« Nos comportements de consommation favorisent le grand nombre de déchets que l'on produit. Il faudrait s'en préoccuper », dit Manon Lambert, secrétaire générale de l'Ordre des pharmaciens du Québec.
I couldn't agree more.
2006-11-20
dealing with waste at the source
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20061119/CPSOLEIL/61119124/5803/CPSOLEIL
residential energy efficiency
I just got my house audited for energy efficiency.
It is "surprisingly airtight for a home of its age (32years) in this neighborhood."
There were a few obvious air leaks (around attic hatches) and some surprising air leaks (like through the electical outlets and between the quarter-round and the floor below the patio door). Despite these easily addressed leaks, total air leakage is only the equivalent of a single 150sq.in. opening. Below 100sq.in is considered too airtight, and if you don't have a Heat-Recovery Ventilator, Health Canada recommends running bathroom fans and opening windows, even in winter.
I'll be getting an EnerGuide rating for the house and access to an online summary that I can project new ratings after various home improvements. Pretty neat stuff. People usually put their EnerGuide ratings in their furnace room but I think I'll be posting it on my lawn to spur a little competition with the neighbors. :)
It is "surprisingly airtight for a home of its age (32years) in this neighborhood."
There were a few obvious air leaks (around attic hatches) and some surprising air leaks (like through the electical outlets and between the quarter-round and the floor below the patio door). Despite these easily addressed leaks, total air leakage is only the equivalent of a single 150sq.in. opening. Below 100sq.in is considered too airtight, and if you don't have a Heat-Recovery Ventilator, Health Canada recommends running bathroom fans and opening windows, even in winter.
I'll be getting an EnerGuide rating for the house and access to an online summary that I can project new ratings after various home improvements. Pretty neat stuff. People usually put their EnerGuide ratings in their furnace room but I think I'll be posting it on my lawn to spur a little competition with the neighbors. :)
No.1 on the energy-efficiency hit list: FURNACE
Currently have mid-efficiency (approx 80%), while high-efficiency furnaces are rated at 94%.
New furnaces are also direct-vented so they don't require a fresh air intake (obvious source of air-leakage).
Number 2 on the hit list: HOT WATER TANK.
Tanks with a pilot light have a constant flow of air to the chimney, actually drawing a lot of heat out of the water when the burner is not on! Better tanks have electronic ignition and exhaust blowers so air doesn't flow through the core unless the burner is on. This could also be direct-vented so the fresh-air intake could be eliminated altogether.
Other interesting things I learned:
- 76% of all energy consumption in a house is due to heating, while appliances and lighting only account for 12% each (in the average home, according to StatsCan).
- Adding plastic wrap over windows only increases the R value from R2 to R3, iff installed properly, and can improve air-tightness (again, iff installed properly).
- Changing exterior doors only improves overall energy efficiency by ~1%.
- Refinishing hardwood floors also does a great job of sealing them and the baseboards.
- Gas hot water heaters are approx 65% efficient when operating, but only approx 50% efficient overall since cool air flows steadily through the core the rest of the time, drawing the heat out.
- Furnace efficiency is rated at steady-state, and there is a lot of energy lost when the burners first come on. For this reason, dual-stage furnaces are more efficient since they only use half the burners, at peak efficiency, for much longer periods of time, and only fire up the other two when it can't keep up.
- Traditional AC blower motors (forced air systems) consume approx 250W while their DC equivalent only consume 75W. This can make a significant difference especially if the blower operates continuously all day long.
I asked tons of questions throughout, and he wasn't afraid to tell me like it is (unlike house inspectors who fear any liability). I highly recommend doing this audit before starting any home improvements!
2006-11-17
wealth
Warren Buffet reportedly said that "wealth is the transfer of money from the impatient to the patient."
I prefer to think that wealth is the transfer of money from the stupid and optimistic to the scrupleless and the lucky.
Note: by "luck" I refer to the association of the entire set of conditions that one did not create for him/herself, such as inherited fortune or empire (corporate or otherwise), and having had fertile conditions (timing, location and connections) to cultivate one's ideas, because dedication, perseverance and effort alone are not reliable indicators of success.
2006-11-16
RE: Patriot Act
The following are some of my favorite anti-war quotes (the original list goes on and on):
You'd think that we'd eventually learn to listen, rather than shut out?
Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.~George Washington
Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.~Benjamin Franklin
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.~Voltaire
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so...~Robert A. Heinlein
Violence as a way of gaining power...is being camouflaged under the guise of tradition, national honor [and] national security...~Alfred Adler
Our enemies...never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.~George W. Bush
The evils of government are directly proportional to the tolerance of the people.talk about irony
~Frank Kent
The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.I've often said I believe we deserve better but have no one to blame but ourselves!
~James Madison
The state has, in order to control us, introduced division into our thinking, so that we come to distrust others and look to the state for protection.~Butler Shaffer
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.~James Madison
wow - how appropriate and timely is that?
You'd think that we'd eventually learn to listen, rather than shut out?
2006-11-14
ignorance is bliss
That is my public transit realization of the day. This is why:
I'm standing in the middle of the bus. There are a few people standing sparsely behind me, blissfully unaware of all the passengers packed so tightly at the front of the bus that they are probably concerned for their lives should the doors and/or windshield of the bus fail.
The people at the back are too short and cannot see the predicament of the people at the front. They are happy in their ignorance. The people at the front (including the driver) do not know there is lots of room in the back and assume the people at the back are just as crowded so don't say anything, despite being uncomfortable (at least they were able to squeeze on board unlike the others that got left behind). I am the only one NOT happy, because I can see the solution and feel compelled to intervene, but choose not to because I'm clearly not an authority figure and how dare I tell them what they should do, least of all because they feel they have to defend their now obviously wrong choice?
I'm standing in the middle of the bus. There are a few people standing sparsely behind me, blissfully unaware of all the passengers packed so tightly at the front of the bus that they are probably concerned for their lives should the doors and/or windshield of the bus fail.
The people at the back are too short and cannot see the predicament of the people at the front. They are happy in their ignorance. The people at the front (including the driver) do not know there is lots of room in the back and assume the people at the back are just as crowded so don't say anything, despite being uncomfortable (at least they were able to squeeze on board unlike the others that got left behind). I am the only one NOT happy, because I can see the solution and feel compelled to intervene, but choose not to because I'm clearly not an authority figure and how dare I tell them what they should do, least of all because they feel they have to defend their now obviously wrong choice?
So in the end, what is the right thing to do: Stand by quietly, enjoying my anonymity, while others suffer unnecessarily due to the actions (and inactions) of others, or should I ask the comfortable few at the back to snuggle up and risk disturbing their happy little views of the world?
The assumed/experienced perspectives from all three of the above subjects (front, back and observer) indicates to me that ignorance IS bliss, trying to intervene is often too much trouble, and not intervening leaves a residue of guilt. I think you need to be either shortsighted/blind so as not to have to think about these things, or sufficiently thickskinned that you do not worry about stepping on others' toes.
Unfortunately I am neither.
2006-11-10
government action against drug-impaired driving
I'm very pleased with today's announcement (well, their official position anyway) against drug-impaired driving.
One of the nice things about not being ideologically driven is that I get to agree with things the Conservatives are doing that actually are good for the country.
action against drug-impaired driving
I'm very pleased with today's announcement (well, their official position anyway) against drug-impaired driving.
That's one of the nice things about not being ideologically driven: I get to agree with things the Conservatives are doing that actually are good for the country.
That's one of the nice things about not being ideologically driven: I get to agree with things the Conservatives are doing that actually are good for the country.
2006-11-09
FW: grace
Change can be good, especially when it comes with a strong vision and an authoritative platform to implement it.
Here is a little tribute to Grace Hopper, coiner of the computer "bug" phrase:
http://www.hopper.navy.mil/grace/grace.htm
2006-11-07
priority ranking heuristics
Had to address the misconception that I have "complicated rules" for prioritizing things, because the only priority system being applied by the trustee was "guessing and doing whatever he usually complains about most." That clearly wasn't effective nor to anyone's satisfaction.
So, I tried to explain there aren't any "complicated priority lists" or guessing required; rather, I have a basic approach that assesses the following variables:
Anyway, part of me (the part that is being assimilated by the work-environment bureaucracy and becoming paranoid) feels that by explaining these heuristics, I am effectively identifying the kinds of excuses that I will usually accept, but I think the expected tradeoff in predictability should be to everyone's advantage.
So, I tried to explain there aren't any "complicated priority lists" or guessing required; rather, I have a basic approach that assesses the following variables:
with consideration for the following:severity (of consequences and level of effort or inconvenience required to undo or repair) probably of occurrence safety/degree of urgency
andeffort involved (quick fixes or "low hanging fruit") if it's not something you don't feel like doing (converse does not apply)
That's not overly complicated, is it? Effectively delegating this kind of decision-making seems a whole lot harder (without making the other person feel I think they're wrong).a healthy dose of "while you're at it" (which regularly trumps the law of diminishing returns)
Anyway, part of me (the part that is being assimilated by the work-environment bureaucracy and becoming paranoid) feels that by explaining these heuristics, I am effectively identifying the kinds of excuses that I will usually accept, but I think the expected tradeoff in predictability should be to everyone's advantage.
2006-11-02
memory jogger: CSR
Found this section of the Wikipedia article on Common Sense Revolution (CSR) particularly interesting:
The central foci of the CSR were tax reduction, balancing the budget, reducing the size and role of government, and an emphasis on individual economic responsibility (often summarized by an opposition to government "hand-outs"). Among other things Harris promised to reduce personal income tax rates by 30% and balance the provincial budget at the same time (which had reached a record $10 Billion deficit under the NDP).Hmmm... why does that sound familiar?
The CSR was specifically tailored as a reform document. It was presented as a radical change to the status quo of provincial government business, which was widely seen to be poorly managed and inefficient. Indeed, the opening words of the document were "The people of Ontario have a message for their politicians -- government isn't working anymore. The system is broken."
blogger = journalism?
This story is going to be interesting: Blogger On Trial
particularly if and how the media chooses to portray this incident and its outcome, because they may perceive bloggers as a threat to their established rights and priviledges...
particularly if and how the media chooses to portray this incident and its outcome, because they may perceive bloggers as a threat to their established rights and priviledges...
2006-10-31
glimpse within conservative party
leaked conservative "persuasion" memo from the conservative campaign manager:
http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2006/10/30/memo-to-doug-finley-2/
I'm speechless!
http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2006/10/30/memo-to-doug-finley-2/
I'm speechless!
2006-10-30
RCL's poppy campain
I wonder if anybody else made the association between the poppies being sold by the Legion (in commemoration of WWI), and the primary industry in Afghanistan...
new old-boys club
Just what we needed - another secret forum for the government to get in bed with industry!
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA FELLOWS PROGRAM
From the Prime Minister's Web Site (061027)Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced today the launch of the Government of Canada Fellows Program to allow the exchange of senior executives in the public service of Canada with other sectors such as business, academia, not-for-profit organizations and other levels of government.
The program will support renewal of the public service through the exchange of knowledge, skills, expertise and best practices between the Canadian public service and other sectors of Canadian society. These exchanges will be mutually beneficial in key areas such as improved service delivery, the use of technology and enhanced governance, accountability, and management practices.
Grandstanding around
tee hee - I think the PM's panties shrunk in the wash.
From the Prime Minister's Web Site (061027)
... anyway, maybe it's just bad legislation? I doubt the liberals (as greasy as they can be sometimes) would be stalling good legislation, unless they are just waiting to return to power so they can claim it as their own (and give the neo-cons a taste of their own medicine)!
... right, who needs to read the fine print, anyway? just sign the damn contract and buy that lemon!
...according to liberal MPs and committee members (granted, not necessarily the most unbiased group), the neo-cons are all "too busy" to attend these meetings, and I've yet to hear anything but grandstanding and aggressive question-avoidance from Baird and the rest of Harper's crew during the house of commons' spectacle known as Question Period.
... "they should do it in the open" - look how great that worked for Garth Turner!
From the Prime Minister's Web Site (061027)
In a speech to the Oakville Chamber of Commerce, Prime Minister Stephen Harper today laid out the government's agenda and called upon the opposition to stop blocking change. "This is not what Canadians voted for and it's not what Canadians want," said the Prime Minister....other than offering a soapbox, what does he think the Oakville Chamber of Commerce can do for him?
However, the Prime Minister added that the opposition parties are using the unelected Senate and committee meetings to undermine the government's accountability and anti-crime measures.... as if he needed anybody's help undermining his authority...
... anyway, maybe it's just bad legislation? I doubt the liberals (as greasy as they can be sometimes) would be stalling good legislation, unless they are just waiting to return to power so they can claim it as their own (and give the neo-cons a taste of their own medicine)!
"If the opposition disagrees with us, they should do it in the open, not in some committee meeting, not in the unelected Senate, and not by endlessly stalling a democratic vote," concluded Prime Minister Harper. "It's time for the opposition to be straight up with Canadians - why are you opposing accountability and tough measures against crime?"... and he's leading by example?
... right, who needs to read the fine print, anyway? just sign the damn contract and buy that lemon!
...according to liberal MPs and committee members (granted, not necessarily the most unbiased group), the neo-cons are all "too busy" to attend these meetings, and I've yet to hear anything but grandstanding and aggressive question-avoidance from Baird and the rest of Harper's crew during the house of commons' spectacle known as Question Period.
... "they should do it in the open" - look how great that worked for Garth Turner!
2006-10-27
GG travel plans
wow - were they listening? haha
From the Prime Minister's Web Site (061024)
PRIME MINISTER HARPER ANNOUNCES STATE VISIT OF GOVERNOR GENERAL TO AFRICA
Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that Governor General Michaëlle Jean will represent Canada on a five-country State visit to Africa.
At the request of the Prime Minister, the Governor General will lead a delegation of distinguished Canadians from civil society to Algeria, Mali, Ghana and South Africa, with a final brief stop in Morocco. The visit will take place between November 19 and December 11, 2006.
The visit will demonstrate how Canadian and African partners are working together to achieve results in Africa. This forthcoming State visit to countries of the African continent will further reinforce the image and understanding of Canada abroad. Canadian State visits play an important role in promoting Canada's interests and in projecting a positive image of contemporary Canada and Canadian values. Information on the history of Canadian State visits abroad and on those undertaken by other Governors General can be seen at http://www.gg.ca.
2006-10-26
inconvenient honesty
Goose Bay: political hot potato
Obviously the goverment-imposed veil of secrecy doesn't apply to the Senate, and they're not afraid to tell it like it is. No wonder Harper wants to eliminate it!
Obviously the goverment-imposed veil of secrecy doesn't apply to the Senate, and they're not afraid to tell it like it is. No wonder Harper wants to eliminate it!
historical parallel - 38th, to be precise
Canada retains a Korean War legacy: a pledge to defend South Korea
This article by John Ward provides a relevant historical analogy of the war in Afghanistan. It is a welcome antidote to the heartburn-inducing ideological consommé of bumper stickers, propaganda and slogans.
This article by John Ward provides a relevant historical analogy of the war in Afghanistan. It is a welcome antidote to the heartburn-inducing ideological consommé of bumper stickers, propaganda and slogans.
end of an era
It looks like "canada's new government" is sparing no effort at erasing the past and making room for more "new" stuff in our lives.
From the Globe and Mail (061012):
The fate of these heritage buildings is now solely in the hands of their cities and the developers that dictate their agendas. And we all know how well the private sector cares for the environment (both natural and emotional)...
From the Globe and Mail (061012):
During its wide-ranging purge of "wasteful programs," Ottawa discontinued the $30-million [Commercial Heritage Properties Incentive Fund].This fund offered "developers financial incentives to rehabilitate commercial buildings so deteriorated they might otherwise be torn down, it rescued traditional streetscapes across the land." Examples listed include a $300k grant to restore an 1846 flour mill into a residential and commercial complex in Thorold, ON; a $500k grant to help convert the King George V Building in St.John's to a boutique hotel; and $1million aid package to restore the Dickensian Distillery District in Toronto.
The CHPIF was the only federal program designed to help save [the pre-1920 heritage] buildings [from demolition].
The fate of these heritage buildings is now solely in the hands of their cities and the developers that dictate their agendas. And we all know how well the private sector cares for the environment (both natural and emotional)...
CONFIDENCE RESTORED
Perhaps it is only the prospect of a nice cool white winter approaching, but after reading through some of MP Garth Turner's blog and watching some MPTV he has produced, I feel thoroughly refreshed. What is spewing from the PMO and the PM's website is indeed more of an election campaign than anything else. Silly me, after all Harper's rhetoric about "issues that matter to real canadians", I actually expected it to show real issues that mattered to people (rather than propaganda aimed at voters who matter).
Back to the point: Garth's website and comments that people have posted there indicate that beyond the propaganda (that I liken to barnacles on a hull), there really are a lot of concerned Canadians that care for the state of our democracy, our institutions, and our citizenry. Hats off to Garth and the constituents of Halton, and even the conservative party for raising our awareness.
Back to the point: Garth's website and comments that people have posted there indicate that beyond the propaganda (that I liken to barnacles on a hull), there really are a lot of concerned Canadians that care for the state of our democracy, our institutions, and our citizenry. Hats off to Garth and the constituents of Halton, and even the conservative party for raising our awareness.
2006-10-24
undue influence, update
The local MP's constituency response just called me back. Without confirming nor denying the presence of a lawn sign, the gist of his response was:
Now I might be allocating a tone of arrogance or evasiveness, but I tried making sure I understook correctly what was being said when the poor guy said "Look stop trying to pick apart what I said so that you can turn it around to your advantage."
Anyway, this is a strange notion of accountability.
[The MP] believe it is his personal decision to support any candidate, or not, at any government level, and whether he chooses any means to show his support (or not) at a given juncture does not have to justified to everybody or anybody.
Now I might be allocating a tone of arrogance or evasiveness, but I tried making sure I understook correctly what was being said when the poor guy said "Look stop trying to pick apart what I said so that you can turn it around to your advantage."
Anyway, this is a strange notion of accountability.
Let them eat cake
Latest visit announcement from the Prime Minister's Web Site:
election campaign photo ops?)
PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN HARPER AND MRS. LAUREEN HARPER TO MEET WITH THEIR MAJESTIES KING CARL XVI GUSTAF AND QUEEN SILVIA OF SWEDENYou know, with all these foreign dignitaries visiting, you get the impression it's the thing statesmen do. If so, why don't we ever hear of Canada sending similar dignitaries (I dare propose the GG) to maintain good relations with other countries? Or are we too critical of such "frivolous" spending? (Or, yet again, is it because it would infringe on the PM's
2006-10-23
what's Harper gardening?
PMO bumped photographer from job at 24 Sussex (Toronto Star, 061023):
Also, with the recent ousting of renegade MP Garth Turner (Globe and Mail, 061018):
[Ottawa photographer Dave Chan] was hired, then un-hired to work with TV comedian Rick Mercer in a sketch at Prime Minister Stephen Harper's residence. [...]Chan got another call from Mercer's producer, John Marshall, and was told that Dimitri Soudas, Harper's press secretary, had vetoed his presence on the assignment. Chan was told the Prime Minister's Office flatly objected to him as a critic of Harper.
[...]
Soudas would neither confirm nor deny on the record that he'd passed that message along to the Mercer show. Instead, Soudas sent an email on Saturday evening, simply saying: "The Prime Minister had a great time with Rick today. We agreed to provide many pictures to the Rick Mercer Report and we'll be doing so on Monday (today)."
The inference, apparently, is that Chan's photos weren't needed because the PMO would supply its own. This issue, in fact, was at the root of an earlier dispute with the press gallery — the PMO's bid to supply its own photos for use in the media rather than allowing photojournalists to take them.
[...]
"As a photographer my job is to document, not provide the spin," Chan said.
Chan does work for all the major national papers and is a member of the press gallery, says he is not a member of the Liberal party and has never been blacklisted for participation in an assignment in his 20 years as a photojournalist.
Also, with the recent ousting of renegade MP Garth Turner (Globe and Mail, 061018):
The Globe and Mail has learned that at a caucus meeting last month, Mr. Harper informed MPs that cuts were coming to various government programs. He said that spokespeople would be assigned on the issue and that MPs should not comment, even if the cuts affected their ridings.One can't help but wonder, if he doesn't trust his own ministers and other party members to do their own thing, there must be some real dark secrets is he afraid Canadians will find out!
Speaking on condition of anonymity, some MPs said they had no problem with the order and described the comments as consistent with the Prime Minister's disciplined approach to public policy announcements. Others interpreted Mr. Harper's remarks as threatening.
Some Tories have quietly expressed concern with restrictions on their ability to speak out. One caucus source said recently that despite personal admiration for Mr. Harper's successes, the Prime Minister's Office does not use MPs enough.
2006-10-20
more on low-income differentiation
My earlier post about the behavioural motivation of low-income tax exempt status is fairly accurately paralleled in a paper titled '"Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" - An Attempt to Boost Self-Esteem Through Art' by Lori R. Cohen and Dr. Camillo Zacchia, February 16, 1995. Here is a particularly pertinent exerpt:
My vision is that everybody in our society earns what they can and must contribute accordingly. We should not discard nor discount the willingness and abilities of any group; labelling them as "low-income canadians" and giving them special treatment and hand-outs on that basis merely insults their pride, increases their feeling of dependence and reduces their feeling of control. Their only anchor for self-esteem becomes retaliation.
Hmm. That's all very similar to my views on world peace...
Coupled with their own findings, Rosenberg et. al. believe [there is] a countervailing relationship between self-esteem and delinquency: low self-esteem leads a person towards delinquent behaviour, and the delinquent behaviour in turn boosts that person's self-esteem. This is especially true with boys of lower socio-economic status (Rosenberg & Rosenberg, 1978; Rosenberg et. al. 1989).The author reports an earlier finding that "self-esteem does not bring success, rather, successes develop self-esteem." With that in mind, I believe paying income taxes is a definite indicator of social success (though nobody wants to admit it), and that being exempt unconsciously indicates social failure, affecting one's self-esteem. The exempt individual then seeks to rebuild self-esteem within his/her new social group, likely resorting to some socially delinquent behaviour. This in turn will affect the climate inside the home, and the cultural differences will be amplified with each new generation.
The turn to delinquency is attributed to the self-esteem motive and a need for the approval of others; adolescents turn to delinquency in order to gain peer approval and to excel at something, even if that "something" is angering their teachers (Rosenberg et. al., 1989). In their article about "parental mattering", Rosenberg & McCullogh (1981) write:The angry reaction of [the delinquent's] teachers, his parents, and the police are all vivid testimony to the fact that he makes a difference, that he counts; and this sense of significance is intensified by the support of his delinquent peers who value his contribution to the group's collective purpose.... Thus, one reason for delinquency may be that it makes unimportant people feel important (p. 173).The self-esteem motive drives adolescents with low self-esteem to find a way to feel good about themselves; they justify whatever they do as "right". If they drop out of school it is because they are "too cool" for school. They will derive their self-esteem from whatever earns them praise or whatever they find they excel at, even if it is not "socially acceptable".
If low academic achievement can be used as a predictor of low self-esteem and potential delinquency, it would be expedient to enhance student's academic self-esteem in order to avoid future problems of delinquency and drop-out. Schools could try to step in at the crucial time of grades 7 and 8 and try to boost self-esteem in a positive way.
My vision is that everybody in our society earns what they can and must contribute accordingly. We should not discard nor discount the willingness and abilities of any group; labelling them as "low-income canadians" and giving them special treatment and hand-outs on that basis merely insults their pride, increases their feeling of dependence and reduces their feeling of control. Their only anchor for self-esteem becomes retaliation.
Hmm. That's all very similar to my views on world peace...
Principled leadership
I was pleasantly surprised at how much I agreed with nearly all of Harper's speech to B'nai Brith (Ottawa, 061018)
I just wish I knew exactly which "principles" guide us. Oh and uhm, where exactly do we "stand" on things, and how do we determine exactly what's "right?"
We are restoring Canada to its traditional and true role: principled leadership in world affairs.Hear hear!
A country that knows where it stands.
Speaks up for what’s right.
And invests in the tools of diplomacy: foreign aid, intelligence and military capability.
Friends, this is a role we have played countless times in our history.
A role we as Canadians should be proud of.
A role we will continue to pursue.
I just wish I knew exactly which "principles" guide us. Oh and uhm, where exactly do we "stand" on things, and how do we determine exactly what's "right?"
income taxes and low income canadians
The income tax reductions in Budget 2006 will remove over 650,000 low-income Canadians from the tax rolls altogether.
I do believe "low-income Canadians" need every cent they can get to get by, and that taking them off the rolls may reduce the administrative workload somewhat. But part of me isn't comfortable with the behaviour it is likely to motivate among those labeled as low-income canadians.
Raising the tax-free threshold increases the accessibility of the incentive for people to falsify their earnings to change their status, and I suspect there would be some (not likely a majority) that would perceive not paying taxes as an "acquired right." Their behaviour would shift toward that of a "dependent on society" rather than a "full member of society proudly contributing his/her fair share" with a stake in the success of Canada as a whole.
It also inches us closer to a tiered society, with haves, uber-haves, and have-nots, and that's not a vision of Canada that I care to encourage.
I do believe "low-income Canadians" need every cent they can get to get by, and that taking them off the rolls may reduce the administrative workload somewhat. But part of me isn't comfortable with the behaviour it is likely to motivate among those labeled as low-income canadians.
Raising the tax-free threshold increases the accessibility of the incentive for people to falsify their earnings to change their status, and I suspect there would be some (not likely a majority) that would perceive not paying taxes as an "acquired right." Their behaviour would shift toward that of a "dependent on society" rather than a "full member of society proudly contributing his/her fair share" with a stake in the success of Canada as a whole.
It also inches us closer to a tiered society, with haves, uber-haves, and have-nots, and that's not a vision of Canada that I care to encourage.
undue influence
One of the local council candidates I was talking with boasted that he has the support of the local MP (who happens to be a senior cabinet minister) and the MP even put up a lawn sign endorsing him.
That doesn't sit right with me.
Yes we have freedom of speech.
We must exercise it responsibly, as we also have a civic duty toward fairness and respect amongst one another.
Especially when it can affect the climate of negotiations at other levels of government.
I have asked my MP's office if the MP was publically endorsing one municipal candidate over another. The answer (approximately): "He might very well be, but I don't know for sure whether he has a sign or not. [...] I am not aware of anything that would prevent him from displaying his support, just as the 200,000 other public servants in the country probably also display their support for one candidate or another." When I mentioned I believe it violates a the principle of intergovernmental neutrality, especially at such senior levels, he suggested I contact the city of Ottawa elections officer and find out. I asked him how could I know for sure whether the sign exists or not, and he offered to look into it and call me back.
Stay tuned. I feel there will be more on this soon enough.
Update 1: City elections office confirmed "there are no rules [in the provincial Municipal Elections Act] concerning other government levels; any registered voter is free to express his/her support." It wouldn't be up to a provincial law to dictate what individuals can/cannot do because of their federal status (or stature) anyway, to which she agreed.
I really don't expect to find any official rule anywhere, rather this would be in the misty yet fundamental realm of ethics and integrity.
That doesn't sit right with me.
Yes we have freedom of speech.
We must exercise it responsibly, as we also have a civic duty toward fairness and respect amongst one another.
Especially when it can affect the climate of negotiations at other levels of government.
I have asked my MP's office if the MP was publically endorsing one municipal candidate over another. The answer (approximately): "He might very well be, but I don't know for sure whether he has a sign or not. [...] I am not aware of anything that would prevent him from displaying his support, just as the 200,000 other public servants in the country probably also display their support for one candidate or another." When I mentioned I believe it violates a the principle of intergovernmental neutrality, especially at such senior levels, he suggested I contact the city of Ottawa elections officer and find out. I asked him how could I know for sure whether the sign exists or not, and he offered to look into it and call me back.
Stay tuned. I feel there will be more on this soon enough.
Update 1: City elections office confirmed "there are no rules [in the provincial Municipal Elections Act] concerning other government levels; any registered voter is free to express his/her support." It wouldn't be up to a provincial law to dictate what individuals can/cannot do because of their federal status (or stature) anyway, to which she agreed.
I really don't expect to find any official rule anywhere, rather this would be in the misty yet fundamental realm of ethics and integrity.
feedback to CBC on Kyoto
Ref. cbc.ca Kyoto Protocol Backgrounder updated october 2006
I sent the following feedback to the CBC:
How can the editor have approved this article? There are two significant lapses in professional judgment:
1- the perpetuation of the "myth" that there is still discord in the scientific community over the relationship between GHGs and global warming. If it were true, which according to many recent articles isn't, then the sources of the "vocal minority" should be identified.
2- printing Ms Ambrose's statement ("the Liberal party failed Kyoto") is a cheap, divisive partisan slur that is left unbalanced in the article.
These two elements indicate a strong bias for the Conservative government and critically undermines your credibility. I caution you to restore the professionalism that you once had and which had earned my respect.
I sent the following feedback to the CBC:
How can the editor have approved this article? There are two significant lapses in professional judgment:
1- the perpetuation of the "myth" that there is still discord in the scientific community over the relationship between GHGs and global warming. If it were true, which according to many recent articles isn't, then the sources of the "vocal minority" should be identified.
2- printing Ms Ambrose's statement ("the Liberal party failed Kyoto") is a cheap, divisive partisan slur that is left unbalanced in the article.
These two elements indicate a strong bias for the Conservative government and critically undermines your credibility. I caution you to restore the professionalism that you once had and which had earned my respect.
2006-10-19
speaking of doublespeak...
Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative
- versus -
Government of Canada announces
Pacific Gateway Strategy
If can't see the difference, don't blame youself. Let me point out some of the subtler differences:
Good thing for BC (and rest of Canada) that Emerson is still around. But after recognizing Harper recently, I can't help but wonder, would the Woodrow Wilson people even qualify for their own award?
barriers to communication
"Though I accept the responsibility to cast myself in a good light, you must acknowledge that I have no control over the color of your glasses."
-me
-me
my secret garden
It all seems so absurd that this should have occurredI saw an "inspirational quote" this morning that suggested you should hold on to an idea, and revelling in that secret will give you strength.
My very only secret and I had to go and leak it
My secret garden's not so secret anymore
-Depeche Mode
That's as pointless as a schoolyard crush. I say git on with yer ideas boy, and let's have at 'em so we can all git on with'em and mebbe git somewhere for a change.
death of a journalist
Like Ignatieff criticizing Isreal as a friend (because a friend who only tells you what you want to hear isn't looking out for your best interest), I believe it is always good to be questioned on the purpose of something, whatever that may be and however unpleasant it may be.
So, why this blog? Because observations lead to discussions, discussions lead to questions and increased awareness, increased awareness leads to self-enforcement and self-regulation.
I was inspired by an article in the Ottawa Citizen, on yet another Russian journalist critical of the government was assassinated just recently, and apparently she's the 20th or so to be shot and killed there in the last 6 years. Closer to home, Harper has clamped down on party communications and media access, and has even dismissed an MP from his caucus because he was overly critical of the party on his personal blog. I'm not saying that there is any causal or deliberate link between the two, but both are symptomatic of organizations increasingly desperate to gain or maintain control (and preserve for themselves all the associated benefits to which they have become accustomed).
That behaviour is NOT a sound basis for democracy. I've blogged before how education is a fundamental pillar (a quote probably attributed to somebody else), and we all have a responsibility (and the power) to keep the forum for intelligent debate open (a la woodrow wilson, except to recipients deserving in fact rather than doublespeak).
I believe we collectively have tremendous knowledge, creativity and enthusiasm, and that our potential should be tapped rather than suppressed. When shown horses on a ranch, a butcher sees their meat, while a farmer visualizes their strength; I'd rather see Canadians harnessed and pulling the carts of intelligentsia than herded into the intellectual slaughterhouse of creature comforts and entitlements.
So, why this blog? Because observations lead to discussions, discussions lead to questions and increased awareness, increased awareness leads to self-enforcement and self-regulation.
I was inspired by an article in the Ottawa Citizen, on yet another Russian journalist critical of the government was assassinated just recently, and apparently she's the 20th or so to be shot and killed there in the last 6 years. Closer to home, Harper has clamped down on party communications and media access, and has even dismissed an MP from his caucus because he was overly critical of the party on his personal blog. I'm not saying that there is any causal or deliberate link between the two, but both are symptomatic of organizations increasingly desperate to gain or maintain control (and preserve for themselves all the associated benefits to which they have become accustomed).
That behaviour is NOT a sound basis for democracy. I've blogged before how education is a fundamental pillar (a quote probably attributed to somebody else), and we all have a responsibility (and the power) to keep the forum for intelligent debate open (a la woodrow wilson, except to recipients deserving in fact rather than doublespeak).
I believe we collectively have tremendous knowledge, creativity and enthusiasm, and that our potential should be tapped rather than suppressed. When shown horses on a ranch, a butcher sees their meat, while a farmer visualizes their strength; I'd rather see Canadians harnessed and pulling the carts of intelligentsia than herded into the intellectual slaughterhouse of creature comforts and entitlements.
2006-10-16
Bumper sticker wars
The Ottawa Citizen 2006.10.16 by Don Sawyer (edited for brevity)
Bumper sticker wars: A U.S. tradition that polarizes debate and reduces complex issues to simplistic slogans has made its way to CanadaPS. This is symptomatic of a larger phenomenon that I and a highly knowledgeable friend of mine have oft discussed: the reluctant but passive and certain erosion of a true Canadian identity.
When I was returning from the United States a few weeks ago, I boarded a connecting flight in Las Vegas and noticed a big red decal on the side of the plane: "We Support our Troops in the Middle East." Even after being in the U.S. for two weeks, I was taken aback by this crass mix of patriotism and hucksterism. I was also taken back -- to the '60s and the Vietnam War.
As that conflict dragged on, the level of discourse deteriorated badly. While thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese were dying, debate at home was largely limited to what could fit on a bumper sticker. Besides the always popular appeal to mindless jingoism, "Support Our Troops in Vietnam," the Republican Pontiac bumper could sport "America: Love it Or Leave It," "Jane Fonda: America's Traitor Bitch," or (my favourite for unabashed commitment to ignorance) "America: My Country, Right or Wrong."
And then the bumper stickers stopped. I was in Canada. The stresses of living in a country locked in an immoral and disastrous war began to melt away like "the morning frost under the rising sun." The few bumper stickers I did see advocated support for the newly created Vancouver Canucks or suggested that the driver ahead of me stopped for animals, hallucinations or leprechauns.
Now fast-forward to 2006. Americans are again embroiled in a war of arrogance and deception and fighting their ideological battles on their bumpers. The victims have changed, but not much else. For the more Neanderthal, there is "These Colours Don't Run!" and (with a NRA emblem) "When In Doubt, Empty the Magazine." For old-school hawks there's "Get Behind our Troops or Get in Front of 'em!" and "If You can Read This Thank a Teacher; If You Can Read It in English, Thank a Vet." And, as an example (I think) of Republican humour, how about "Fat People Are Harder to Kidnap"?
As always the left is cleverer -- and more trenchant. Two of my current favourites are "Be Nice to America or We'll Bring Democracy to Your Country," and "I Love my Country, but I Think we Should Start Seeing Other People." Then there's "Regime Change Starts at Home" and "We're Making Enemies Faster than We Can Kill Them."
This new spate of bumper stickers that polarizes and reduces complex issues to slogans is no longer confined south of the border. As Canada edges into a deepening war in Afghanistan and the casualties mount, we are beginning to see the same appeals to patriotism and stupidity pop up in Canadian papers and on Albertan bumper stickers. Meaningless slogans such as "Canada Doesn't Cut and Run" are showing up in the media from Halifax to Toronto to Winnipeg.
Canadian chief of defence staff Gen. Rick Hillier tells us we are in Afghanistan because we have a responsibility "as the rich and luxurious caring nation that we are to help other places around the world where the populations don't have any of those benefits or advantages or rights." This despite the fact that the situation in a hundred other countries, from Algeria to Zimbabwe, is as bad or worse.
Writing in the London Review of Books, Anatol Lieven remarks, "Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point of an American rifle no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to Christianity at the point of a Spanish harquebus." And now we can, sadly, insert "Canadian" for American.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety -- Ben Franklin."
Score 1 for the ex-PM
First, as always, my sympathies are with Tedford and Williamson's loved ones.
Excerpt from the Prime Minister's Web Site, October 15, 2006
Looks like Paul Martin managed to force Harper to emphasize the
reconstruction efforts, and play the political game despite his obvious disdain
for it.
Excerpt from the Prime Minister's Web Site, October 15, 2006
"Sergeant Darcy Tedford and Private Blake Williamson were killed on October 14 when their unit was attacked by insurgents near the new roadway project in the Panjwayi area of Afghanistan. This road is being built by the Canadian Provincial Reconstruction Team and other Canadian units in partnership with Afghan officials, and is part of the ongoing development and reconstruction process that Canada is engaged in."
Looks like Paul Martin managed to force Harper to emphasize the
reconstruction efforts, and play the political game despite his obvious disdain
for it.
2006-10-15
accountability vs integrity
A talk with one of the candidates for ward councillor who was trolling for votes today reinforced my dislike for the "accountability" bandwagon. His material stressed accountability while slamming the incumbent (or her record; was it deliberately unclear?). Apparently I'm the first of 5500 people he's talked to that mentioned that.
If there's one quality I'm looking for in a city councillor, it's integrity.
The ability to influence decisions and groups to get things accomplished is the second thing I look for. Too many people ignore the first to reach the second.
Then again, there is merit to the expression "I'd rather be wrong alive, than dead right."
Tough choice.
If there's one quality I'm looking for in a city councillor, it's integrity.
The ability to influence decisions and groups to get things accomplished is the second thing I look for. Too many people ignore the first to reach the second.
Then again, there is merit to the expression "I'd rather be wrong alive, than dead right."
Tough choice.
2006-10-13
jobs vs careers
"having a career requires work - it needs nurturing, planning, grooming, constant attention... it's a full time job."
maybe that's why the rest of us minions are doing two jobs while they are busy getting ahead?
I've got to start slacking off.
Morality TV?
Last night's episode of Grey's Anatomy taught a the following "life lesson:" Sometimes the only way to learn is to make mistakes, because that's when we find out who we really are.
Immediately after, CSI:WHEREVER ended with a staff locker-room discussion over why kids nowadayss are acting so violently. One said they needed a gramma to kick them in the ass when they got out of line (negative reinforcement), another said all they needed was proper guidance, love and encouragement to develop their moral compass (positive reinforcement). Bossguy disagrees with both and says neither is the real problem ("a moral compass can only point you in the right direction, not make you go there"), rather our society and our culture encourage us not to feel guilty about anything, that it isn't their fault and isn't their problem. [comment: sure, blame it on "society" and violate your own moral why don't you!]
Interesting, eh? Anyway, although these messages resonate with me, and I accept their premise that TV is a kind of surrogate parent for "today's kids," but are these shows really targeting the right demographic to make a change?
Immediately after, CSI:WHEREVER ended with a staff locker-room discussion over why kids nowadayss are acting so violently. One said they needed a gramma to kick them in the ass when they got out of line (negative reinforcement), another said all they needed was proper guidance, love and encouragement to develop their moral compass (positive reinforcement). Bossguy disagrees with both and says neither is the real problem ("a moral compass can only point you in the right direction, not make you go there"), rather our society and our culture encourage us not to feel guilty about anything, that it isn't their fault and isn't their problem. [comment: sure, blame it on "society" and violate your own moral why don't you!]
Interesting, eh? Anyway, although these messages resonate with me, and I accept their premise that TV is a kind of surrogate parent for "today's kids," but are these shows really targeting the right demographic to make a change?
2006-10-12
oops not in season
re: Harper's gaffe earlier today accusing all liberal leadership candidates of being anti-israel.
perhaps this is why he's implemented such tight-lip policies? heaven forbid anybody should say what they actually think... people might find them out!
perhaps this is why he's implemented such tight-lip policies? heaven forbid anybody should say what they actually think... people might find them out!
'americanization'
Another term I tried to explain to a friend recently is "americanization:"
A term generally used by canadian leftists to decry the situation when governments forget who they are supposed to represent (citizens) and get in bed with businesses instead. A conflict of interest and a violation of their core purpose, which is to do for the residents what businesses won't because it simply isn't profitable. Canadian rightists, on the other hand, idealize the Americans, because, well just look how rich and powerful they are.
I guess it depends what you want to measure, doesn't it?
A term generally used by canadian leftists to decry the situation when governments forget who they are supposed to represent (citizens) and get in bed with businesses instead. A conflict of interest and a violation of their core purpose, which is to do for the residents what businesses won't because it simply isn't profitable. Canadian rightists, on the other hand, idealize the Americans, because, well just look how rich and powerful they are.
I guess it depends what you want to measure, doesn't it?
public-private partnerships
I gave the following explanation to a friend who wasn't familiar with public-private partnerships (PPPs):
PPPs are basically like leasing a car, typically over a long time (15y) during which time the private partner (a for-profit business) rents it to the city and other users and runs concession stands to recoup his investment (with a healthy ROI, of course), after which the city takes it over (sometimes just in time for the building to fall apart). They're very convenient politically, because the city gets quick access to facilities for little cash down.
I am partially opposed to them on that same principle: I believe you shouldn't buy with money you don't have. However, the only usual alternative is for the city to raise money on the financial market by issuing bonds and/or debentures (effectively borrowing the money from investors who also seek a profit, but at least it is competitive), then having city staffers (already spread too thin) manage the construction, which is also far from ideal.
PPPs are basically like leasing a car, typically over a long time (15y) during which time the private partner (a for-profit business) rents it to the city and other users and runs concession stands to recoup his investment (with a healthy ROI, of course), after which the city takes it over (sometimes just in time for the building to fall apart). They're very convenient politically, because the city gets quick access to facilities for little cash down.
I am partially opposed to them on that same principle: I believe you shouldn't buy with money you don't have. However, the only usual alternative is for the city to raise money on the financial market by issuing bonds and/or debentures (effectively borrowing the money from investors who also seek a profit, but at least it is competitive), then having city staffers (already spread too thin) manage the construction, which is also far from ideal.
decentralizing the amalgamation
The recent election campaign in Ottawa is bringing about some interesting discussion. Some cynics may say its all irrelevant (empty promises blabla) but I believe it is important because it sets the tone for relationships between the city, municipal services, corporate communications, local business and the residents.
At a recent mayoral candidate debate, one of the candidates recognized the need to involve people. What a novel concept! "We need to create a mechanism to empower local people to make decisions locally. I support the borough model."
I agree. A borough model would be excellent way to give people a sense of purpose and control over their environment, and would recreate the sense of identity in the community that was lost during amalgamation.
Montreal attempted that, with partial success. Some municipalities turned out to be more "responsible" than others. Some municipalities felt so strongly about their community that they were willing to de-amalgamate, even if it meant slightly higher taxes.
Anyway, I envision boroughs with their own budgets to offer services and activities that positively impact the local quality of life (=Herzberg's "motivating factors"): issues that are particularly important to local residents like sports, local planning, zoning, parks, etc. Meanwhile, the city council would be responsible for major projects, large scale planning, infrastructure, corporate and shared services like trash, libraries, water, electricity, taxation, administration, etc, whose would negatively affect the quality of life of residents if removed (=Herzberg's "hygiene factors"). It would be a hybrid system with its own zits and warts, but would be more balanced and, more importantly, would involve the communities and respond to their needs. Further, done properly, the greater overall public satisfaction would improve productivity at work (though imperceptively) and reduce the drain on city resources, thereby offsetting any additional costs that may be required.
Heck, it may even generate more prosperity. Too bad most candidates are too obsessed with running the city with the current-quarter focus so prevalent in the business world.
At a recent mayoral candidate debate, one of the candidates recognized the need to involve people. What a novel concept! "We need to create a mechanism to empower local people to make decisions locally. I support the borough model."
I agree. A borough model would be excellent way to give people a sense of purpose and control over their environment, and would recreate the sense of identity in the community that was lost during amalgamation.
Montreal attempted that, with partial success. Some municipalities turned out to be more "responsible" than others. Some municipalities felt so strongly about their community that they were willing to de-amalgamate, even if it meant slightly higher taxes.
Anyway, I envision boroughs with their own budgets to offer services and activities that positively impact the local quality of life (=Herzberg's "motivating factors"): issues that are particularly important to local residents like sports, local planning, zoning, parks, etc. Meanwhile, the city council would be responsible for major projects, large scale planning, infrastructure, corporate and shared services like trash, libraries, water, electricity, taxation, administration, etc, whose would negatively affect the quality of life of residents if removed (=Herzberg's "hygiene factors"). It would be a hybrid system with its own zits and warts, but would be more balanced and, more importantly, would involve the communities and respond to their needs. Further, done properly, the greater overall public satisfaction would improve productivity at work (though imperceptively) and reduce the drain on city resources, thereby offsetting any additional costs that may be required.
Heck, it may even generate more prosperity. Too bad most candidates are too obsessed with running the city with the current-quarter focus so prevalent in the business world.
CO2 emissions by province
The news today are all over the story about CO2 emissions by province. In the fine print, they say the study only included numbers reported by industrial sources for 2004 and that the transportation sector wasn't included.
As reported, the bad boys are: AB (39%), ON (28%) and QC (8%).
On an industrial-tonnes per capita basis (statscan 2005), this changes slightly. The bad boys are: AB (33k), SK (23k), and NB (17k).
Further, based on the following assumptions/unconfirmed facts:
1. the industrial sector accounts for 65% of all CO2 emissions in canada;
2. the transportation sector accounts for the remaining 35%;
3. transportation CO2 emissions are the same for all provinces on a per capita basis;
4. i entered all numbers and formulae correctly in my spreadsheet;
we can conclude that the bad boys, based on total tonnes per capita, are: AB (3.8million tonnes), SK (2.7), NB (2.2).
With Alberta consistently the worst offender and Saskatchewan almost as guilty, not to mention so much electoral ground to gain in rather Liberal New-Brunswick, it's no wonder the Conservatives are trying to downplay the importance of CO2 and global warming on the lives of "ordinary Canadians"...
As reported, the bad boys are: AB (39%), ON (28%) and QC (8%).
On an industrial-tonnes per capita basis (statscan 2005), this changes slightly. The bad boys are: AB (33k), SK (23k), and NB (17k).
Further, based on the following assumptions/unconfirmed facts:
1. the industrial sector accounts for 65% of all CO2 emissions in canada;
2. the transportation sector accounts for the remaining 35%;
3. transportation CO2 emissions are the same for all provinces on a per capita basis;
4. i entered all numbers and formulae correctly in my spreadsheet;
we can conclude that the bad boys, based on total tonnes per capita, are: AB (3.8million tonnes), SK (2.7), NB (2.2).
With Alberta consistently the worst offender and Saskatchewan almost as guilty, not to mention so much electoral ground to gain in rather Liberal New-Brunswick, it's no wonder the Conservatives are trying to downplay the importance of CO2 and global warming on the lives of "ordinary Canadians"...
2006-10-11
senate reform - inside perspective
Apparently I'm not the first person to ponder the merits of a proportionally-elected senate. I may not have blogged about that before, but it is the only (partial) solution I can find that might restore the public faith (damaged by the conservative party, incidentally) in the legitimacy of the upper house.
body is a temple, but not according to some ORs
This concept/notion/whatever is taking stronger shape in my mind as each day goes by:
If God is all-being, all-knowing, all-seeing, omnipresent and omnipotent, we can conclude that God is in us and all around us. Organized religion's greatest transgression would then be denying His part in us (i.e., not recognizing us as deitful components of Him), externalizing our responsibility toward Him (ourselves - as in body is a temple), and making us worship Him as something separate from us that (conveniently) requires an intermediary (and a chain of command). This conveniently absolves us of our responsibilities toward ourselves and everybody and everything, which are by definition, also part of God.
If God is all-being, all-knowing, all-seeing, omnipresent and omnipotent, we can conclude that God is in us and all around us. Organized religion's greatest transgression would then be denying His part in us (i.e., not recognizing us as deitful components of Him), externalizing our responsibility toward Him (ourselves - as in body is a temple), and making us worship Him as something separate from us that (conveniently) requires an intermediary (and a chain of command). This conveniently absolves us of our responsibilities toward ourselves and everybody and everything, which are by definition, also part of God.
Righting wrongs, or trolling for votes?
Prime Minister Harper lauded contribution of Chinese Canadians to national development
Prime Minister Harper offers full apology for the Chinese Head Tax
It's about time.
However, I can't help but doubt their true intentions since the Conservatives had voted against addressing this grievance while in opposition, and only changed their song during the 2005 election campaign. They seem prone to attempting to modify history.
Conservatives wrong on head tax
So I wonder, is it only a coincidence, given that that the majority of Chinese Canadians are concentrated in our biggest cities, where the Conservatives didn't get any votes? Because if they truly wanted to right past wrongs (or at least the appeance of addressing measures even if they were lawful at the time), they might want to say something about the deportation of Acadiens too...
Further, if the government accepts liability for past acts that are illegal under today's laws, what impact will that have on the judicial system, where you can only be tried and punished according to the laws that were in effect at the time of the crime?
Anyway, for a more detailed and unbiased account of the historial and global context and purpose of the head tax.
Prime Minister Harper offers full apology for the Chinese Head Tax
It's about time.
However, I can't help but doubt their true intentions since the Conservatives had voted against addressing this grievance while in opposition, and only changed their song during the 2005 election campaign. They seem prone to attempting to modify history.
Conservatives wrong on head tax
So I wonder, is it only a coincidence, given that that the majority of Chinese Canadians are concentrated in our biggest cities, where the Conservatives didn't get any votes? Because if they truly wanted to right past wrongs (or at least the appeance of addressing measures even if they were lawful at the time), they might want to say something about the deportation of Acadiens too...
Further, if the government accepts liability for past acts that are illegal under today's laws, what impact will that have on the judicial system, where you can only be tried and punished according to the laws that were in effect at the time of the crime?
Anyway, for a more detailed and unbiased account of the historial and global context and purpose of the head tax.
2006-10-05
Citizenship discrimination and Political hypocrisy
From The Globe and Mail, 061005, page A5:
No kidding?! Unless an exemption is obtained, the only way to get this equipment is to buy it from the US Government directly, with a 400M USD brokerage fee no less. The Canadian government wants the equipment badly, the American government wants to bolster the appearance of national security (and lining their own pockets is a nice bonus), and there is no incentive for the States to play nice at all: we want this equipment to assert our independence from them (currently we rely on them a lot to move our troops and military equipment around the world), and because our inability to patrol the arctic with their continued presence there gives them a legitimate claim over that territory.
Personally, I believe the American insistence to enforce the "dual-citizenship with proscribed countries" rule is entirely reasonable, and it will come up again and again, especially as Canada seems to want to beef up its sovereignty. After ignoring it during the Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict, perhaps we could use this situation to revisit the dual-citizenship concept now, in a less culturally-tangled context?
Side note: interesting how Harper speaks nicely to the Americans while beefing up our military to allow us to distance ourselves from them, while attacking the Liberals for bringing up such topics in political circles yet doing nothing to strengthen our military. Doesn't that make Harper look a little hypocritical, or at least expose his american-style attitude? I'm not a gambling man, but I'd put my money on winning a debate rather than a battle...
"To undertake discriminatory employment practices based on nationality is contrary to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [...] Complying with [State Department] requirements to identify dual nationals and using that information for discriminatory purposes is contrary to the Canadian Charter," said a document prepared by Dan Ross, the senior bureaucrat in charge of procurement at the Department of National Defence.Apparently this is hindering Ottawa's negotiations with the U.S. company Boeing Co. to purchase four giant C-17 cargo planes (at a cost of $3.7-billion) and 16 heavy-lift Chinook helicopters (for $4.7-billion).
The Harper government plans to buy another $9-billion in military equipment, including smaller cargo planes, ships and trucks. Those purchases will also be affected if they are made in the United States.
The document adds that the U.S. government has been enforcing its restrictions more stringently in recent months, hence the current predicament.
No kidding?! Unless an exemption is obtained, the only way to get this equipment is to buy it from the US Government directly, with a 400M USD brokerage fee no less. The Canadian government wants the equipment badly, the American government wants to bolster the appearance of national security (and lining their own pockets is a nice bonus), and there is no incentive for the States to play nice at all: we want this equipment to assert our independence from them (currently we rely on them a lot to move our troops and military equipment around the world), and because our inability to patrol the arctic with their continued presence there gives them a legitimate claim over that territory.
Personally, I believe the American insistence to enforce the "dual-citizenship with proscribed countries" rule is entirely reasonable, and it will come up again and again, especially as Canada seems to want to beef up its sovereignty. After ignoring it during the Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict, perhaps we could use this situation to revisit the dual-citizenship concept now, in a less culturally-tangled context?
Side note: interesting how Harper speaks nicely to the Americans while beefing up our military to allow us to distance ourselves from them, while attacking the Liberals for bringing up such topics in political circles yet doing nothing to strengthen our military. Doesn't that make Harper look a little hypocritical, or at least expose his american-style attitude? I'm not a gambling man, but I'd put my money on winning a debate rather than a battle...
state secrets, or party secrets?
From the Ottawa Citizen 2006.10.05 page A3:
According to Mr. Etienne Allard (Mr. O'Connor's spokesman), it is up to Defence Department bureaucrats to manage the release of such government records to the public through the access to information law. Mr. O'Connor is committed to openness and transparency, but "At the end of the day, department officials make recommendations on severances and as a minister he doesn't interfere in the process."
Perhaps they've forgotten the part in the access to information legislation that details that a minister is responsible for the way the law is managed in his or her department?
When in opposition, the Tories made ample use of the access law to obtain information on wrongdoing in the Liberal government. Now that the Tories are in power, some critics argue they've dropped support for the access law and are trying to shut down the system.
"You cannot argue for better accountability, which this government does, unless you have a strong Access to Information Act and have it applied rigorously."
According to Mr. Etienne Allard (Mr. O'Connor's spokesman), it is up to Defence Department bureaucrats to manage the release of such government records to the public through the access to information law. Mr. O'Connor is committed to openness and transparency, but "At the end of the day, department officials make recommendations on severances and as a minister he doesn't interfere in the process."
Perhaps they've forgotten the part in the access to information legislation that details that a minister is responsible for the way the law is managed in his or her department?
one for the money, two for the show...
I already denounced them over this, but I couldn't resist the irony in this one from Ottawa Metro 060929 :
Literacy — it’s all about reading, writing and getting your story straight.
Or so it seemed this week in Ottawa.
On Monday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government axed $17.7-million from the Human Resources’ department’s Adult Learning and Literacy Skills Program as part of a massive wave of spending cuts across government.
Yesterday, Harper’s wife Laureen was on the streets of Ottawa, promoting literacy.
Clad in a yellow T-shirt and handing out newspapers in the drizzle as part of a CanWest media company promotion of child literacy, it seemed that perhaps Laureen Harper hadn’t seen the memo about the literacy cuts earlier in the week.
Ditto for Harper’s chief of staff, Ian Brodie, who coughed up a $20 literacy donation when he came across his boss’s wife on the street in front of the Parliament buildings.
Tories downgrade 'Made-in-Canada' Green plan
Note: access to this article was blocked in the firewall at work, so I googlenewsed it. There were only two hits, one from the Calgary Sun and one from CTV.ca. The one from Calgary has since been removed. Before CTV is intimidated into removing theirs (too), here it is:
We seem to be living the exact same situation Bush beat Gore with (Gore had a strong environmental platform, and Dubya said "oh yeah, we do too - and it's betterer" then quickly reverse course once in office). That parallel shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.
I just hope the long-term impact of their non-approach will be something Canadians will hold them accountable for come election time.
Tories downgrade 'Made-in-Canada' Green planHelp me understand: are they having problems with their enlightened and deliberate dialogue; bringing the worlds of learning, public affairs and business together; or have they simply revised their position based on political expediency; or committed themselves to merely examining the historical background and long-term implications without wanting to do anything about it?
Updated Thu. Oct. 5 2006 7:03 AM ET
Canadian Press
OTTAWA -- After months of promising a comprehensive "Made-in-Canada" environment plan, word from the federal Conservative government is there won't be a formal plan after all.
A senior official in the office of Environment Minister Rona Ambrose said the word "plan" is no longer being used. It's now an "approach."
Mark Cooper confirmed the change in terminology, although he slipped into the old language a few times himself.
"The details of the plan - sorry, I shouldn't say plan, the approach - will be coming some time shortly," he said Wednesday.
Since being elected last winter, the Conservatives have deferred most questions about environmental issues by referring to the coming plan.
Environmentalists say they're not surprised at the shift in terminology.
"We've known for month's there's no plan," said Louise Comeau of the Sage Climate Project. "What they're planning is a series of announcements."
Yet the Tory election platform was explicit. It promised a "'Made-in-Canada' plan focused on ensuring future generations enjoy clean water, clean land and clean energy here in Canada."
Matthew Bramley of the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental think-tank, said the change in wording raises questions about whether the Conservatives no longer feel they can deliver a comprehensive package.
There had been hopes Ambrose would reveal details of the government's intentions at an appearance before the Commons environment committee Thursday, but Cooper said she would not.
Her purpose in testifying before the committee is to respond to last week's report by Environment Commissioner Johanne Gelinas, he said. That report emphasized the need for a co-ordinated climate plan.
"Looking to the future, the commissioner urges the government to come up with a credible, realistic and clear plan with short-and long-term goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," said a statement released by Gelinas's office at the time.
In interviews, critics offered several theories about why the government has changed its strategy. One is that officials have failed to come up with a full-scale plan and need more time to work out problems.
Another theory is that the government thinks it can get more favourable coverage by rolling out announcements one at a time.
We seem to be living the exact same situation Bush beat Gore with (Gore had a strong environmental platform, and Dubya said "oh yeah, we do too - and it's betterer" then quickly reverse course once in office). That parallel shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.
I just hope the long-term impact of their non-approach will be something Canadians will hold them accountable for come election time.
Woodrow Wilson Award
It seems the Woodrow Wilson Center has decided to bestow their Award for Public Service to none other than Prime Minister Harper. According to their site (emphasis added):
The Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service is given to individuals who have served with distinction in public office and have shown a special commitment to seeking out informed opinions and thoughtful views. They encourage the free and open exchange of ideas; and rather than basing policies on political expediency, they devote themselves to examining the historical background and long-term implications of important public policy issues.Ironic, isn't it?
Recipients share President Wilson's vision of improving our policies and institutions through enlightened and deliberate dialogue and stand as living testaments to what may be accomplished when the worlds of learning, public affairs, and business come together in common interest.
Ambrose: "Quebec is not really a concern to me"
From yesterday's Ottawa Metro, page 4:
OOPS! Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, seen hereMaybe that's the real reason why we haven't seen her in the media lately?
at the House of Commons in Ottawa yesterday, apologized
for saying that “Quebec is not really a concern to me,” in
developing plans to combat climate change.
2006-10-04
Social (ir)relevance
Interesting how they put this article on the Vatican's reflection of babies in limbo in the "Arts & spectacles" section...
why do spammers keep trying?
What benefit do spammers realize by continually sending out messages promoting "performance enhancing" drugs or "hot" stock tips - are they just trying to create a market need to boost the spam filtering industry, like ex-virus programmers that get hired by anti-virus companies and ex-hackers by the government?
... Or are there really still that many stupid people around that they can take advantage of?
... Or are there really still that many stupid people around that they can take advantage of?
2006-10-03
accountability... for what?
Apparently the incumbent city councillor was elected for her platform of "no tax increases" and then later voted FOR a tax increase (to restore basic city services previously cut by the newly amalgamated city). Anyway, that was enough to convince a friend of mine to call her a liar, and cast her vote for somebody with no record at all.
I don't think it's fair to blame our sole city councillor for the overall greater costs since amalgamation. Rather, the blame would lie with Queens Park and their
funding cuts to municipalities. Then again, you could also lay the blame on Ottawa for cutting transfer payments to the provinces, but they did that so that they could save us from paying hundreds of millions of dollars to service the national debt, which essentially arose because baby boomers demanded services that we couldn't afford and didn't want to pay for. So, in the end, if you want to blame anybody, blame previous generations. If on the other hand you need the self-gratification of
punishing somebody over which you DO have some control, I suppose you
could punish the local councillor.
All I ask is that such actions be not be taken lightly, i.e., without awareness of your deeper reasons and the overall/historical context.
I think all the boasting about election promises made/kept is nothing but a distraction from issues that really affect our quality of life. City planning, infrastructure projects, promotion of local arts and businesses, city maintenance and beautification, environmental stewardship, collective transportation, protecton of citizens' rights against abusive or uncooperative corporations, THOSE are the kinds of things that really affect our quality of life, and therefore THOSE are the things that we must hold politicians accountable for!
In that context, do tax increases (or rebates) really have an impact on our quality of life in the long run? Or is it like the 0.5% raise you get that makes you feel a little bit better, but... really doesn't make a difference?
I don't think it's fair to blame our sole city councillor for the overall greater costs since amalgamation. Rather, the blame would lie with Queens Park and their
funding cuts to municipalities. Then again, you could also lay the blame on Ottawa for cutting transfer payments to the provinces, but they did that so that they could save us from paying hundreds of millions of dollars to service the national debt, which essentially arose because baby boomers demanded services that we couldn't afford and didn't want to pay for. So, in the end, if you want to blame anybody, blame previous generations. If on the other hand you need the self-gratification of
punishing somebody over which you DO have some control, I suppose you
could punish the local councillor.
All I ask is that such actions be not be taken lightly, i.e., without awareness of your deeper reasons and the overall/historical context.
I think all the boasting about election promises made/kept is nothing but a distraction from issues that really affect our quality of life. City planning, infrastructure projects, promotion of local arts and businesses, city maintenance and beautification, environmental stewardship, collective transportation, protecton of citizens' rights against abusive or uncooperative corporations, THOSE are the kinds of things that really affect our quality of life, and therefore THOSE are the things that we must hold politicians accountable for!
In that context, do tax increases (or rebates) really have an impact on our quality of life in the long run? Or is it like the 0.5% raise you get that makes you feel a little bit better, but... really doesn't make a difference?
need more roundabouts
Given all the advantages of roundabouts, why does city hall still create traffic-light controlled intersections?
from polls to the next dark age
90% of people polled said the government should rely on polls in making decisions of importance for this country.
Apparently that 90% feels making decisions based on public concerns is more important that professional assessments or scientific studies that actually measure the severity of the real threat and the probability of it occurring.
From that I conclude that the direct economic impact of the fear is more important than the physical and psychological impact on our health and safety (indirect economic impact).
I suppose right-wing nuts would argue the direct economic impact of the fear affects people's ability to buy the things they need to protect and defend themselves. That may be convenient for marketing folk across the country, but given the environmental consequences on our emotions, our society and our planet, doesn't that seem at least a little shortsighted?
Further, doesn't the complacency and conformism created by this over-confidence increase the magnitude of spectacle required for people who desperately want attention to adjust popular attitudes? Like greenhouse gases accelerating global warming and causing more frequent and violent storms, I predict the economic path we are on will lead to a significant increase in frequency and severity of social violence. With the associated increase in fear (spurred on by the media of course), people will sooner or later lose all remaining faith in their governments and turn first to their religious leaders for reassurance, and then to their local warlords to defend what little resources they have left.
We are plunging headfirst into the next dark age but are too obsessed with our ability to make, sell and buy useless toys to know it.
(PS. The sample size of this poll was 0 so is statistically meaningless, as most polls are for things of real importance.)
Apparently that 90% feels making decisions based on public concerns is more important that professional assessments or scientific studies that actually measure the severity of the real threat and the probability of it occurring.
From that I conclude that the direct economic impact of the fear is more important than the physical and psychological impact on our health and safety (indirect economic impact).
I suppose right-wing nuts would argue the direct economic impact of the fear affects people's ability to buy the things they need to protect and defend themselves. That may be convenient for marketing folk across the country, but given the environmental consequences on our emotions, our society and our planet, doesn't that seem at least a little shortsighted?
Further, doesn't the complacency and conformism created by this over-confidence increase the magnitude of spectacle required for people who desperately want attention to adjust popular attitudes? Like greenhouse gases accelerating global warming and causing more frequent and violent storms, I predict the economic path we are on will lead to a significant increase in frequency and severity of social violence. With the associated increase in fear (spurred on by the media of course), people will sooner or later lose all remaining faith in their governments and turn first to their religious leaders for reassurance, and then to their local warlords to defend what little resources they have left.
We are plunging headfirst into the next dark age but are too obsessed with our ability to make, sell and buy useless toys to know it.
(PS. The sample size of this poll was 0 so is statistically meaningless, as most polls are for things of real importance.)
RE: Thomas Jefferson's Blog
The following disproof of the contents of Thomas Jefferson's blog (and TJ lore in general) ties in rather nicely with a conversation I had with a colleague yesterday regarding the stock market, as (outward) success (get rich/famous/etc) depends on a higher intelligence not easily measured: the ability to predict and manipulate people's emotions despite all the evidence to the contrary.
The bane of us rational hard-working types the world over.
So, how exactly does one subordinate basic facts and inconvenient truths and rise to a position of emotional influence? Is there a noticeable point at which someone's story sheds it's factual skin and become legend?
No need to answer, I'll just watch the news and learn it from Harper.
The bane of us rational hard-working types the world over.
So, how exactly does one subordinate basic facts and inconvenient truths and rise to a position of emotional influence? Is there a noticeable point at which someone's story sheds it's factual skin and become legend?
No need to answer, I'll just watch the news and learn it from Harper.
An interesting diversion.
Some things about Jefferson I have learned never to forget:
Lots of Founding Fathers had slaves, although some freed them while living (e.g., Franklin) and others freed them in their wills (e.g., Washington). Jefferson had them, kept them, and fathered children with them. It's gotta say something about the man's soul.
Jefferson did not write the legendary words ascribed to him, and which place him at the pinnacle of the philosophers who crafted the nation. Specifically, he did NOT write "I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal... " What he wrote was "I hold these truths to be sacred and inviolatable..." It was Franklin who changed the words (his bold cross-outs on the original draft remain extant, as do his explanations for the changes). First, Franklin recognized that the word "sacred" was too religious for so secular a document, particularly given its pledge to separate church and state. And "inviolatable" struck Dr. Franklin as unnecessarily obtuse and difficult (which it is). So, those words were neither original (they were borrowed from the French philosophes), they were pretty crappy as written by Jefferson (the credit should go to Franklin, the old codger), and they were a lie (as Jefferson personally kept slaves and considered Native Americans less than fully equal).
Jefferson was extraordinarily ill-disciplined, especially with his own money. He was a known wasteful spender -- a flawed character trait noted not only by infamous tight-wads like John Adams, but also by infamous gregarious Benjamin Franklin. (Unlike Jefferson, both Adams and Franklin practiced what they preached, tho they preached very different sermons, indeed). Jefferson was known to buy enormous quanitites of books with money he did not have, and then compounded his excessive spending by dabbling in architecure and landscaping, once again spending enormous sums that he did not have. He would also tinker with designs for columns for his estate instead of working on matters of import for which he was elected.
Jefferson did not obtain the Louisiana Purchase through some great effort or insight or foresight or planning, as is sometimes taught in American schools. Rather, the United States doubled in size because Jefferson had the good fortune of being president at precisely the time Napoleon desperately needed money to raise, equip, train and feed his enormous armies and navies for the wars in Europe -- and because the best way for Napoleon to do that was to sell 1/3 of North America to the Americans at cut-rate prices. True, Jefferson had the intelligence to say "yes" when Napoleon offered to sell the land -- but the offered price was so rediculously low that even George W. Bush could not possibly have screwed that one up.
Jefferson was no military genius, either. In one notorious episode (although one I personally find understandable), he fled just ahead of a superior British force in Virginia during the American Revolution, rather than do the honorable thing like defend himself and his charges. He did not fight in the war. And he later supported the War of 1812, famously announcing that the capture of Canada would be "a mere matter of marching." Thirteen cross-border campaigns later, not one inch of Canada went to the Americans. Last time I checked, Canada is still there.
As a politician, Jefferson was utterly ruthless, backing (even encouraging) some of the worst mud-slinging in the history of the free democratic press anywhere in the world, excoriating rivals such as John Adams in ways that make today's politics seem downright bland.
And although he looks impressive in marble, Jefferson had a high-pitched voice that apparently sounded like his britches were tied too tight. In other words, he would not get elected in today's world -- not manly enough, or so it would seem. In fact, without slaves around anymore, the man worshipped as one of the greatest Founding Fathers might even have trouble getting laid.
2006-10-02
another shortfall of democracy
It's a damn shame how we live, work and play in a society in which people do not want to pay for what they need, but will pay anything for what they want.
I think I'll start calling it "Hedonopolis" and read Ayn Rand (apparently objectivism is the opposite of hedonism).
I think I'll start calling it "Hedonopolis" and read Ayn Rand (apparently objectivism is the opposite of hedonism).
water management
That dumbass TV commercial that asks "why drink toilet water?" pisses me off.
I just hope it backfires on them and makes people reconsider flushing with drinking water instead.
I believe it is essential for the current system of city water supply to continue being used as it is, so that it continue to be carefully managed and maintained. If people don't use it, it sits in the pipes and any bacteria left after purification can flourish, and the municipality would have to increase the concentration of "poisons" it uses to keep them under control. If either happens, people's faith in their water supply will falter and will use it even less, increasing the chances of bacteria occuring at hazardous levels. The whole system would soon collapse, and we'd see an explosion of in-home water filtering stations. Sounds like a great capitalist idea, doesn't it? Soon you'll be bombarded with in-home water filtration system ads (even more than today), there will be a quantum increase in waste (used packaging) heading to city dumps and, worse, in energy consumption (waste from the manufacturing and transportation of consumer-sized filtration systems and supplies, plus lower-efficiency associated with the operation of small scale filtration systems).
Meanwhile, those who cannot afford to buy bottled water will get sick and spread diseases before filling up the hospitals that are already bursting at the seams.
I'm all in favour of paying for city services and encouraging consumption of municipal water supply.
If anything needs to be changed, it should be the local storage and use of rainwater to water native lawns and flowerbeds, but there's no profit margin to be made in that, is there?
I just hope it backfires on them and makes people reconsider flushing with drinking water instead.
I believe it is essential for the current system of city water supply to continue being used as it is, so that it continue to be carefully managed and maintained. If people don't use it, it sits in the pipes and any bacteria left after purification can flourish, and the municipality would have to increase the concentration of "poisons" it uses to keep them under control. If either happens, people's faith in their water supply will falter and will use it even less, increasing the chances of bacteria occuring at hazardous levels. The whole system would soon collapse, and we'd see an explosion of in-home water filtering stations. Sounds like a great capitalist idea, doesn't it? Soon you'll be bombarded with in-home water filtration system ads (even more than today), there will be a quantum increase in waste (used packaging) heading to city dumps and, worse, in energy consumption (waste from the manufacturing and transportation of consumer-sized filtration systems and supplies, plus lower-efficiency associated with the operation of small scale filtration systems).
Meanwhile, those who cannot afford to buy bottled water will get sick and spread diseases before filling up the hospitals that are already bursting at the seams.
I'm all in favour of paying for city services and encouraging consumption of municipal water supply.
If anything needs to be changed, it should be the local storage and use of rainwater to water native lawns and flowerbeds, but there's no profit margin to be made in that, is there?
art is the lie that tells the truth
If we applied this other quote from Picasso to Canadian politics, I'd have to hand to Harper and his spiel of accountability and things that matter to "Real Canadians" - but I'd worry about what truth it would tell about us.
intelligence vs art
"There are painters who transform the sun to a yellow spot, but there are others who with the help of their art and their intelligence, transform a yellow spot into the sun."
-Pablo Picasso
Question is, how do you find the right canvas to hone your art?
-Pablo Picasso
Question is, how do you find the right canvas to hone your art?
the power of blogging
Blogging is an interesting phenomenon.
At first I thought the net impact would be negligible: any facilitation of coordination would be offset by the opportunity it gave people to get a load off their chest and move on to other things, but then I realized that concept wasn't quite complete, because people who have expressed themselves have taken the opportunity to clearly formulate and take ownership of their positions, and this investment makes them that much more effective at implementing change when they hear the call for action.
Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it (at least for now).
At first I thought the net impact would be negligible: any facilitation of coordination would be offset by the opportunity it gave people to get a load off their chest and move on to other things, but then I realized that concept wasn't quite complete, because people who have expressed themselves have taken the opportunity to clearly formulate and take ownership of their positions, and this investment makes them that much more effective at implementing change when they hear the call for action.
Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it (at least for now).
squeeky wheel gets the grease
There is something wrong with a system that encourages noisy segments of the population to dictate how the government can spend its precious little money.
The Chretien-Martin debt-reduction policy of the 1990's forced provincial governments to review their programs and cut their spending. The Quebec legislature decided it would drastically reduce and postpone road maintenance. This resulted in a surge in profits in the auto maintenance/repair industry, particularly the suspension, alignment, rim and tire segments, a requirement for complete overhauls of roads now beyond repair, and the occasional chunk of concrete killing innocent people.
Meanwhile, the only social programmes being restored were those getting airtime because people who were fed up (and either desperate or had nothing much better to do) organized rallies and major protests.
The buying of votes for the appearance of accomplishment and contentment of the mindless masses is exactly why I believe the democratic will is not always a competent decision-making authority and cannot be trusted as sole social custodian.
I wonder if the families of the recently deceased and injured realize they were robbed by all those who still benefit from the extremely low tuition rates in Quebec?
The Chretien-Martin debt-reduction policy of the 1990's forced provincial governments to review their programs and cut their spending. The Quebec legislature decided it would drastically reduce and postpone road maintenance. This resulted in a surge in profits in the auto maintenance/repair industry, particularly the suspension, alignment, rim and tire segments, a requirement for complete overhauls of roads now beyond repair, and the occasional chunk of concrete killing innocent people.
Meanwhile, the only social programmes being restored were those getting airtime because people who were fed up (and either desperate or had nothing much better to do) organized rallies and major protests.
The buying of votes for the appearance of accomplishment and contentment of the mindless masses is exactly why I believe the democratic will is not always a competent decision-making authority and cannot be trusted as sole social custodian.
I wonder if the families of the recently deceased and injured realize they were robbed by all those who still benefit from the extremely low tuition rates in Quebec?
2006-10-01
Fwd: FW: A Street Sign In Germany
tee hee, well it's not that funny, well maybe.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Subject: A Street Sign In Germany
I get the feeling that the Germans
don't like King George II either....
Any reason we could NOT have the same sign in the USA???
2006-09-29
sad beauty
Manufactured Landscapes looks like another excellent documentary that quietly captures the sad beauty of our self-destruction.
2006-09-28
what's the government waiting for?
We need economic incentives in place to get technologies in place to reduce, capture and sequester CO2 emissions, right now.
I don't know how much longer Canada's "new" government can go on critiquing the former government for waffling on the little things, before Canadians start realizing the Tories are waffling on such fundamental big-picture long-term issues as greenhouse gases and social well-being.
I don't know how much longer Canada's "new" government can go on critiquing the former government for waffling on the little things, before Canadians start realizing the Tories are waffling on such fundamental big-picture long-term issues as greenhouse gases and social well-being.
dirty party tricks
Ref: La Presse's coverage of the latest government environmental audit
They say a best defence is a good offense...
Update: as expected, the tories have jumped on this opportunity like little children desperate to say "I told you so" for anything.
They say a best defence is a good offense...
Les conclusions du rapport [...] seront sûrement reprises par les conservateurs qui utiliseront les passages qui leur plaisent pour justifier leurs actions et attaquer les libéraux....but I'm not comfortable with the Conservatives thinking this is all just a game.
Ce n'est donc pas une coïncidence si le rapport a fait l'objet de fuites avant son dépôt au Parlement, obligeant les libéraux à se mettre en mode réduction des dégâts dès mercredi.
«Les changements climatiques sont une réalité et peu importe la façon de voir les choses, les enjeux sont de taille pour le Canada», a déclaré la commissaire qui, sans le nommer, cible son message au gouvernement conservateur. «Il est impératif que le gouvernement adopte un plan réaliste, clair et crédible visant à réduire de façon significative les émissions de gaz à effet de serre», poursuit-elle.
Update: as expected, the tories have jumped on this opportunity like little children desperate to say "I told you so" for anything.
2006-09-27
20-foot chasm
Apparently there's this American proverb that says:
It makes no sense to cross a 20-foot chasm with two 10-foot leaps.In my view, this is exactly what's wrong with Harper's approach to Senate reform.
"Fight for what you have" or "Sell out now" ?
Canada's so-called "new" government has made a number of budget cuts to non-mainstream (read: vote insignificant) sectors, reinforcing my doubts as to their intentions. Below are some of their latest victims and the potential impact:
- Court Challenges Program. Makes it harder for non-mainstream Canadians to fight for language and equality rights.
- Pine Beetle Program. Population is out of control because the winters are warmer due to global warming. First goes the Kyoto commitment, then the efforts to deal with the mess. What`s next?
- Adult literacy and work skill development programs. Right, since when is an educated workforce good for the economy? Rather than helping them, they'll be squeezed onto the Welfare list and have to work under the table for peanuts. But at least they won't appear on the unemployment stats! I suspect this may also be a covert attempt at reintroducing slavery...
- Youth employment program. Right, why give these kids hope and skills for the future when we could be locking them away in a tougher stance on crime!
- Status of Women Canada. Ok, this has been around for a long time and has probably achieved its goals (well, at least by Tory standards who seem to be willing to settle for the 70% solution...)
- 12 fewer cabinet ministers. Right, who needs all this bickering around the table? why should the workload be spread across that many MPs and leave them time to deal with the bothersome needs of their constituents? Besides, too many people involved makes it harder to control any leaks.
- Public Safety also takes a $75M loss - uhm, what about that whole thing about making Canada a safer place to live?
All I see in these announcements and their actions are discrete but effective attempts to erode the social structures that make this country the peaceful, orderly place that it is, while replacing it with a more direct, confrontational and exclusive/divisive attitude typical of the United States. This budget is a well-calculated Trojan Horse that will very likely influence mainstream voters to vote in a majority conservative government so they can unleash the next round of borg-like assimilation.
Which conveniently brings me back to my subject line: In a world that is increasingly polarized, should we be fighting against all odds to preserve the progress (rights and priviledges) that we (and our forefathers) have fought for and earned, acting as a beacon of resistance and hope for future generations and others around the world, or should we give it all up and head full speed down the drain to stake out our place and welcome the rest of the world, since that's where we're all headed anyway?
Bell Sympatico incompetence
Would you believe it took Bell 4 weeks to conclude that my intermittent connection to their high-speed DSL service was due to the faulty new modem that they shipped me?
The whole time I had to endure thinly veiled accusations from their technical support that it was a user error (e.g., filtering the modem line, or not entering the right user ID), or my computer not having the right drivers (even though I've been with them for 6 years and know that no software is required because it was working fine before switching local phone companies), after which they resorted to claiming it must be an internal wiring problem (even after I told them i isolated that line and installed a whole new jack directly at the demarc).
After escalating my calls three times to a Level 2 Technician, somebody (whose mother tongue actually is English) from the Test Centre finally called me back and confirmed the complete line test checked out ok, and we scheduled a service call to my house. After 45 minutes of testing my wiring (which was perfect, no signal loss, cross-over or bleedthrough), the lineman finally had enough of the manager (who had "come along for the ride") insisting it must be the wiring somewhere, went to the truck and got me a new modem. I hooked it up, and voila, connected instantly. They were even surprised I was getting the speeds I could get given I had done my own wiring and had no Access Manager or drivers. They stuck around to make sure I could re-establish the connection through my router, and of course it picked up right away.
What a bunch of (expletives deleted). As soon as I get cable internet up and running reliably, they're history. At least they've confirmed that my wiring was irreproachable. The lineman even asked me what high-tech company I worked for, which brings me to another pet peeve of mine: Why is it people generally arrogantly extend credibility only to someone who has specialized in the subject at hand, whatever it may be? But I'll keep that discussion of educational prejudice for another day.
Anyway, I'm glad to be back online, even if it is with Sympatico.
2006-09-25
Affairs of State
The Governor General has made some comments that were less than warmly received by separatists. I have not been able to find a reference article in English, but Radio-Canada.ca covers some of the reactions.
One of the opening comments to the article is that "[She] costs us a fortune."
RDI last night presented an article on the same subject and followed it with a single background-info slide, showing how the GG's budget almost doubled from 1995 to 2005.
This is a recurring complaint, smacks both of ignorance and of desperation to impress Joe Canadian with big numbers, and I feel a little context should be provided.
The GG represents Canada as head of state to the world, maintaining diplomatic and cultural relationships with other heads of state. She just recently welcomed the President of Latvia and will be receiving the king and queen of Sweden next month.
As she represents us to the world, she also represents, in a way, our world image to us. I very much respect the comments she makes and her desire to break the barriers between the "two solitudes." She's fighting self-obsession at the provincial level (she's not only picking on one province) so as to unlock the potential this country has to offer the world.
As for her "expenses": Rideau Hall is managed and maintained (rather shoddily I might add) by Public Works (as they do with all the official government residences), and Foreign Affairs dictates her agenda and organizes her trips. Personally I think its very convenient for this country to have two people to play the very different roles of good cop/bad cop when it comes to international diplomacy, and I see no reason why anybody should reproach her for doing the same with domestic diplomacy.
2006-09-22
socially-irresponsible crock
MSN editors recommended an article that says now is the time to buy an SUV.
How can it claim that a $12,643 Durango is "cheaper" than the "more expensive" Honda at $12,000???
Promoting gas-guzzlers so unabashedly leaves me wondering if the author isn't trying to pump his investment portfolio overly heavy on oil and Big 3 stocks. Furthermore, barely skimming the environmental impact is unpardonably irresponsible.
I submitted feedback strongly suggesting the editors reconsider their support for this article. If you feel the way I do, I urge you to do the same; if you feel otherwise, please explain why to me as clearly I'm missing that point.
How can it claim that a $12,643 Durango is "cheaper" than the "more expensive" Honda at $12,000???
Promoting gas-guzzlers so unabashedly leaves me wondering if the author isn't trying to pump his investment portfolio overly heavy on oil and Big 3 stocks. Furthermore, barely skimming the environmental impact is unpardonably irresponsible.
I submitted feedback strongly suggesting the editors reconsider their support for this article. If you feel the way I do, I urge you to do the same; if you feel otherwise, please explain why to me as clearly I'm missing that point.
inquiring minds want to know
Two of my colleagues, alerted to the fact I use them as source material for this blog, are on a mission now to find this blog
(insert Mission Impossible theme song here).
(insert Mission Impossible theme song here).
2006-09-21
dynamic truth
One colleague (BH, exasperated) to another (GL) just a minute ago:
This was a good example of why I don't always like talking to people, because I usually don't have the patience to deal with people who blame the speaker (me) after they have clung to certain words and jumped to conclusions about what I meant.
Anyway, our section head has just forayed into this (now rather intense) discussion about the usage and meaning of various terms. (sigh) Too bad language has suppressed our ability to communicate effectively...
"I get tired listening to you because the truth changes as the minutes tick by."I'm not so sure the truth itself had changed, but rather the words chosen by GL to express the underlying facts.
This was a good example of why I don't always like talking to people, because I usually don't have the patience to deal with people who blame the speaker (me) after they have clung to certain words and jumped to conclusions about what I meant.
Anyway, our section head has just forayed into this (now rather intense) discussion about the usage and meaning of various terms. (sigh) Too bad language has suppressed our ability to communicate effectively...
measures of awareness
According to EirePreneur:
Somehow this came about during the discussion of human superiority because we (at least most of us) are intelligent because we are self-aware as a result of our complex language skills.
Since our level of self-awareness can only be measured in words (usually) understandable only to us (humans), we are deaf to the expressions of self-awareness of other species and therefore any conclusion that they aren't intelligent strictly based on that argument is invalid.
There are more thoughts/concepts/notions on this floating in my brain that I can't quite put to words just yet. So, should my intelligence be measured on my awareness of them, or my ability to express them in words understandable by (most) others?
It seems that intelligence, natural or artificial, is an emergent property of collective communication. Human consciousness itself may be an epiphenomenon of extraordinary processing power. Although experts prefer to avoid simplistic definitions of intelligence, it seems clear that all intelligence involves the rational manipulation of symbolic information.
Somehow this came about during the discussion of human superiority because we (at least most of us) are intelligent because we are self-aware as a result of our complex language skills.
Since our level of self-awareness can only be measured in words (usually) understandable only to us (humans), we are deaf to the expressions of self-awareness of other species and therefore any conclusion that they aren't intelligent strictly based on that argument is invalid.
There are more thoughts/concepts/notions on this floating in my brain that I can't quite put to words just yet. So, should my intelligence be measured on my awareness of them, or my ability to express them in words understandable by (most) others?
Excellent speech to the Economic Club of New York
Just read the speech and found it excellent. It drives home the importance of partnership with the US during a time congress seems ready to sacrifice us as collateral damage in the self-serving "protection" of their own borders. It also drives the point that Canada is an important petroleum producer with a stable democratic climate and whose economy leads the G7. He ends it by downplaying our differences by lightly teasing them about the cultural differences embedded in our constitutions and our sports and then reminds them of our shared fundamental values.
Overall it was a brilliant speech, but the message will have to be repeated over and again before the warmer attitudes translate into more profitable trading, because, unfortunately, it's exactly the kind of message that gets drowned out in their media's obsession with fuelling the shock-and-awe addictions of their (idiot) consumers.
Overall it was a brilliant speech, but the message will have to be repeated over and again before the warmer attitudes translate into more profitable trading, because, unfortunately, it's exactly the kind of message that gets drowned out in their media's obsession with fuelling the shock-and-awe addictions of their (idiot) consumers.
2006-09-15
fighting solitude
I was recently given a scenario that spawned a whole set of philosophical questions. You sociology majors will sneer at this probably entrance-level exam question, but it's one that we never looked at in engineering school (so humour me, ok?).
Setting. A kid in high school is always being picked on and he begins to isolate himself.
Scenario 1: You aren`t involved in any way with any of the people involved.
Scenario 2: You personally witness the situation but aren't friends with anybody involved.
Scenario 2: He is a friend and confides in you.
Scenario 3: You are part of the tormenting group and hear warnings from a third party.
Questions for each of the scenarios: (a) Whose fault is that? (b) Who, if anybody, should intervene, with whom, in what manner and when?
Variation1 on the setting: How do your answers change if he has retaliated violently against those that picked on him - is that self-defence?
Variation2 on the setting: How do your answers change if he has retaliated violently against random individuals or society at large?
scope creep
Client recently said 'We need something between "better than nothing" and "while we're at it." '
Classic.
mindboggling
If only the level of customer support could match the technology some companies offer...
double-edged words
On the Prime Minister's news release titled "Afghan President to visit Canada"
dated September 14, 2006:
dated September 14, 2006:
Guided by our core values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, Canada is proud - along with our allies - to support President Karzai's legitimate, democratically elected government, said the Prime Minister.uhm, why so much emphasis on justifying Karzai's government, I wonder?
2006-09-14
Technical support nightmares
Battling with Sympatico lately. Switched to a cable-based home phone service and Ma Bell promised to put in a dry loop (naked DSL) right away. Which they eventually did, but forgot to activate the high-speed internet on it. So, after three weeks, twenty-some-odd calls to tech support saying I suspectd my dry loop had no DSL service, waiting endless hours on hold waiting for somebody to answer, hoping in vain my "ticket with the level 2 agents" would be acknowledged within 24h as promised (only to find out later its a 66h response but was ignored anyway), changing my modem because somebody was convinced it was defective, rebooting/disconnecting/resetting it umpteen times and installing new software because somebody else was convinced it was essential for the computer to connect to the service, I FINALLY landed on someone who thought of checking if the service was actually activated on my dry loop. It turns out, big surprise, that they forgot to activate my service during the install. Lovely. Now I have to call back tomorrow during the day to kindly request that they get their heads out of their butts and/or pull them away from their monitoring of people's personal stuff to get them to complete the job they were supposed to THREE WEEKS AGO.
Schadenfreudic bastards.
I'm going to bitch for a credit, over and above the time unavailable, burn that off, then switch to somebody who is actually motivated to help people.
Schadenfreudic bastards.
I'm going to bitch for a credit, over and above the time unavailable, burn that off, then switch to somebody who is actually motivated to help people.
accountability, according to harper
I don't understand what the whole problem is with the whole appointment process anyway, since any appointments to the senate (for example) hangs over the head of the PM at the next election anyway. (Was it Joe Turner's campaign that took a dire turn when he said to Mulroney during the debates "i didn't have a choice" (referring to trudeau's instructions)?.
Harper keeps touting "accountability" to the people - however, he's removing himself (and his party) from that by shutting out the media, having his MPs repeat the same scripted points over and again rather than letting them speak freely, blatantly ignoring calls for by-elections for Emerson and Fortier to "earn" their mandates, and using the results of the last general election as blanket approval for their entire platform. I understand his reasoning is that Canadians will hold them accountable at the next general election, but I hardly believe that this retaliation voting concept is in the best interests of the country. We need some mechanism to exert pressure on their decisions issue by issue, preferably not after swallowing fourteen poison pills.
Harper keeps touting "accountability" to the people - however, he's removing himself (and his party) from that by shutting out the media, having his MPs repeat the same scripted points over and again rather than letting them speak freely, blatantly ignoring calls for by-elections for Emerson and Fortier to "earn" their mandates, and using the results of the last general election as blanket approval for their entire platform. I understand his reasoning is that Canadians will hold them accountable at the next general election, but I hardly believe that this retaliation voting concept is in the best interests of the country. We need some mechanism to exert pressure on their decisions issue by issue, preferably not after swallowing fourteen poison pills.
2006-09-11
senate deform
Last week I had the opportunity to watch the PM being questioned during the senate hearings on bill S4 (which would limit newly appointed senators to 8-year terms). Personal mistrust and misgivings toward the current PM aside, I have serious issues with the way this is being done and the potential impact on our parliament, basically because I don't believe Joe Canadian, to whom Harper wants to make the senate accessible to, will ever be interested enough to get involved. It is very easy for high-profile individuals to spout rhetoric about (and for Joe Canadian to believe) how ineffective and expensive the senate is, how senator absenteeism rates are unacceptable, and how senate appointments are undemocratic. I believe the root cause of these issues is the fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the senate, but nobody is taking the time to discuss it. (If you are interested in a quick overview, wikipedia offers pretty good info.)
Without going into a point-by-point rebuttal of the PM's statements, I have grave concerns with the direction the Conservative party is taking with senate reforms. This first-of-many bills intends to limit the term of new senators to 8 years. How does that solve the root-cause? And what happens after the 8 (or 9 or 10 as he said he would be willing to accept) year term? Eligibility for re-appointment creates an incentive for the senators to kiss-up and vote in favour of the government to increase their chances of being re-appointed, violating the "sober second thought" process and making it irrelevant. But if you prevent them from being re-appointed, how would you prevent them from being influenced by external lobbyists, with whom they may wish to seek employment after their term? To make that case even worse, taxpayers wouldn't get any value at all from the growing ranks of retired senators each drawing a fat pension. Either scenario paves the way for the Conservatives to justify eliminating the upper house completely. So how can Bill S4 remain silent on such a critical issue, unless that is their desired end-game?
Another problem is the abuse of the propaganda that "the democratic will is supreme" and all the blabla that only elected representatives have the true mandate to govern, and therefore should be able to do so uninhibited by such troublesome things as laws, ethics, minorities, and even the constitution.
I don't trust the current government, not just because it has oft misappropriated the results of the last election as a carte-blanche by the people to do whatever it is they promised, when many canadians really only wanted to vote the other guys out. The PM even smugly stated with a Trudeau-esque "just-watch-me" smile when he told the senate committee not to force him to use any veto power, appoint new conservative senators (there are currently 8 vacancies), or bypass the upper house to get these bills passed.
Forgive me, I promised I would put personal dislike aside. Right, so limiting the senators' terms will rejuvenate the upper house on a regular basis. Fine. Hey, wouldn't it make sense then for Canadians to elect them? Result on parliament: Joe Canadians will elect the prettiest, dirtiest, most successfully slanderous snake-oil salesmen to the upper house. Don't we already have that in the house of commons? Then why bother with a second house at all?
The senate's role is defender of the constitution, regional rights and minorities. The days of the upper house being the house of lords protecting the interests of the landowners and other uber-rich are over, and any argument that is rooted in such lore is therefore invalid and should be called as such. Senators are being appointed from various social, economic and cultural communities (most having already held prominent government positions) to ensure that rights and freedoms of every piece of the social mosaic aren't abused, while, as one of the senators pointededly stated during the hearing, "the majority can look after itself." As Sir John A. Macdonald observed, it is a body of "sober second thought" that would curb the "democratic excesses" of the elected House of Commons.
Speaking of democratic excesses, Harper seems hellbent to capitalize on society's desire to curb abuses in politics, and is firing a silver(plated) bullet into the senate to "prove" that a democratically elected body as the ultimate authority as a panacea to all ills in politics and restore popular faith. In the short term, this will probably satisfy peoples delusional appetites for change, but I suspect people will very quickly realize what happens when you give somebody absolute power... Compounding the problem is that, like dealing with a schizophrenic who stops taking his meds, it can take a long time before you find a successful cocktail of new meds that will restore the delicate balance.
Bottom line is that this self-assigned democratization mission sounds more and more like the US Republican Party mantra, and the centralization of ("democratic") power is slightly reminiscent of propaganda from that German Socialist Party of the 1930's...
Without going into a point-by-point rebuttal of the PM's statements, I have grave concerns with the direction the Conservative party is taking with senate reforms. This first-of-many bills intends to limit the term of new senators to 8 years. How does that solve the root-cause? And what happens after the 8 (or 9 or 10 as he said he would be willing to accept) year term? Eligibility for re-appointment creates an incentive for the senators to kiss-up and vote in favour of the government to increase their chances of being re-appointed, violating the "sober second thought" process and making it irrelevant. But if you prevent them from being re-appointed, how would you prevent them from being influenced by external lobbyists, with whom they may wish to seek employment after their term? To make that case even worse, taxpayers wouldn't get any value at all from the growing ranks of retired senators each drawing a fat pension. Either scenario paves the way for the Conservatives to justify eliminating the upper house completely. So how can Bill S4 remain silent on such a critical issue, unless that is their desired end-game?
Another problem is the abuse of the propaganda that "the democratic will is supreme" and all the blabla that only elected representatives have the true mandate to govern, and therefore should be able to do so uninhibited by such troublesome things as laws, ethics, minorities, and even the constitution.
I don't trust the current government, not just because it has oft misappropriated the results of the last election as a carte-blanche by the people to do whatever it is they promised, when many canadians really only wanted to vote the other guys out. The PM even smugly stated with a Trudeau-esque "just-watch-me" smile when he told the senate committee not to force him to use any veto power, appoint new conservative senators (there are currently 8 vacancies), or bypass the upper house to get these bills passed.
Forgive me, I promised I would put personal dislike aside. Right, so limiting the senators' terms will rejuvenate the upper house on a regular basis. Fine. Hey, wouldn't it make sense then for Canadians to elect them? Result on parliament: Joe Canadians will elect the prettiest, dirtiest, most successfully slanderous snake-oil salesmen to the upper house. Don't we already have that in the house of commons? Then why bother with a second house at all?
The senate's role is defender of the constitution, regional rights and minorities. The days of the upper house being the house of lords protecting the interests of the landowners and other uber-rich are over, and any argument that is rooted in such lore is therefore invalid and should be called as such. Senators are being appointed from various social, economic and cultural communities (most having already held prominent government positions) to ensure that rights and freedoms of every piece of the social mosaic aren't abused, while, as one of the senators pointededly stated during the hearing, "the majority can look after itself." As Sir John A. Macdonald observed, it is a body of "sober second thought" that would curb the "democratic excesses" of the elected House of Commons.
Speaking of democratic excesses, Harper seems hellbent to capitalize on society's desire to curb abuses in politics, and is firing a silver(plated) bullet into the senate to "prove" that a democratically elected body as the ultimate authority as a panacea to all ills in politics and restore popular faith. In the short term, this will probably satisfy peoples delusional appetites for change, but I suspect people will very quickly realize what happens when you give somebody absolute power... Compounding the problem is that, like dealing with a schizophrenic who stops taking his meds, it can take a long time before you find a successful cocktail of new meds that will restore the delicate balance.
Bottom line is that this self-assigned democratization mission sounds more and more like the US Republican Party mantra, and the centralization of ("democratic") power is slightly reminiscent of propaganda from that German Socialist Party of the 1930's...
senate reform (2)
Let's say you bought a Lada because it was the lowest-cost vehicle when you needed something motorized with an enclosed cab to pick up the groceries at the corner store, and your friends invited you for a car race. You obviously wouldn't think of putting a Porsche engine in your Lada to join them; because you'd figure it'd burn out the transmission for starters. Then if you upgrade your transmission, you'd burn out your differential. Upgrade that, you'd blow out your tires. Upgrade your tires, you'd have to change the suspension, and so on. You just know it'll waste a lot of resources and cause a lot of downtime trying to get the car to do what it was never meant to do in the first place, and even if it did work, it would cost too much to keep it as a car to run simple errands with.
So what makes Harper think he can reform the senate bit by bit the way he is?
If something isn't efficient, you improve the process, but if it's not effective, you have to re-evaluate your options in achieving your goals. (If you don't agree with the goals, well, buckle up for a national debate.) To do anything less is a dishonest abuse of power, and to mislead the people in such a way is hypocritical to the worst degree.
So what makes Harper think he can reform the senate bit by bit the way he is?
If something isn't efficient, you improve the process, but if it's not effective, you have to re-evaluate your options in achieving your goals. (If you don't agree with the goals, well, buckle up for a national debate.) To do anything less is a dishonest abuse of power, and to mislead the people in such a way is hypocritical to the worst degree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)