2008-04-06

getting to know him



link http://today.reuters.com/News/ArticleBlog.aspx?type=technologyNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B82x9Ksc5UNVzDjpITcIrRbi&src=blogBurst_technologyNews&bbPostId=BziAjE8MY3PgCz2P2YKp38ce1B8Tb2JsJxBsYCz4lhZZqYUFsv&bbParentWidgetId=B9TtxIkobbLVBgDsLF1sak8
Could be an icebreaker, or simply a game of peekaboo with the USA prez.

2008-04-01

bubbles speak

How to stir things up a bit - reclaim the corporate advertising space for our own collective benefit!
(disclaimer: i do not endorse vandalism, so don't do it. but if you already see an ad desecrated with a blank bubble, the ice has obviously been broken already so no foul if you add to it!)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
There was a Canadian documentary about this on TV a long time ago, but recently I read that a guy in NYC is also doing it. He just puts blank stickers on advertisements and lets people write in their own comments. I like the "street bubbles" ones in the politics & social commentary.
http://www.thebubbleproject.com/01.Bubbles/BubblesFrameset.htm

morning poetry

was talking about raelians with a colleague this morning. he asked if they were the ones that committed mass suicide a few years ago - i said, no those were the sun cultists (temple of the sun?), or some other group of lemmings blindly following a self-ordained leader into annihilation.
i don't know what inspired that particular bit of prose... maybe the lecture about creationist "science" and biblical "facts" in my carpool this morning? Universe only knows.

2008-03-28

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.

2008-03-27

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)

2008-03-17

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

2008-03-11

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

2008-03-08

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!

2008-03-07

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.


2008-02-26

things that make you go hmmm...

If knowledge is the key to freedom, why is thinking also called "de-liberation" ?

2008-02-07

economic or gag stimulus?

You wouldn't have seen this type of spin vs reality journalism when the Cons first took power:
[When asked if he would match the $130-billion US stimulus package being adopted in the United States,] Flaherty said the government has already done enough to stimulate the economy. He said tax measures introduced by the Conservatives since coming to office in January 2006 - estimated to be worth $190 billion by 2012 - [... are ] "a huge stimulus to the Canadian economy, much more than what our American colleagues are thinking of doing in the United States. We've already done it in Canada."
The two initiatives are difficult to compare, however, because the Canadian measures include tax reductions and other initiatives already in place and some that will come into effect as late as 2012, while the U.S. package is targeted for immediate relief.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/06/flaherty-budget.html

Glad to see the media are overcoming their fear/awe/courtship with the neoCons.

PS. a $130-billion stimulus package for the US economy? seriously? I wonder if that contravenes NAFTA and other trade agreements... even if it is I doubt the Harper government will challenge it...

2008-02-01

haute politics

Like in haute cuisine, O'Brien seems to be big on presentation but short on substance.
Urging business leaders to turn out the lights Saturday from 8 to 9pm is a great statement, but really, what effect will it have on compliance? most businesses (whom I expect already shut off most of their lights during non-business hours) are closed during that time, except for retail where utter darkness doesn't really encourage consumer spending or deter crime that well. If the city was really serious about climate change and the environment, he would encourage higher electricity prices. THAT would balance out the cost-benefit ratio of energy saving initiatives a whole lot more effectively!
Mayor O'Brien joins chorus of cities turning out lights
Jake Rupert, Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, January 31, 2008

The City of Ottawa has joined a world-wide initiative aimed a bringing attention to climate change, and municipal officials want all businesses and residents to get behind the cause.

The initiative, called Earth Hour, is sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund. It will see people from around the world in cities from Copenhagen to Sydney turn off all their lights from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturday, March 29.

Thursday morning, during a speech to members of the Greater Ottawa Chamber of Commerce, Mayor Larry O'Brien urged the city's business leaders to get behind the event and pledge to shut off the lights in their buildings.

"I'm calling on you to pledge support for this," he said. "It will show the City of Ottawa, its business leaders, and its people are serious about climate change and the environment. I'm proud of our accomplishments in these areas, but there's a lot more work to be done and this will show our commitment."

2008-01-29

Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Downloaded this book from
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876.
total of 89 pages, with lots of pretty pictures. I look forward to reading it in my "free time."

2008-01-28

deep thoughts

Education is the key to freedom but for the burden of awareness it brings.

2008-01-20

The drug of combat

I have never actually been there, but this rings instantly true to me:
Dr Kevin Patterson is a critical care specialist from Nanaimo, B.C. who served (as a civilian) with our Multinational Medical Facility at Kandahar Airfield in February and March of 2007. He has written a book on the Canadian mission in Afghanistan entitled "Outside the Wire." LGen (ret'd) Romeo Dallaire, a Canadian senator, has written a foreword to the book which is excerpted below.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=238274

The drug of combat

In a new book, Canadian soldiers and aid workers deliver eyewitness tales from Afghanistan. In its forward, excerpted below, Romeo A. Dallaire explains how their experiences will change them - in good ways, and bad Romeo A. Dallaire, Special to the National Post Published: Tuesday, January 15, 2008.
In account after account from the trenches of Vimy, the front lines of the liberation of Holland and outside the wire in Afghanistan, we struggle -- soldiers struggle -- with how to convey the real reality. Sometimes even with what is the real reality.
In Afghanistan, experiencing the intensity of battle; being the cause of the destruction of villages; being able to do little to address the extreme poverty and deprivation of the children; witnessing the burden and abuse of women in this male-dominated social order; hearing the suffering and cries of the wounded, civilian and military alike; seeing the cold and cruel face of death on your enemy as well as on your comrade: These are some of the realities veterans carry back to Canada.
When they arrive home, other realities may shock them: the unseemly opulence of our country; the debates and posturing of politicians wanting to grab the next headline without knowing much about the war; the air of security that envelops civilians as they go so earnestly about their daily routines, detached from any sense of the threat encountered daily by their nation's representatives abroad; the consuming fervour and stress generated by our keen work ethic in this industrialized society; being able to hit the off switch on the remote when the tube projects too much hurt and agony. Is this the mindset the veterans of Afghanistan, and so many of their predecessors, are expected to slip into once again?
The reality of combat in Afghanistan or the reality of life back home -- which one does the young warrior most have to grapple with? Which actually comforts him most? Which one does the doctor cling to as she faces the passage of wounded through the Kandahar military hospital? Which does the battlefield humanitarian clutch to his breast to weather the moral and ethical dilemmas of service?
As the adrenalin high of the war zone recedes ever so slowly, the hurt rises in your stomach and buckles your shoulders under the weight of grief and sorrow. You're surprised to feel the deep ache of lonesomeness as you sit once again at your family dinner table -- where you longed to be. Though you deny it to the people who love you, the people in your home life who rely on you, you long for extreme emotions: the pounding of your heart in your throat so strong you nearly choke; the perverse exhilaration of defying death time and time again; the intoxicating spasm of raw power you experience among the explosive lights of bursting projectiles, with their
acrid smell and deafening blasts; the climax of battle, which leaves you drowning in sweat and relieved to be alive.
How can we -- how can they -- stay off that drug of combat, that rush into temporary oblivion that has absolutely no equal in the human experience? I can think of no civilian equivalent where one's job is to offer up life and limb for a mission, a cause, a buddy, another human being who is just as human and vulnerable as you. In the aftermath of combat, forever burnt into the wiring of a combatant's brain is another reality, which invades everyday life with a clarity and speed that can surprise, disillusion, depress and elate all at once. In my experience, no amount of time can dampen this impact on a soldier's psyche.
Aptly, some of the writings in this revealing explode and pierce the reader with an unbridled energy and clarity that pulls at the heart and drives right to the soul. Reading these pages is like hearing voices from the beyond, like seeing ghosts wandering the recesses of all the world's battlefields.
A reader will also encounter the kind of soldiers' stories that wars always produce but that often remain unheard, unread: statements that come out so spontaneously and so to the point. In the field hospital at Kandahar airbase, young Corporal Ryan Pagnacco, having been severely wounded in action, wakes up from his drug-induced torpor to the sound of rocket and mortar fire nearby. As he lies helpless in his bed, the nurse throws a blast blanket over him, and he asks: "Are we being attacked?" The reply comes immediately with calm and serious intent: "Yes ... go back to sleep." Can one imagine a more suitable response from a caregiver to an anxious patient
fresh from the front?
Many serve and so few are recognized or even receive a word of thanks. Often
the intensity of the battle prevents its leaders from noticing a fait d'armes of heroic proportions. At other times, the leaders themselves are wounded or killed and are not there to pass word up the line of a warrior's feat committed by a private. At other times, the cohesiveness of the group brings about a victorious outcome or a disciplined withdrawal under fire: All are truly heroes, yet all simply feel that they just did their jobs.
It is only when the tired, dirty, hungry and thirsty combatants find a moment of rest that the vividness, the adrenalin rush and the steady vise-grip on their stomachs catches them by surprise, replaying in slow motion the rage, fear, sorrow and extraordinary high of facing death head-on and surviving.
The anecdotes and jokes, the technical and emotional descriptions, the blood-curdling and sad exposes: All are present in these letters home from the battlefield in a far-off land. The human dignity and sorrow, as well as the elation of victory and the emptiness of loss, are laid out in the participants' own innocent, lively and clear prose -- the richness of which is incalculable.
-Romeo Alain Dallaire is a Canadian senator. In 1993 and 1994, he served as
Force Commander for the UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda. Excerpted from
Outside the Wire. Copyright C 2007 Kevin Patterson and Jane Warren.
Reproduced by arrangement with Random House Canada. All rights reserved.
This foreword copyright C 2007 Romeo A. Dallaire.

2008-01-16

Night Shot


This isn't my typical post - there's no rant.
Here's a pic that I took in Florida last month; I'm particularly pleased with its serenity.
(well ok, maybe just a little rant: there's a plastic water bottle on the beach bottom centre - What in the world would possess people to toss garbage into such an otherwise pristine environment? sheesh!)

2007-12-09

leader of the free world

..but for how long? (the "free" part, that is)

>
> Comedian or just NTB???
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijz1CdUj5fg
>
>
>
> Caught off guard?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCvqXXnxLZw
>

2007-11-28

pay now, pay later to a whole new level

zero tax increases --> city cutting back its social presence --> religions fill the social vacuum and before you know it, sharia is alive and well here too. taxes and the city services they fund are the only weapons we have to defend ourselves against people with whom you can't debate because they do things in the name of some supreme deity, who conveniently delegates authority only to a few "chosen" individuals.

This is how you get courts sentencing women to 200 lashes and six months in prison after being abducted and gang-raped by seven men.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2007/11/28/4691235.php