Hidden cost of cuts to Environment Canada
http://www.thestar.com/iphone/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1043380--hidden-cost-of-cuts-to-environment-canada
posted from Bloggeroid
2011-08-23
driving with eyes closed
Past successes in environmental monitoring demonstrate how policy informed by science can tackle daunting issues. Cuts to monitoring will deprive us of new data - data essential for improving models and accuracy of the predictions upon which public policy is forged.
2011-08-21
the chattering mind
Woke up at 3am obsessing over a work issue.
Started writing it down, and had to compose it as an email to myself at work.
I hope that will put my mind at ease and I can go back to sleep. Then again, part of me feels like its time to go for a run (its 540am and the birds are starting to chirp). I'm going to overrule that impulse.
Now I'm getting hungry.
sigh.
The day ahead is not promising to be a good one.
Started writing it down, and had to compose it as an email to myself at work.
I hope that will put my mind at ease and I can go back to sleep. Then again, part of me feels like its time to go for a run (its 540am and the birds are starting to chirp). I'm going to overrule that impulse.
Now I'm getting hungry.
sigh.
The day ahead is not promising to be a good one.
2011-08-13
2011-08-05
I hope this is not a trend
I'm noticing in a draft bill proposing changes to legislation that instances of "the minister is satisfied that [X]" are slowly being replaced with "that, in the minister's opinion, is [X]" .
While the former creates an expectation that the minister has reviewed evidence impartially prepared by the department (which one can assume is largely science-based), the latter does not. So I wonder, what exactly will form the basis of the minister's "opinion" : Personal interests? Religious beliefs? Party lines? And how will the Opposition hold them to account? Where did this change come from: drafting team's own initiative, or party influence? And most importantly, how can any of this be the public interest?
While the former creates an expectation that the minister has reviewed evidence impartially prepared by the department (which one can assume is largely science-based), the latter does not. So I wonder, what exactly will form the basis of the minister's "opinion" : Personal interests? Religious beliefs? Party lines? And how will the Opposition hold them to account? Where did this change come from: drafting team's own initiative, or party influence? And most importantly, how can any of this be the public interest?
posted from Bloggeroid
2011-08-02
Change - or not (yet)
When I left the office, the earliest batches of project phase 1 were starting to be finalized, the final batches of phase 1 of the project were being launched, and phase 2 of the project was being planned.
When I left the office, our program funding was in its sunset year and a proposal had been submitted for another few years.
When I left the office, our enabling authority (the legislation that allows/mandates us to do what we do) was several years past its "mandatory" review date (rumour had it that the minority government at the time feared the legislative review process would become a can of worms).
When I left the office, we had a minority Conservative government.
...
Here I am now, nine months later, about to go back to work.
I'm not sure how reassuring it is, if at all, to have learned last week (at lunch with some of my office mates) that nothing, not a single thing, has changed. Except that we have a majority Conservative government and somehow we still had an operating budget.
Not sure though how long that funding (or our legislated requirement to do our work) will last, if this is any indication of the secretive governing mindset here...
When I left the office, our program funding was in its sunset year and a proposal had been submitted for another few years.
When I left the office, our enabling authority (the legislation that allows/mandates us to do what we do) was several years past its "mandatory" review date (rumour had it that the minority government at the time feared the legislative review process would become a can of worms).
When I left the office, we had a minority Conservative government.
...
Here I am now, nine months later, about to go back to work.
I'm not sure how reassuring it is, if at all, to have learned last week (at lunch with some of my office mates) that nothing, not a single thing, has changed. Except that we have a majority Conservative government and somehow we still had an operating budget.
Not sure though how long that funding (or our legislated requirement to do our work) will last, if this is any indication of the secretive governing mindset here...
2011-07-30
Reframing
I generally concentrate on doing things "right", which I've come to realize isn't easy to sell when people are more typically looking for (and consequently businesses needing to do) things that are first, faster, cheaper, and/or just a little bit better, than the competition.
I.e., too easily distracted by the potential to do what is actually needed.
Afterthought: in an effort to be honest and respectful of others, I'm also often overly self-critical. This is not particularly helpful or even appropriate in a milieu that expects/ assumes you are always trying to sell yourself. it usually passes as unnecessary self-pity, false modesty, or veiled criticism when really, all I am wanting to do its improve myself. recognizing that it is socially counterproductive, I'm going to be mindful of this going forward (except maybe on this blog of course).
posted from Bloggeroid
I.e., too easily distracted by the potential to do what is actually needed.
Afterthought: in an effort to be honest and respectful of others, I'm also often overly self-critical. This is not particularly helpful or even appropriate in a milieu that expects/ assumes you are always trying to sell yourself. it usually passes as unnecessary self-pity, false modesty, or veiled criticism when really, all I am wanting to do its improve myself. recognizing that it is socially counterproductive, I'm going to be mindful of this going forward (except maybe on this blog of course).
posted from Bloggeroid
2011-07-29
Money and power
I've always known that money is power. What I've only just realized (in discussions with my parents) is that money only gives you power to the extent that you can choose who it its worth spending on. If you don't spend it, you don't have power.
posted from Bloggeroid
Addendum: This gives the "debt ceiling impasse" in the USA an interesting angle.
2011-07-28
Random thoughts
I've been having a lot of interesting (to me) realizations this week. I think it's coming together under the pressure of looking after the (mostly) well behaved kids while trying to get pet projects completed before going back to work next week, while under the effects of sleep deprivation brought on by night terrors, a brief hospital stay, and family members succumbing to little viruses all at the same time.
Of course, now that I have time to write about them, I can't remember any of them.
Of course, now that I have time to write about them, I can't remember any of them.
posted from Bloggeroid
2011-07-10
things better left unsaid
Wonder if G+ allows you to "hide" specific posts from a specific person without them knowing...
2011-06-19
trapped by our possessions
Owning a house is kinda like owning a pet, housebreaking (ironically) and all:
There's always a chance of an "accident" requiring immediate attention, and you need to make arrangements for it when on vacation.
And the bigger it is, the more room for stuff and features; all the more trapped you are because something inevitably will break/not work as it is supposed to.
Which makes me think that to actually enjoy a fancy house, you need a custodian/gardener/housekeeper/maintenance guy 24/7.
There's always a chance of an "accident" requiring immediate attention, and you need to make arrangements for it when on vacation.
And the bigger it is, the more room for stuff and features; all the more trapped you are because something inevitably will break/not work as it is supposed to.
Which makes me think that to actually enjoy a fancy house, you need a custodian/gardener/housekeeper/maintenance guy 24/7.
outdoor faucet - great but busted < 1year
My review and experience with
MOEN SINGLE-HANDLE HOT/COLD SILL FAUCET
MODEL HC4005 series
I'm posting this here because I can't find any record of this type of failure or repair on Moen, Google or YouTube.
THE GOOD. It delivers hot, cold in a single-handle tap that Moen is so well known for. Fantastic for washing hands, filling kiddie pools and other water toys, etc.
THE BAD. Easy to waste warm/hot water on irrigation system if you aren't paying attention (or little ones have fun with the knob after the fact).
THE UGLY. In less than 10 months (3 months usage if you exclude winter), the anti-siphon (backflow preventer?) valve busted, and it sprays wildly all around the valve when the water is on, soaking the ground right at the foundation. Not good.
Repair?
Unfortunately, no DIY repair videos on youtube yet.
Moen website shows a vacuum breaker kit (Moen PN 140900) on the exploded parts diagram, but does not have any instructions.
The innards of the installed vacuum breaker don't quite look like the one on the diagram (design change/improvement?)...
I tried setting the o-ring down a few times to no avail.
It does have a lifetime warranty.
Summer is just starting and we have a pool party/BBQ next weekend...
Here's hoping (a) my contractor will have his plumber repair this right quick and/or (b) Moen will send a repair kit ASAFP.
UPDATE: The o-ring popped completely out, so I gave it a test try for the heck of it, and it worked more or less fine. I reset the o-ring firmly with a tiny rod, and so far so good.
2011-06-15
communication tools vs communication skills
The two young contrators painting my house are outside on their lunch break, casually minding the texting/surfing on their respective cell phones.
Makes me think that, with all the communication tools that technology has given us, we may be losing the ability to actually communicate.
Aside: And here I am, blogging about it rather than getting out there and getting to know them/anyone.
Or, communication tools have allowed us the luxury(?) of being able to be more specific about who and what we want to talk with and about (and listen to). If that's so, are we any further ahead?
Makes me think that, with all the communication tools that technology has given us, we may be losing the ability to actually communicate.
Aside: And here I am, blogging about it rather than getting out there and getting to know them/anyone.
Or, communication tools have allowed us the luxury(?) of being able to be more specific about who and what we want to talk with and about (and listen to). If that's so, are we any further ahead?
2011-03-18
2011-02-27
"Canada's" Action Plan
nice that the Cons are promoting the benefits of "their" economic action plan with a feel-good campaign, and not taking all the credit for it directly (especially how prone they seem to be to go on the offensive, literally). Not that they could take credit for it though, really, cuz I suspect the opposition would (quite legitimately I am sure) claim it would have been nothing were it not for them holding the balance of power.
2011-02-17
realization
Probably deafeningly evident to those who know me, but I just moved a Johari muntin over a bit to my advantage tonight.
I am a (slightly obsessive) tweaker. I am driven to know how things work, be it in politics, regulation-making, sewing machines, computers, lighting levels in a room, musical instruments, circulatory system in the eye, etc., just to the point I can do it "right", understand or use it well enough to teach someone else, and/or fix it, to make it that much easier for everyone/me to use and logical for everyone else to figure out.
Which is probably why I get too involved in some things. By "too involved" I really mean to the annoyance of those who've made a career out of it for asking too many questions (even more when their explanations smell like BS - no offense, Dr. R); to the jealous displeasure of those who've made it their life's mission to understand/do something I pick up even better in just a few hours/weeks (sorry Bree); and to the expense of those who have to redo stuff until it meets what I believe is (should be) the appropriate standard of workmanship (reno contractors, you know who you are).
But when the conquest is over, I tend to seek out other problems to fix/things that need tweaking.
So, how can I best turn this drive for learning and improving into a career: Detective? Teacher? Researcher? Troubleshooter? Judge? Supreme benevolent dictator?
I am a (slightly obsessive) tweaker. I am driven to know how things work, be it in politics, regulation-making, sewing machines, computers, lighting levels in a room, musical instruments, circulatory system in the eye, etc., just to the point I can do it "right", understand or use it well enough to teach someone else, and/or fix it, to make it that much easier for everyone/me to use and logical for everyone else to figure out.
Which is probably why I get too involved in some things. By "too involved" I really mean to the annoyance of those who've made a career out of it for asking too many questions (even more when their explanations smell like BS - no offense, Dr. R); to the jealous displeasure of those who've made it their life's mission to understand/do something I pick up even better in just a few hours/weeks (sorry Bree); and to the expense of those who have to redo stuff until it meets what I believe is (should be) the appropriate standard of workmanship (reno contractors, you know who you are).
But when the conquest is over, I tend to seek out other problems to fix/things that need tweaking.
So, how can I best turn this drive for learning and improving into a career: Detective? Teacher? Researcher? Troubleshooter? Judge? Supreme benevolent dictator?
2011-02-15
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.
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.
2011-02-08
Survival vs Continuity - in the name of the greater good?
National post, February 7 2011, p.20:
b) best way to destroy a country is to castrate its ability to generate new political leadership. In fact, its a best practice for despots.
c) even North Korea has a succession plan.
Which leaves me wondering, if he is building something so complex and dependent on him personally, with a centralization of power never seen before in Canadian politics, how long can he sustain it without sacrificing his health or resorting to physical oppression of the people? And who will be left to clean up the mess after he leaves?
"In office, [Harper] has never let a minister rise high enough to form an independent power base. The Harper operation is built for survival, armored against threat from the inside and out, designed to protect the one component its leader believes is indispensable: himself."a) how is that democratic?
b) best way to destroy a country is to castrate its ability to generate new political leadership. In fact, its a best practice for despots.
c) even North Korea has a succession plan.
Which leaves me wondering, if he is building something so complex and dependent on him personally, with a centralization of power never seen before in Canadian politics, how long can he sustain it without sacrificing his health or resorting to physical oppression of the people? And who will be left to clean up the mess after he leaves?
posted from Bloggeroid
2011-02-04
loud commercials = PITA
CRTC hears complaints about loud TV ads
see http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=135403 (full text of CNews article copied below).
What could possibly be the rationale behind this? It can't be the advertisers, who surely don't want their viewers turning off the sound or fast-forwarding through commercials and associating such offense with their products. The networks maybe? or the stations themselves? Probably not, since they make a living delivering hopefully attentive viewers to their advertisers. It can only be the cable companies, who no doubt make a fair share of profit from PVR rentals.
Consequently, and since that is the currently prescribed practice by the CRTC, I just called Rogers Cable at 1-888-764-3771 to register a complaint about the offensively louder volume of commercial breaks during a specific show. At first the agent was all sugar and spice, polite and all. When I started talking about USA considering legislation and the CRTC conducting hearings about this PITA practice, and I asked if I should continue calling everytime I noticed it, the veneer came off and she said "no, that's ok, I am forwarding this right away to the escalation department and you will get a call back when resolved, within 24-48 hours." Evidently I'm not the first educated caller she's dealt with. Meanwhile, I'm putting their number on my speed dial. >:)
I'm also looking forward to how the CRTC hearings are going to play out with industry and then with the government. I get the impression that the commission is slowly imploding, and I got to admit I kinda enjoy watching history being made.
see http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=135403 (full text of CNews article copied below).
What could possibly be the rationale behind this? It can't be the advertisers, who surely don't want their viewers turning off the sound or fast-forwarding through commercials and associating such offense with their products. The networks maybe? or the stations themselves? Probably not, since they make a living delivering hopefully attentive viewers to their advertisers. It can only be the cable companies, who no doubt make a fair share of profit from PVR rentals.
Consequently, and since that is the currently prescribed practice by the CRTC, I just called Rogers Cable at 1-888-764-3771 to register a complaint about the offensively louder volume of commercial breaks during a specific show. At first the agent was all sugar and spice, polite and all. When I started talking about USA considering legislation and the CRTC conducting hearings about this PITA practice, and I asked if I should continue calling everytime I noticed it, the veneer came off and she said "no, that's ok, I am forwarding this right away to the escalation department and you will get a call back when resolved, within 24-48 hours." Evidently I'm not the first educated caller she's dealt with. Meanwhile, I'm putting their number on my speed dial. >:)
I'm also looking forward to how the CRTC hearings are going to play out with industry and then with the government. I get the impression that the commission is slowly imploding, and I got to admit I kinda enjoy watching history being made.
TV regulator hears complaints about loud ads
By ALTHIA RAJ, Parliamentary Bureau
OTTAWA — The federal television regulator is looking at ways it can stop Canadians from going deaf by listening to loud ads during their favourite TV programs.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has received hundreds of complaints from the public who are outraged they need to reach for the remote control each time television advertisements appear in order to reduce their seemingly louder volume.
“It is an issue that we are cognizant of and not indifferent to,” a CRTC official told QMI Agency.
An announcement isn’t ready yet but “stay tuned,” the official added.
The Consumers’ Association of Canada’s Bruce Cran called it a “chronic complaint” his group receives.
“The usual thing we get is that (the TV ad) is a lot louder than the show. Whether that’s true or not, the perception certainly is that it is louder,” he said. “It is something that obviously bothers a lot of people.”
U.S President Barack Obama recently signed into law the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act (CALM) which instructs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the CRTC’s American counterpart, to ensure commercials are only as loud as the program during which they air.
The CRTC currently recommends Canadians tell their TV service provider when they notice louder television ads by noting the date, time, channel and program or commercial they are watching.
2010-12-02
why so tough on crime?
after many years of positive reinforcement, it could be that Canadians need (the government) to flex some negative reinforcement muscles.
but I can't help but wonder, since "it takes one to know one", what does that say about parties with a heavy law and order agenda?
but I can't help but wonder, since "it takes one to know one", what does that say about parties with a heavy law and order agenda?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)