confident in being able to sustain them.  I look forward to the day I'll can allow myself confidently and realistically to just be me, allow make others comfortable to be "just" who they really are around me, and be a true friend respecting our honest strengths and accepting of our  weaknesses.  That is probably the best gift I could ever give myself.
That and sleep.  Good night and thanks for reading.

On honour and democracy

Where is the honour in cheating democracy to prove the system is broken?   Beating one's spouse to prove one's superior strength simply isn't acceptable; where is the moral difference?

Also

The Nigel/Novak affair proves that elections aren't just about choosing a prime minister- but all the people around him/her that influence his/her discourse.

public policy making approaches and desirability

realized I was judging unfairly a local politician who is acting very reclusively, shutting out community associations from discussions that affect their residents, and is already acting as if campaigning for next election (which are "only" about 3.8 years away), and felt rather disgusted with this behaviour. Then I thought of another local politician who has exactly similar style, yet I admire this person for their determination and ability to make (and push) "right" decisions. Why the difference I wondered.
I then considered the opposing approaches to making public policy, quite obvious when observing federal politics.
1. decentralized power: consult extensively and enact according to the whim of the people, engaging the public but at the risk of inconsistencies in the mishmash of policies of various eras;
2. centralized power: enact strategically and coherently across all areas, which can be quicker and cheaper and potentially more effective in the long run, but at the risk of polarizing along ideological lines and public discourse and thereby eroding democratic ability.

Which approach is generally more desirable? Desirability could depend on "success". Success depends on traction, which depends on how aggressively the party with approach #2 promotes its position (yes, =propaganda) and attempts to destroy the credibility of legitimate opponents; approach #1 depends on how relevant the measure really is over time, which in turn depends on how educated those involved in the consultations were.
But to me, it's really a question of principle and whether I feel my needs have been met and ideas respected. Which is why I still do not trust the local politician whose behaviour prompted me to have this reflection.

at least they are committing environmentally sound murder

Should hunters switch to 'green' bullets?

• Story Highlights
• Green bullets are those that don't contain lead, a toxic metal
  
• Last year, California banned lead bullets in the area where an endangered bird lives
  
• Copper bullets are the main alternative to lead
  
• Hunting and gun groups oppose bans on lead bullets, saying they pose no risks
  

By John D. Sutter
CNN

(CNN) -- Three years ago, Phillip Loughlin made a choice he knew would brand him as an outsider with many of his fellow hunters:

He decided to shoot "green" bullets.

"It made sense," Loughlin said of his switch to more environmentally friendly ammo, which doesn't contain lead. "I believe that we need to do a little bit to take care of the rest of the habitat and the environment -- not just what we want to shoot out of it."

Lead, a toxic metal that can lower the IQs of children, is the essential element in most ammunition on the market today.

But greener alternatives are gaining visibility -- and stirring controversy -- as some hunters, scientists, environmentalists and public health officials worry about lead ammunition's threat to the environment and public health.

Hunting groups oppose limits on lead ammunition, saying there's no risk and alternatives are too expensive.

The scope of the trend is difficult to measure. Americans spent an estimated $1.08 billion on ammunition in fiscal year 2008, according to tax reports from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. But the bureau does not track ammunition sales by type.

Industry groups are tight-lipped about their sales figures. Manufacturers contacted by CNN declined to release specific numbers.

Barnes Bullets, which manufactures copper bullets because, the company says, they perform better than lead, is seeing increased interest in its non-lead products, said Jessica Brooks, the Utah company's spokeswoman.

Loughlin, of Union City, California, has noticed new manufacturers jumping into the green bullet game.

"They're definitely coming out. Winchester and Remington, all the big-name ammo makers are loading green ammunition now," he said.

Some firing ranges are banning lead for safety reasons. Lead bullets contaminate military training grounds across the country and are the subjects of many environmental cleanups.

California and other state governments have taken up lead bullets as a matter of policy. They worry that lead from the bullets contaminates ecosystems and could affect people.

Last year, California banned lead bullets in the chunk of the state that makes up the endangered California condor's habitat. The large birds are known to feed on scraps of meat left behind by hunters. Those scraps sometimes contain pieces of lead bullets, and lead poisoning is thought to be a contributor to condor deaths.

Arizona, another condor state, gives out coupons so hunters can buy green ammunition. Utah may soon follow suit.

In North Dakota, a hunter has raised concerns about lead's potential impact on humans.

Dr. William Cornatzer, a dermatologist and falconer, saw a presentation about the potential dangers of lead at a board meeting of the Peregrine Fund, a group devoted to conserving birds of prey. He decided to collect and test venison samples that were going to be donated to a local program for the hungry. About half of the 100 samples -- all shot by hunters -- tested positive for lead, he said. Food banks and shelters pulled the meat from their shelves after the report.

"When we did this, I about fell out of my shoes," he said. "The scary thing is these fragments are almost like dust in the meat. They're not like metal fragments you would feel when you bite down."

States in the area started investigating the issue after Cornatzer's findings.

Working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the North Dakota Department of Health ran a test to find out the health effects of lead-shot game. The agency compared blood-lead levels of people who regularly eat meat shot with lead bullets with the levels of those who don't eat much wild game.

The results were inconclusive. Those who ate the lead-shot meat had slightly higher blood-lead levels than those who didn't, but none of the 738 people in the study had levels above the government's threshold for danger.

Still, the health department recommended that children younger than 6 and pregnant women stop eating venison shot with lead bullets because those groups are at particular risk for lead poisoning, even at low levels.

The department also recommended lead-free bullets as the simplest solution to possible contamination.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources followed with its own study, which found that when lead bullets explode inside an animal, imperceptible particles of the metal can infect meat up to a foot and a half away from the bullet wound -- farther than previously thought.

More research is needed to tell for sure if lead-shot meat poses a risk to people, said Dr. Steve Pickard, an epidemiologist at the North Dakota Department of Health. But until that research is done, people should take sensible precautions, he said.

"There is no cause for alarm, but it is another source of lead in the environment," he said of lead ammunition.

Hunting groups say lead bullets pose no risk to people or the environment.

Available studies -- particularly the one from North Dakota -- prove that point, said Ted Novin, spokesman for National Shooting Sports Foundation.

"The CDC study confirmed what hunters have known for centuries: Consuming game hunted with traditional [lead] ammunition has never been shown to pose a health risk to anyone," he said.

Pickard said Novin's group is misrepresenting science.

The NSSF and the National Rifle Association say efforts to ban lead ammunition are veiled attempts to take guns away from hunters. They also point to the fact that lead's main alternative, copper, is more expensive and isn't available in all calibers.

Novin said the added expense will drive many people away from a sport that is part of American heritage.

"Many hunters believe lead is the best metal to be used for hunting," he said. "Add into that that it [lead] is very affordable and it is very available. We think this absolutely should be left up to hunters."

Dr. Joseph Graziano, interim department chair of environmental health sciences at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, said the public should switch away from lead bullets -- even if the research is still developing.

"It's hard to imagine that you could make a bullet out of something more toxic than lead," he said.

Loughlin, who switched to green ammo and blogs on the issue, said that lead shouldn't be banned from hunting but that hunters and the public should be more aware of lead's potential to cause harm.

"Lead will get into you, and we need to be working towards getting it out of the system," he said. "I think it's something we could do away with over time."

------------------------------------
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/03/04/green.bullets/index.html

Victims of their own virtues

Science proves climate change threat
By David Suzuki - Victoria News

Published: March 05, 2009 4:00 PM
Updated: March 05, 2009 4:18 PM

Why does the public often pay more attention to climate change deniers than climate scientists? Why do denial arguments that have been thoroughly debunked still show up regularly in the media?

Some researchers from New York's Fordham University may have found some answers. Prof. David Budescu and his colleagues asked 223 volunteers to read sentences from reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The responses revealed some fundamental misunderstandings about how science works.

Science is a process. Scientists gather and compare evidence, then construct hypotheses that "make sense" of the data and suggest further tests of the hypothesis. Other scientists try to find flaws in the hypothesis with their own data or experiments. Eventually, a body of knowledge builds, and scientists become more and more certain of their theories. But there's always a chance that a theory will be challenged. And so scientists speak about degrees of certainty. This has led to some confusion among the public about the scientific consensus on climate change.

What Prof. Budescu and his colleagues found was that subjects interpreted statements such as "It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent" to mean that scientists were far from certain. In fact, the term very likely means more than 90 per cent certain, but almost half the subjects thought it meant less than 66 per cent certain, and three quarters thought it meant less than 90 per cent.

According to an article in New Scientist, the researchers concluded that scientists should use both words and numbers to express certainty. For example, the IPCC considers "virtually certain" to mean more than 99 per cent likely; "very likely" to mean more than 90 per cent certain; "likely" to be more than 66 per cent; "more likely than not" more than 50 per cent; and so on.

It's important to understand the distinctions. People who recognize the urgency of the situation are more likely to get behind solutions. And businesses and governments are more likely to work toward solutions when the public demands that they do.

And how urgent is the situation? The IPCC has concluded it is "very likely" that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet's surface. Remember, that means they are more than 90 per cent certain. That's about as close to unequivocal as science gets. The IPCC has also concluded that the consequences could be catastrophic.

This is science that has been rigorously peer-reviewed and that has been agreed upon by the vast majority of the world's climate scientists, as well as more than 50 scientific academies and societies, including those of all G8 nations. There has been no peer-reviewed scientific study that has called into question the conclusions of the IPCC, which represents the consensus of the international scientific community.

So why does the debate still continue? Why are we fiddling while Rome burns? Well, as Prof. Budescu's research shows, some people don't really understand how science works. And people with vested interests, many of whom work with the oil and coal industries, are all too willing to exploit that lack of understanding by sowing confusion.

It's also true that many people fear change. We've seen examples of economic prosperity and job creation brought about by investments in green energy in places such as Germany and Sweden. And leading economists, including former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern, have warned that not doing anything to confront climate change will cost us far more in the long run than acting now. But many people still fear that any profound change will upset the economy or diminish their quality of life.

We may never reach 100 per cent certainty on climate change and its causes – that's not what science is about – but one thing is certain: if we don't get together to work on solutions now we'll have a much tougher time dealing with the consequences later.

Take David Suzuki's Nature Challenge at www.davidsuzuki.org.

Find this article at:
http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_south/victorianews/opinion/40810628.html

I can't believe their childishness

I don't know how many rants I've emailed myself with the intention to post, but I just came across this and can't get over it:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/politicalbytes/2009/01/stalled_investigation.html

this is the type of protective action I would find amusing in a 5 or 6 year old who knows he's doing something wrong; from a party charged with leading the country, that's a whole other story.

and do they expect to lead a minority government "in good faith" ??

and the budget's gonna be a good one, "trust us" ???

it's almost as principally offensive as their communications campaign aimed squarely at the gut.

this nails it right on the head

I've felt something has been profoundly wrong with the Conservative Party's communications strategy for a few years. Now I know exactly what it is. Read the 2nd review (the one by Stephen Haines):

http://www.amazon.ca/product-reviews/0771032994/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&2115RM6D8KAPZVI6GHelpfulReviews1.s=SUCCESS&2115RM6D8KAPZVI6GHelpfulReviews1.v=1&voteError=0

in those words, what makes me react so is that the communications campaign is so deliberately aimed at "the gut" to silence "the head," that we (the public) become very susceptible to being manipulated and gladly give them "absolute power" / corruption a la evil Empire. Not that I expect them to be that way, but I can't help but wonder why they choose a strategy that sets that up so beautifully?

righteousness vs self-righteousness

context: ottawa bus drivers are on strike (this is now week 6), severely inconveniencing ottawa residents. negotiations broke off several times; the city refused to comply with a mediator, the union refused to put the city's final offer to its members, etc. meanwhile, both sides held wildly different public relations programs: the mayor has been on the news daily nd city council is taking full page ads in the local papers, while the union is refusing to speak to media outlets that don't paint them in a neutral (if not positive) manner (side note: that ugly tactic worked with the Harper Conservatives, but the union doesn't quite have the same clout). anyway, the results of a public opinion poll were released last week, indicating something like 90% of residents agree with the city's approach to stand firm and not give in to the scheduling demands of the union. the city (especially right-wing nutsoid radio stations) now claim that gives them a clear mandate to maintain its position.

point: Besides the fact that both sides aren't negotiating in good faith and are holding the residents hostage in this debacle, it really bothers me that they are using public opinion as a weapon, and claiming "the right thing to do" on public opinion after a deliberate media campaign.

I'd like to remind them that an effective communications strategy does NOT in itself give them the moral high ground!

letter to GG

Excellency,
I have been shocked again and again at the belligerence, divisiveness, and contempt for Canadians that Mr. Harper has shown, all the while marketing himself as an "ordinary" Canadian and "protector" of democracy. I hoped the recent election would bring about a more humble, cooperative nature, and initially that is what he portrayed. Unfortunately, that was probably only a ploy to buy time and public opinion while preparing a budget update that clearly goes against core values of this country: respect, fairness, equal opportunity for personal growth, and entraide. His party's actions time and again indicate to me that they wish to diminish all Canadians to "ordinary" status, such that they can be easily manipulated (need to look no further than the conflicting attacks in English and French) and poorly paid, with limited ability to defend let alone promote themselves (example: the contempt for galas). I do not believe that the Conservative Party of Canada is taking this country down a good path.

Given the Parliament we have elected, I believe the Liberal-NDP Coalition is the most effective means of achieving a government that is fair and representative of the values Canada enjoys at home and has promoted abroad. I cannot say whether proroguing the current session will be beneficial or not (likely best merely to cool tempers and let coole heads prevail), but I do humbly request that you grant the Liberal-NDP Coalition the opportunity to form a government, with all the authority of your position and a reassuring speech that we must remember what we stand for together, not only with our traditions, but with our vision.

Sincerely,

who's being undemocratic?

Nelson Wiseman, political science professor at the University of Toronto, […] dismissed Harper's attacks on the coalition, who reportedly called it an "undemocratic seizure of power."

"The Conservatives are arguing it's undemocratic, but actually elections don't elect governments," said Wiseman. "They elect Parliaments. Parliaments make a government. Parliaments can break a government."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/02/gg-return.html

deconstructing Conservative party lies

Broadbent (past leader of NDP) speaks out:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/03/coalition-broadbent.html

And former GG speaks up:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/12/03/parl-schreyer.html

This type of scenario (arguing over who/what we vote for/give a mandate to (i.e., party or MP)) will never be put to rest until we elect a President (or GG), independently of parliamentarians we send to the Commons. This is the real democratic reform this country needs (Senate reform is purely a red herring that simultaneously provides a convenient excuse to abolish it in the quest for absolute rule).

Information - bad for public opinion!

...You'd think that's the marketing mantra for the conservatives these days.

They've created a website, rally 4 canada (i'm not going to honour them with a link or even correct spelling), with a lot of misinformation. allow me to deconstruct some of their lies:

Layton negotiating with Duceppe "for quite some time to form a plan to seize power" - that's what opposition parties do during a minority government. In fact, I'm pretty sure the Conservatives were doing the same when Martin was PM...

"and to overthrow the government" - that's part of how the first past the post system is supposed to work.

"overturn the results of the last election" - overturn the results, you mean introduce non-elected members to parliament? clearly Harper is trying to implant the (FALSE) notion that Canada elected Him personally. (that's NOT how our system works, folks!)

"without seeking consent from we the Canadian voters" - the electorate does NOT choose who the government will be - they, we merely choose who we send from our riding to REPRESENT us. Forming the government is the responsibility of the party representing the most ridings, and consent is only required from the Governor General (symbolic, I know).

"from we the Canadian voters" - WE ??? disappointingly reminiscent of the divisive neo-conservative (somebody will surely correct me) friend or foe strategy.

"the Bloc Quebecois is dictating the terms of the next government" - meanwhile, in French, they mock the Bloc for "selling out to a federalist party."

"this unelected government" - again, their members were elected exactly the same way the cons. were; besides, in a minority government, MORE people voted AGAINST the party in power than in favor...

"the government of Canada would be at the mercy of the people committed to destroying our confederation." - how is that different from before? The Bloc has (when convenient to Quebec) supported the previous cons. minority government on surely several occasions. Doesn't that also put Harper's government at the mercy of the same good people?

"people committed to destroying our confederation" - there's an interesting hint of Trudeau in that! fact of the matter is, separatists just don't believe that the current direction Canada is heading in corresponds to the promises made during Confederation; they are bitter over the ol' "bait and switch" that was pulled on them time and again, and they are simply there to ensure an eventual transition is orderly and respectful when (if) ever they choose to go their own way. That's a little different from say, Iran committed to destroying Israel, for example, wouldn't you agree? Additionally, they have a better chance of creating a ideologically compatible federal atmosphere with Dion and Layton than under Harper.

"democracy-loving Canadians... gather to support democracy" - uhm, didn't we do that at the polls six weeks ago? what's undemocratic about parties coming together to represent a majority of ridings trying to form a government? didn't the old PC and Reform parties do exactly that a few years ago?

"support democracy, not political games" - ha, that's funny coming from them.

"in this time of crisis" - what crisis? I thought our "fundamentals were strong," this was only a "technical recession," and "a good time to invest" ?

Funny too, how I can't find the rally 4 canada website in French... might actually allow people to compare their claims! No wonder they are against "expensive" bilingualism - it just makes it harder for them to divide and conquer.

the senate

"By virtue of our appointment, we are able to focus on long-range issues that may not receive the same attention by politicians running for re-election. In this way, we provide a balance to Parliament that ensures that legislation and important concerns facing Canadians get the attention they deserve."
http://www.liberalsenateforum.ca/In-The-Senate/Our-Role

poisoning principles

how can you have a proper democracy (with informed, caring and idealistic voters) when one party campaigns (regardless of whether an election has been called, I might add) with an obvious bloodthirst for power?
http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/thesearch/archive/2008/10/23/pollsters-conservatives-attack-ads-hurt-voter-turnout-and-democracy.aspx

x or... ?

Had a very interesting discussion today with a new colleague.
Range of topic was very broad, but definitely political-philosophical in nature.

For example, binary "Friend or foe" is an ancient school of thought obviously still used in modern politics. As to whether W used it intentionally (ie what he truly believed) or manipulatively (purely to mobilize the masses for political support) is questionable, also leading to the other age-old debate over whether the ends justifies the means. We also briefly discussed the variants of that philosophy (a german (Kant?) once believing that it is more accurately an incantation of "I or not-I") or something like that, which led me to ask "what about friend or "not-friend"? He recognized the importance of that distinction, and stroked my ego by taking the time to think about it, then surmised that is an interesting shade of gray that is too complicated for most people to ponder and therefore usually ignored.

Another discussion about what makes a good leader - his intrinsic values and actions (righteousness), or his effectiveness (heavily dependent on external factors)? That question arose when we disagreed over who would be a "better" leader for this country (at this time).

I learned a few other things, and was rightfully corrected on one in particular:
I offhandedly remarked that PM Harper was a brilliant but Machiavellian strategist; when in actuality he's (and his group) are more students of the "Straussian" political school, and that it is very elitist. one message for the elite, a different message for the masses (sidenote: i wonder if that ever influenced Depeche Mode's choice of album title?) Anyway, it would seem once you've proved yourself worthy and smart enough to read between the lines you get the secret decoder ring - meanwhile, all sorts of things happen with contempt for the ignorant supporting public).

I just now looked up Straussianism on Wikipedia - all about "deadly lies" and "noble truths" (myths used by political leaders seeking to maintain a cohesive society). Takes us right back to the question of ends justifying means.
Interesting. Very interesting...

time for debate, not more bait

Open Letter to leaders of Canada’s federal political parties

The signatories agree on these 10 principles:
1. Canada needs to act on climate change now.
2. Any substantive action will involve economic costs.
3. These economic impacts cannot be an excuse for inaction.
4. Pricing carbon is the best approach from an economic perspective.
1. Pricing allows each business and family to choose the response that is best and most efficient for them.
2. Pricing induces innovation.
3. Carbon is almost certainly under-priced right now.
5. Regulation is the most expensive way to meet a given climate change goal.
6. A carbon tax has the advantage of providing certainty in the price of carbon.
7. A cap and trade system provides certainty on the quantity of carbon emitted, but not on the price of carbon and can be a highly complex policy to implement.
8. Although carbon taxes have the most obvious effects on consumers, all carbon reduction policies increase the prices individuals face.
9. Price mechanisms can be regressive and our policy should address this.
10. A pricing mechanism can allow other taxes to be reduced and provide an opportunity to improve the tax system.

beyond irony

Extract from liberal party email received today (emphasis added):

"After intense pressure from media and political opponents, it appears that Mr. Harper will release a platform tomorrow – a week before the vote and one day after advance polls close.

Many Canadians, including university students, military personnel serving overseas and those whose religious observances include the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, will have already voted – without ever reading a word of the Conservative platform. Is this how Stephen Harper holds himself accountable?"

Incredibly à propos and not without irony, gmail's quote of the day is from Bono: "The less you know, the more you believe."

on shortsighted policies and campaign promises

Buying votes with tax cuts amounts to little more than blowing your kid's tuition fund on a popularity contest.
It amazes me what some of today's parties (not unlike yesterday's Republicans) will resort to in order to support their addiction to power.

ah - the joys of an unregulated market!!

from http://russiatoday.com/features/news/30486:

Large-scale construction work is in full swing near the burial sites of anthrax-infected animals, which were disposed of a century ago.

"This cemetery dates from 1882. Fifteen years ago the construction of summer houses started near it, expanding the village. Although the safety zone is one kilometre away from the cemetery, every house drills a well," Sharapov said.

The diseased animals were usually burnt and buried two metres deep. But the spores of anthrax can live in the soil for decades. If mixed with dust they can be inhaled by humans and animals. But the fact doesn't seem to bother Russia's rich, who are ready to pay up to $US 300,000 an acre at what has become Moscow's Riviera.

Tver's veterinary authority says it didn't give its approval for building projects in the area.

Amazing how some people demand freedom then get carried away with greed. It's too bad others have to suffer for it though.

Adolph Harper loses it