commodity oddity

The planet is not able to sustain human life everywhere. Some areas have lots of oil, some lots of water, some lots of gold, some lots of people, some lots of big empty spaces. Commoditization (as much as it rubs me the wrong way) is a way of facilitating the exchange between trading partners who have too much of one thing and not enough of the other, and both (should) come out ahead. If you can't live locally off the land and you can't generate enough of what other people want to trade for what you need, perhaps you simply shouldn't be living there. Unfortunately, that philosophy isn't compatible with the UN philosophies of human rights and anti-poverty campaigns that required when you enforce borders and citizenship. Without commoditization and trade, there is an imbalance, and the resulting feeling of resentment creates political and thus economic stability and we're all worse off. In the end, that means that for the developed world to maintain its lifestyle, it is in our best interest to provide basic needs like water where it is needed, as a form of protection money for us to keep living the way we do. Question is, though, how sustainable can that be?

Ottawa in Wonderland

"It's curious and curiouser,"
Colin Robertson, a former senior diplomat at Canada's embassy in Washington, now a senior fellow with the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute, commenting on recent issues between ottawa and washington:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/clintons-tough-diplomacy-stings-ottawa/article1517805/

Sounds like it might be something out of Alice in Wonderland. Then again, Ottawa's been compared to far worse.

boring, but solid

Canada is now "remarkably responsible" - but don't tell them yanks or our last month's trade deficit will have been more than a blip...
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2009/2/9/4086913.html

short-term politics fail to address underlying issues

'Western' democracies usually allow a few years of actual governance between pre-election orgies. That kind of directional stability is usually pretty good provided it doesn't drift too far off-ideological center. However, when it comes to generational trends, 4-year terms doesn't even come close to even giving them the time to grapple, let alone understand or even communicate, the magnitude and complexity of the problem.

But here's a key primer from http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1176152765213
:

PLAINLY, A key to reducing violence is to reduce birthrates. According to Heinsohn, this could be achieved through widespread knowledge of birth control measures and the will to use them. Such an option, however, is unlikely because of religious opposition among traditional Muslims.

Since they can't tackle religion, they can, and do (especially in the current budget) focus on jobs. Giving people opportunities to work forces them to think (hopefully at least a little) more carefully about their own future. A little employment uncertainty (take too much time off and you might be fired) probably "helps" in that regard.

But this is still terribly short-sighted. Jobs in the service industry (Home Depot, Tim Hortons etc) may keep people busy, but they aren't as rewarding as, say, having a loving family. And the construction industry is only going to last as long as the city centres and old suburbs are bedlocked with aging baby-boomers who don't want to turn their 4-bedroom homes over to new families.

Expect the perfect storm in 10 years or so: the boomers will be buried, after straining our healthcare system to the breaking point, there will be a ton of real-estate available (housing market collapse), service industry will follow (no boomers sipping coffee all day every day at Tims anymore), and the public service will be left with a massive gap of experience, and industry as a whole will be staffed with people who were raised in perpetual economic growth and will resent no longer having what they've come to believe as entitlements rather than a reward for a strong work ethic. Economy as a whole will implode, people will stay at home with nothing to do but have kids, and you're set for another generation of extreme violence.

This is why I think the current budget, or even 4-yr politicking, doesn't even come close to trying to balance the underlying pressures that contribute to social stability or collapse. It's purely reactionary and terribly short-sighted.

I'm still hoping for a politician with a vision for the future, that can carve a proper role in the world to give Canadians from shore to shore to shore a sense of pride, common long-term purpose, and opportunity to share peace and prosperity. Perhaps that should be added to the Constitution, so the Senate can fulfill that as part of their mandate to defend, protect and promote it.

overstepping jurisdiction?

If I read this news release correctly, and understood the basics of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, this means our trusted government intends to extend its Contiguous zone to what is already recognized internationally as Exclusive Economic Zone (200nm). Problem is, this law of the sea states explicitly that the Contiguous zone "may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles" (UNCLOS, Part II, article 33). I wonder how seriously this posturing will be recognized by other countries aching for the NW Passage "our internal waters"...

-----Original Message-----

From the Prime Minister's Web Site
Sent: Wednesday, 27 August, 2008 13:48
Subject: News Release / Communiqué

Prime Minister Harper Announces Government of Canada Will Extend Jurisdiction over Arctic Waters


Canadian Environment and Shipping Jurisdiction to be Enforced an Additional 100 Nautical Miles Offshore
August 27, 2008
Tuktoyaktuk, NT

The Government of Canada will extend its jurisdiction in the Arctic by doubling the range at which Canadian environmental laws and shipping regulations will be enforced, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced today.

"Whether it is the thawing of the Northwest Passage or the suspected resource riches under the Arctic seabed, more and more countries are taking an interest in the waterways of the Canadian Arctic," said the Prime Minister. "We will be sending a clear message to the world that our environmental standards and sovereignty are not up for debate -- if you are in Canada's Arctic you will be playing by Canada's rules."

The Prime Minister announced that his government will be introducing changes to the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act as part of its fall legislative agenda. Currently the Act allows the Canadian Government to regulate all shipping in zones up to 100 nautical miles from the nearest Canadian land in order to guard against pollution of the region's marine and coastal environments. Under the proposed new law, this jurisdiction will be extended to 200 nautical miles.

In addition the Prime Minister announced that his government will establish new regulations under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 that will require mandatory reporting from all ships destined for Arctic waters within the same 200 nautical mile limit.

"As an environmental matter, as a security matter and as an economic matter we are making it perfectly clear that not only do we claim jurisdiction over the Canadian Arctic, we are also going to put the full resources of the Government of Canada behind enforcing that jurisdiction," said the Prime Minister. "We are acting today to protect our environment, improve the security of our waterways and ensure that all Northern residents - and, in particular, the Inuit - have a strong say in the future of our Arctic for generations to come."

The Prime Minister's Office - Communications

Don't get me wrong though - I understand that the ecosystem in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago is very fragile, where even the smallest chemical spills will take forever to dissipate (too cold for anything to evaporate on its own quickly enough), and it is eyed with great interest internationally. This probably doesn't make the archipelago waters any more "internal" to Canada than planting a flag on the Moon made it American, but posturing counts for a lot in politics so I think its a good move.