Achieving Mediocrity

It's dead Jim

2011-07-23T15:17:00.003-04:00

It's been about a year since my last post and even then production had basically come to a halt. I'll keep the account open to archive the previous posts and just in case inspiration hits.

Canada ponders banning head scarves!

2010-08-02T09:41:00.014-04:00

In 2004 France banned head scarves from public schools. The ban technically forbade any and all religious icons, amulets, and clothing but it was clear from the beginning the law was intended specifically to ban head scarves. This law was put in place to protect the secular nature of French public schools. Keep in mind that these secular public schools celebrate Christmas and Easter. More recently, France sought to ban head scarves outright. It passed the French lower house 335 to 1 and is expected to pass their upper house without issue.

The bans are spreading. Including to Canada!

For the most part I'm ambivalent about head scarves. The only one that I have issue with is the burqa. The reason for this is that a) it makes it hard to hear and/or talk with a woman wearing one and b) it makes me feel uncomfortable. I think it's the fact that the entire face is covered, but I can't really articulate it. Regardless; my concerns do not change the fact that any ban would violate freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of expression. These are three of our four fundamental freedoms guaranteed to all Canadians in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Many things protected by our charter make me uncomfortable, but that doesn't, and shouldn't, change the fact that they are protected. A ban says that those who wear head scarves are equivalent to gang members wearing their colours.

Our ban is ostensibly being considered to perform an admirable task; protecting women. Much like the French public school ban, however, we don't have a leg to stand on. It is alleged that head scarves are oppressive garb that restrict women’s rights to that of a 2nd class citizen. It is also alleged that women do not have the ability to wear what they want for fear of reprisals from male family members including ostracism, abuse, or even death.

I've never found, nor been presented with, statistics showing higher than usual incidents of abuse among head scarf wearing women and non. I think this is because they don't exist. What I think we are seeing is moral panic. Moral panic because a large influx of immigrants has arrived in Canada with vastly different customs to our own and we are afraid that something specific about them will keep them separate from wider society. Moral panic because more and more Canadians feel they are at war with radical Islam and we associate head scarves with radical Islam.

How can you tell an abused woman apart from a non abused woman simply from her garb? What the people clamouring for a ban are saying is that you can tell a book by its cover! In keeping with that thought process should we also ban beer stained undershirts, also known as 'wife beaters', because the men who wear them are more inclined to engage in abuse?

A woman who does not want to wear a head scarf, but is being forced to by a male relative, has legal recourse. She has opportunities and options available to her. A woman who wants to wear a head scarf, for any reason, in a Canada where the garb is banned HAS NO RECOURSE! Her rights have been stripped and she is NOW a 2nd class citizen. To be more sensationalist, a woman has the right to walk half nude down the streets of Ontario, bare breasts and all, but not the right to cover up!?

I'm writing this post because Ezra Levant, normally a champion of personal rights and freedoms, is stoking the fires of moral panic. Ezra is not a nice man and generally doesn't have nice things to say; but what he does say is usually in defence of personal liberties. Not this time! This time Ezra, and many other Canadians, want Muslim women to be 2nd class citizens. They want their rights to be stripped away. Ezra uses an example of an honour killing conducted in Ontario as proof this ban must go through. The victim was 16 year old Aqsa Parvez who was murdered by her father and brother for not wearing a head scarf outdoors. This was a heinous crime. Made all the more disgusting by the fact that family killed family, that a father killed a daughter, that a brother killed a sister. Aqsa was killed by two murderers, not a head scarf. Those murderers are now serving life sentences for their crimes and our laws have done their job.

Is removing people’s rights the Canadian way? Should we enact more laws based on the feeling that people are being oppressed? Are we really feeling what we say we're feeling when we call for these bans? I don't want to see Canada go down the path of France, a land where pluralism is a bad word. I don't know the perfect solution but couldn't increased funding to local community centres and crisis hotlines protect women while also preserving their rights?

This message has been prorogued...

2010-01-13T12:01:00.004-05:00

A little over two weeks ago Steve shut down Parliament for the 2nd time in just under a year. What does this mean exactly? It means Steve sacrificed time, money, and most importantly open debate to save face during the Olympics. I am mad. So mad in fact that even without a platform I would vote for the Liberals during the next election. This is what I was thinking, and what I was planning, until the Liberals unveiled their reaction to these unprecedented times.

What does that reaction show?

1982 to present: In 1982, the House adopted the parliamentary calendar, which provided a fixed schedule of both sittings and adjournments and allowed for more effective use Parliament’s time and even less frequent prorogations.

Number of Parliaments: 8 (33rd to 40th Parliament)
Number of sessions: 17
Average number of sessions per Parliament: 2.1
Total sitting days: 3,111
Average number of sitting days per session: 183
Total prorogued days between sessions (not counting elections): 361
Average length of prorogation per session: 21 days

Over 8 Parliaments we've had 17 sessions with an average of 21 days per session being prorogued. Prorogation actually IS routine and politicians waste time, money, and squander open debate all the time. Steve is just a normal politician.

So once again I was naive and Steve broke my heart.

Despite my naiveté I was still prepared to vote Liberal out of spite. Then the true counter offensive began.

Quoted from The Canadian Press

Ignatieff said Liberals will work with other opposition parties to continue exploring the Afghan detainee issue while Parliament is shuttered. And he lambasted Harper for proroguing rather than complying with a Commons resolution demanding that the government turn over documents related to torture accusations levelled by diplomat Richard Colvin.

"Democracy breaks down if a prime minister defies the elected representatives of the people on a matter of that importance," he said.

Ignatieff said the documents would shed light on such crucial matters as whether Canada has respected international law and human rights, "the conduct of our troops in the field" and the conduct of the government which appears to have ignored warnings about torture.

"This is really serious stuff," he said, adding that Liberals "will not let up about this."

Iggy, I'm on board with prorogation being bad. I'm on board with Steve being a jerk. I'm even on board with electing you in his place. I am NOT on board with this Afghan detainee issue, nor am I on board with calling our troops WAR CRIMINALS! I'm guessing your latest strategists have decided to stop courting small c conservatives and start courting the NDP...? I say this because blatant mistrust and offense to the troops is usually their bag...

To top it all off Iggy has resurrected the age old 'hidden agenda' shtick.

As far as I'm concerned all Ignatieff had to do was latch on to 'get back to work' with NOTHING ELSE and he could have road into 24 Sussex Drive like a knight in shining armour. With all this other crap I'm again put between a rock and a hard place.

Rabble.ca and Harper's legitimate failures

2009-12-08T09:54:00.008-05:00

I was at a Christmas party recently and was introduced to the website rabble.ca by one of my wife's colleagues. This person was very concerned with the growing corporate control of media and she thought that I would like to hear about 'independent' media. So I checked out the website, and the very polite way to talk about it is to say that I'm not a fan. The website is pretty much anathema to everyone of my ideals except maybe being patriotic. I say maybe because even though they like patriotism, they seem to think you need a government to tell you how to do it. All things considered though, today's front page picture is funny as hell.

This brings me to my second point. What a failure Stephen Harper has been. They attack him for climate change (In case you haven't noticed, I don't care about climate change). I prefer to attack him for things he actually claimed to care about and then ignored. I was a big fan of the 'new' Canada Stephen Harper supposedly was going to introduce. Here is his message to Canadians back from 2006.

The time for accountability has arrived. Canadians will soon be able to finally hold the Liberals accountable. After 12 years in power, the Liberals must be held accountable for the stolen money; accountable for the broken trust; and accountable for all that they failed to accomplish because of this government’s total preoccupation with scandal and damage control. For those Canadians seeking accountability the question is clear: which party can deliver the change of government that’s needed to ensure political accountability in Ottawa? We need a change of government to replace old style politics with a new vision. We need to replace a culture of entitlement and corruption with a culture of accountability. We need to replace benefits for a privileged few with government for all. Everyday Canadians – the hardworking people who pay their taxes and play by the rules – want and deserve a new government that will put the people’s interest ahead of self-interest. And this election provides them with a chance to tell Liberal Ottawa that they’ve had enough; that they’re tired of being forgotten; that it’s finally their turn. It’s time for a new government that will get things done – for all of us. Our priorities are clear. We will clean up government, cut the GST, offer parents help with child care, cut patient wait times for medical procedures, and crack down on crime. Our plan will help individuals, families, seniors, and small business. A new Conservative government will strengthen national unity and advance our interests on the world stage. This platform presents a clear choice for Canadians. A clear choice between old and new; entitlement and accountability; benefits for a few and leadership for all. Only one party can deliver the change of government that’s needed to bring political accountability to Ottawa. Join me and stand up for Canada.

Stephen Harper,

This is from PAGE 1 of the Conservative's 2006 platform. To be fair, Harper has done a few of the things he said he was going to do. Generally these are things I thought he shouldn't do or didn't care. Regarding the things I did care about, he's completely disregarded most of them in fact did the exact opposite in some cases.

Where is my government that would 'get things done'?
Where is my government that would 'strengthen national unity'?
Where is my government that would 'advance our interests on the world stage'?
Where is my government that would 'bring political accountability to Ottawa'?

In general this Conservative Government has: bitched about 'having its hands tied', alienated Canadians and closed doors, ignored foreign policy, and the most opaque vision of transparency and accountability known to mankind!

Harper has to go, but who the hell do we replace him with? The CPC is his baby and you get bet anybody waiting in the wings will follow his style. Iggy has routinely blundered and has yet to give a cohesive plan. The latest news is that he doesn't want to reveal his strategy lest the Conservatives copy it. If the Conservatives are nothing more than a carbon copy of the Liberals able to usurp key planks at will without penalty then why the hell bother with elections? I really wish the NDP platform, leader, practises... weren't so... NDP..?! For once in my life I would like to vote with conviction rather than with my eyes closed, biting my lower lip, waiting for the bad news.

The future...?

2009-10-28T10:36:00.016-04:00

So what has happened in the past few months? Barely anything at all to be honest. I've witnessed an increase in partisen attacks, less transparency (after a fight it appears some data will flow), and now violence at parliament.

A comment about a recent trade deal sums up my thoughts perfectly.

What's negotiable is not worthwhile, what's worthwhile is not negotiable...

Basically, important things continue to be ignored, while unimportant things are thrust into the limelight. I honestly don't care about the stimulus spending. I didn't want it to happen in the first place, and now that it has I have the Tories shoving it down my throat on TV, trains, and billboards! Meanwhile the Liberals have taken every chance they can to snipe and nitpick a plan they forced the Tories to make while the NDP bring in climate activists to disrupt parliament.

*sigh*

What is the plan? Where are we going? Will our government ever function properly?

I don't think our government requires a majority to get shit done! Look at Pearson for crying out loud. Quoted from Wikipedia:

During his time as Prime Minister, Pearson's minority government introduced universal health care, student loans, the Canada Pension Plan, the Order of Canada, and the current Canadian flag. During his tenure, Prime Minister Pearson also convened the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.

That's basically everything we hold as 'Canadian' nowadays, all introduced during minority governments. I'm not saying match all these achievements, but maybe TRY ONE thing that's important. Hell Harper can't even keep the lights on without running a deficit these days.........

At least Ezra is in a good mood...

WTF?!

2009-09-16T16:44:00.002-04:00

So now both Gilles and Jack will prop up Steve. That's it... I think I'm going to vote Communist

Election 2009...?

2009-09-10T11:15:00.004-04:00

Well it looks like we are heading towards a fall election. Today the CBC posted 'exclusive' footage including the Prime Minster talking about a majority government. My first thoughts are that the excerpts shown are clearly a manipulated 'leak' to scare the Canadian populace about a return of the Opposition Coalition. This is where it gets really funny. CBC reports the video came from a student at the conference. This student then gave the video... to the Liberals, who gave it to CBC. Apparently the Liberals have forgotten/ignored the outrage many Canadians expressed about the coalition, and just wanted to show us how inflexible and conniving Harper is.
Note to Ignatieff, we already knew that...It's kinda hard not to notice...

I've never been a die hard supported of Harper, and frankly his lack of action over the past few years clearly indicates he is incapable of governing a minority government. However what the hell am I supposed to do when the alternative is someone who glosses over, after callusly resurfacing, a major constitutional crisis simply to tell me something I already know. Doesn't this play right into the Tories hands? The've already painted him as aloof and contemptous.

I really want to believe that Iggy will be different, but I guess I should change that to different by being competant. I thought Harper would be different... and look what I got.

This just in...Green Party not dead yet...feeling much better...

2009-08-24T11:29:00.005-04:00

That was my first thought after reading this article from the MotherCorp. Apparently the Greens are actually alive and well and traveling. This is a big surprise considering I haven't heard from them since the last election. The proposal is interesting (using the Arctic Council to administer the arctic somewhat jointly between the arctic nations and corner if off as a protected zone like Antarctica) but as usual completely devoid of any real world merit. On a good day you might get buy in from some of the Europeans on this...some, but you will never get Russia on board.

Not to mention one single little issue. PEOPLE. Nobody lives in the Antarctic so there is no pressure to develop it. It's remote as remote can be save for a few states. The Arctic however has people, with nationalities, who live and work. Those people might want development, not even a consideration in the Greens plan, and their governments certainly do. Governments are like dogs. If you give them 10 pounds of food, they will eat 10 pounds of food. If your government has 9,984,670 km^2 to develop, it will develop 9,984,670 km^2.

On a side note when I Googled the Greens to see what I had missed about their activities far and away the most popular news item was this little gem. It's about Elizabeth May swapping seats to get into Parliament. This is something she was adamant about never doing. However it appears that reality has begun to set in on the little party that couldn't. I think this is a good thing. Even if the Greens latest policy blurb has its head in the clouds this shows that the Greens are starting, ever so slightly, to think like a real party. After this I expect the party to normalize even more, alienating the hardcore base, and eventually merge with the NDP (or disappear entirely).

Partisanship

2009-06-25T07:16:00.002-04:00

I recently read an article in the free newspaper Metro, arguable my favourite single thing about moving to Toronto, talking about young politicians in federal politics and what they thought of their first session of parliament. Rookie MP Justin Trudeau (son of the always name droppable Pierre Elliot Trudeau) commented on the partisan nature of our government and how it is the largest difficulty he has experienced. A second comment appeared in the article (not sure if it was Trudeau's or not) mentioned Question Period as a 45min farce where pre-scripted attacks are thrown by the opposition only to have the government retort with pre-scripted defenses and a few attacks of their own.

I have several concerns.

First; that these new MP's are going to be indoctrinated into the same malfunctioning system of partisan bullshit that has permeated all of Ottawa.

Second; that these new MP's will loose the will to bring real change to Canadian politics.

and Finally; that I have become to Partisan.

I started reading about politics because I found it absolutely fascinating. I wanted to know what each side thought, and try and afterwards figure out where I stood. However I have never been able to side with a certain party. It's easy to simply list the BLOC because I could never support seperation/soverienty/sobriety...? but this isn't the party I am thinking of. I'm thinking of the New Democrats.

I started disliking the NDP at almost the same point I joined a Union. You know how some people refuse to listen to a particular type of music or watch a specific show because they knew someone who liked it SOOO much and it was just ruined for them? That's the NDP for me.

Because of the overzealous nature of my original contact with its supporters, I've become almost entirely polarized to the party. I don't like thinking like this, and it may help if Jackie Boy steps down (however his wife* is currently my MP).

*I don't understand how Olivia Chow and Jack Layton work. I have never seen a public appearance of Layton where he didn't piss me off. Nothing he has ever said candidly or in a speech has appealed to me. Olivia however is a super nice lady. She seems sincere and honest... (I know I know) but regardless if she didn't represent ideals I couldn't support, or a leader I semi-despise I could vote for her.

As Usual

2009-06-14T10:28:00.003-04:00

I'm sure anyone who was reading this has noticed that the updates have died off to nothing. It's not that interesting things aren't still happening, it's just that I'm lazy and somewhat uninterested.

I say somewhat uninterested because I will always be interested, just there is only so much bitching one can do before going insane. Intelligent people would say:

"If bitching won't solve the problem (it never does) why don't I just get involved?"

This would make perfect sense if I were driven as well as ambitious...I am not driven.

So where does this leave me? I'll leave the site up, but more than likely fail to update it.

Duke Nukem Forever...and ever...and ever...

2009-05-07T09:44:00.002-04:00

Well, it appears the long time vapourware product Duke Nukem Forever is finally dead. Why you ask? Because it's developer, 3D Realms, is shutting down.

I haven't been following this title for some time, but I can tell you I honestly thought it would come out for the first 10 or so years. I think it's been 12 years now, so well it shouldn't surprise anyone.

Here is an excellent conglomeration of most of the history of Duke Nukem Forever.

It's official, Canada hates me!

2009-04-05T10:22:00.003-04:00

At least that's what I am tempted to believe after reading this.

Britain looks to change succession rules...

2009-03-27T12:51:00.007-04:00

Well, it appears that a slumping economy, terrorist attacks, and bakery murders are just not enough for the United Kingdom. They have proposed to reform the Act of Settlement which affirms male-preference primogeniture and excludes Catholics from the crown.

This isn't the first time Britain has looked at reform, but previous attempts have always fizzled out. Historically Canadians don't really care about the Monarchy one way or the other, but we do have a small Canadian Republican Movement who have often used the sexist and biased succession laws of Britain against the Monarchy in Canada.

This reform does frustrate my personal hopes and dreams for a home grown Canadian Monarchy though. I like these changes, but if they have already been made there is less reason to bring about a Canadian Monarch separate from the United Kingdom. We don't actually have any laws for succession in Canada so technically our privy council could choose whomever it wanted, as long as we let the Commonwealth know we were leaving the shared Monarchy. This is how Monarchists traditionally sidestep Republican rhetoric. Monarchists claim that no Canadian law discriminates against a potential Monarch.

Regardless, the King/Queen of the United Kingdom will still retain the position of head of the Church of England. This will surely continue to irritate the Republicans and could be enough of a fly in the ointment to bring Canadians on board to my grand scheming.

Oh my...

2009-02-10T15:39:00.002-05:00

The Japanese poop gold...

Actually sewage from Nagano prefecture in Japan has been assayed to contain 1,890 grammes of gold per tonne. That's alot of gold! Apparently it's caused from local manufacturing plants who use gold in many of their operations. It's pretty awesome that the local government is smart enough to not only discover the gold but profit from it however; if I were an executive at one of those companies litterally flushing gold down the toilet I think I'd be pretty pissed.

Stupid like a fox

2009-02-07T10:52:00.005-05:00

I was watching question period the other day and Michael Ignatieff lambasted the Harper Government for having no results from the Federal Budget to date. Considering the budget had been passed less than a week before I was confused, and so was the Prime Minister. I thought to myself what kind of idiot is Ignatieff attacking a plan he just approved.

Then I remembered how he had approved it. He claimed to be putting the government on 'probation'. At first I thought it was a stupid move because probation for a minority government is a constant effect. It doesn't require the opposition saying anything for it to occur.

However in light of this new 'everything you do is wrong' tactic I think I see where Ignatieff is going. It's all politics. Ignatieff passed Harper so he could spend the next few months attacking him. I think rhetoric matters much more than actions to Canadians and so come election time (which I predict will be in the summer) Ignatieff can claim to have been constantly fighting for Canadians, and he will have the sound bytes to prove it.

I think Harper is spent. I really do. He was smarter and strong than Dion and those years lulled himself into a false sense of security. Ignatieff is as power hungry and scheming as Harper ever was. I think Ignatieff would have been a great challenge back in 2004, but now I think Harper might just fold. His tired comments about 'stick the course' don't help much either.

Buy American, bring on the Depression...

2009-02-02T21:23:00.008-05:00

Much brew ha ha has been expended about the Buy American clause in the US stimulus package. This latest story seems to say that the American's are thinking about changing the clause. I certainly hope they do because the last thing a recession needs is protectionism.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariffs seemed like a good idea at the time (and they did make America money) but the long term effects were a complete disaster. The current clause is certainly NOT the same as the tariff's from the 30's, but it's a slippery slope and I really hope we steer clear.

Harper could also take this point to show he doesn't hate Québec. The Steel industry there is as dependant on American dollars as the rest of us.

*edit* Looks like the European's are worried too. Funny considering the amount of protectionism they routinely engage in.

*edit 2* According to the House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer our "concerns are justified"

*edit 3* Barak and McCain get it, but the Senate seems stupid.

I'm sorry...

2009-01-31T16:49:00.002-05:00

I shouldn't... but I did it again. I read the comments section from a CBC Article. This particular article was regarding the global concerns of the 'Buy American' clause in Barak Obama's stimulus package currently before congress.

The comments were by and large from 9/11 Truthers with a strong Anti-Free Trade bent, or in other words members of the Canadian Action Party (CAP).

I stumbled across the CAP when I was trying desperately to find a party that I could connect with. I liked their national pride and I thought I had found my home, and then I realized that they were not my kind of people.

Neat

2009-01-28T09:23:00.001-05:00

I just found this panoramic of the Obama Inauguration and thought it was pretty neat and highly detailed. Thought you guys might want to check it out.

Russia to US, we will play nice if you do...

2009-01-28T09:17:00.003-05:00

It appears that Russia might actually just want to be friends if this story is to believed. I mentioned the missile deployment before and I personally believe that Russia was simply responding to a lack of attention and respect from the US. Russia may not be a super power anymore, but they didn't like being treated like... well us.

I think I know what it's called...

2009-01-26T17:25:00.002-05:00

Today Prime Minister Harper preformed what can only be described as a Dick Move.

Pissed at the Liberal/NDP/BLOC attempt to rest power from his mighty talons Harper appointed a slew of new Senators. (Seats ostensibly promised to BLOC supports and Elizabeth May for supporting the Coalition).

I wonder who let it slip from the Coalition Camp that they planned on giving away Senate Seats?

It's called the deficit raaaag

2009-01-26T08:14:00.000-05:00

What have we done?

Book Review - Intent for a Nation by Michael Byers

2009-01-16T12:29:00.003-05:00

I've had a bit of writers block so I thought I would post an updated and enhanced version of a book review I recently wrote. Enjoy!

Intent for a Nation is the first political science book I’ve read from a strictly Canadian perspective. Most of the material I’m familiar with, as are most Canadians, is either from an American perspective or, at the very least, catering to an American audience. This is the first of many hurdles that the author, Dr. Michael Byers, encounters as he humourously tries to convince Canadians that they have power and sway in global events. Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia, so one can guess he has made this argument often. Byers’ central theme is one of improvement. He rightfully claims that Canada seems to have a schizophrenic approach to most issues, claiming that we can and have risen to the occasion, but more often than not we are content to do nothing or, worse yet, blindly follow other powers.

I could not imagine disliking a book that espoused those themes, but that is exactly what happened. Throughout the book Byers advocates a policy of constant intervention and antagonism. If injustice exists, Canada should be there. If innovation is required, Canada should be there. Finally if our morality or sovereignty is compromised, Canada should stand firm and never give an inch. The overall impression I developed was that Byers would rather see an isolated Canada that is moral, upright, and sovereign rather than an involved Canada that occasionally gets its hands dirty. Byers methods and desires are too extreme, and while I agree with his idea that Canada has much more clout globally than we give ourselves credit for, there is only so much a middle power such as Canada can or really should do.
The book is subdivided into ten chapters that cover a wide range of issues from Terrorism and the Afghan War to Arctic Sovereignty and Climate Change. It is clear from the amount of information that Byers has experience gathering information and is expertly capable of putting it into easy to understand prose that doesn’t get bogged down like a government report. Unfortunately this easy to read style does lend itself to simplification on issues that shouldn’t be simplified. I understand that this may appear as a contradiction (praising his easy to read style while condemning its lack of depth) but I would just like to see a little bit more information. I continually felt the text was only telling me one side of an issue, which forms the crux of my complaints discussed later.

In the Preface we are treated to a rather chilling anecdote from Byers’ youth in rural Saskatchewan (involving B-52 bombers in a Dr. Strangelove’esque scenario) which really got me thinking about what my country did during the Cold War. In the Introduction we discover why a major inspiration for Byers to write this book. In 1965 a Canadian political philosopher named George Grant wrote the book Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism. I’m not personally familiar with this book but Byers gives enough background information to understand that the central thesis revolves around integration and annihilation of a distinct Canadian society. It appears that Byers allowed Lament for a Nation to shape him just a bit too much as throughout his entire book we are shown that Byers has nothing but disdain for economic liberalization. It is made very clear that Byers divides this country into two groups: first those that look at economic liberalization as a coercive and eroding force that will bring about a United States of North America, and second those that look at economic liberalization as a beneficial and strengthen force that will bring about the same thing. I am neither. I like NAFTA, and I feel that it has brought considerable benefit to Canada and far fewer negatives. I also love my country deeply and despite Byers’ assumption that those “like me” (NAFTA supporters) yearn for integration with the United States I want nothing of the sort. It appears Byers assumes that with choice Canadians will inexorably gravitate towards the United States like moths to a bug zapper.

This brings to the fore my original complaint about the text. Byers is only showing two sides to an issue (NAFTA) when in fact it is very complicated and intricate. Additionally we are introduced to what appears to be anathema to Byers: Compromise. It appears that compromise, especially with the United States, equals loosing. Byers’ case against compromise is further reiterated in the later chapter titled Do We Need a Continental Economy? The case put forward is that since the United States is so much larger and more powerful than Canada, any concept of ‘pooled sovereignty’ is inherently flawed because we are automatically on the loosing side. This is highly hypocritical of Byers as he is fully aware that Canada rarely uses the power it possesses (as he gives excellent examples throughout this book) yet if we actually used the power we have, ‘pooled sovereignty’ would function as intended protecting the rights of all included states.

For the most part this book highlights many important issues addressing Canada, and the world, today. I agree with many of the ideas put forward such as an innovative ‘Coalition of the Middle Powers’ combining our strengths with countries such as Norway, India, and South Africa. Increasing our presence in our arctic before it isn’t ours anymore is also an extremely relevant and important step for Canada to take and this is outlined in the chapter A True North Strong and Free. It is highly unfortunate that the idea of compromise, especially with the United States, is somehow a failure on our part permeates this book so thoroughly. Especially since Byers chastises the United States for the same kind of thinking regarding Iran in the chapter on Canada and Global Governance. Regardless of its faults this book represents a highly optimistic opinion of Canadian abilities. With such optimism is short supply it was absolutely a worthwhile read, and I hope it inspires many more Canadian perspective books on these issues, hopefully with a slightly more balanced approach.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission

2008-12-15T10:49:00.004-05:00

Some people who don't know me think I'm a racist pig headed white male looking to re-extend my clearly superior race and sex's former dominance over non-whites and women alike.

Those are the kind of people who continually ignore what I'm saying in favour of what they think I'm saying. Unfortunately I'm about to give them more 'ammunition'.

I recently attended a talk held by Justice Frank Iacobucci about the Indian Residential Schools Compensation Package. I was surprised to learn that the government was acting not because white man had wronged brown man, not because missionary had wronged student, but because Canada had wronged its people. Regardless of what I had heard in the media from throngs of angry Aboriginals and repentant 'whites' the governments actual intentions were what I would consider noble and justified. They wanted to correct a grave injustice they had committed against their own people.

Recently the final stage of this Package, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, was put on hold. This Commission was to be a five year no holds barred testimony by everybody who was abused (physically or sexually) during their internment at a Residential School.

It's important to note that everybody involved (weather they enjoyed the school or not) was entitled to a one time compensation based on how long they were kept at the schools. This commission was setup only to hear those that had met extraordinary hardship at the schools.

Regardless the Commission was put on hold because Justice Harry LaForme (the head commissioner) called it quits after a few months. I don't really know any details regarding his resignation other than he claims it was personality conflicts on behalf of other commissioners and the other commissioners don't. What I do know is that as per this article a selection process is underway to get a new head commissioner on the job to get it done.

I don't know if the Truth and Reconciliation Commission will actually full fill its goals. This is a country where we have a commission to decide on a study to think about a plan that will correct a past action; but I do have hope. I have hope that it will allow for people to heal, and a very sad chapter in our history to be put to bed. I have hope that with the governments taking of ownership (not because they are white, but because they are the government) combined with the Church's who were involved (and their pledges of reform) will bring all Canadians that much closer together.

Quebec Re-elects Jean Charest

2008-12-09T12:27:00.004-05:00

Amidst this Federal hullabaloo, Québec had an election all on their own. It was actually very similar to the election we just had. Jean Charest (Liberal) only had a minority and held a snap election to get a majority. The difference was that he actually got his majority. The former Opposition in Québec was a relatively new party called the ADQ (Action démocratique du Québec) who are similar to a Québec only Conservative Party. They made amazing gains in the last election, but absolutely self destructed this time around going from 39 down to just 7. The PQ (Parti Québécois) the provincial separatist arm of the BQ (Bloc Québécois) is now firmly back in the position of opposition.

I mention this election for three reasons:

1) It was the lowest recorded voter turnout for Québec since 1927 at %56.5. Keep in mind that in 1927 women didn't even have the Provincial vote yet in Québec so this really is apathy in action.

2) ~~Because CBC doesn't even have the results listed on their Canada RSS Newsfeeds.~~ Of course as I type this and go back to check again JUST to make sure, it has since been added. Well to this I will just add because Québec is Canada too, and you can't much more Canadian (or Canadien) than Voter Apathy.

3) Because Québec gets bored with politicians and rarely lets them serve more than two terms. Granted Charest's second term was only a year long so this may just be my attempt to fill up three points after my second point kinda stole my original third ;)

Iggy in, Rae, LeBlanc, and most importantly Dion out!

2008-12-09T12:11:00.003-05:00

Michael Ignatieff is now left as the only leadership contestant to vie for the top spot in the Liberal Party. What does this mean? I have several predictions.

1) The Coalition is done for

This ill conceived and poorly implemented plan was the result of a desperate Layton wanting to show NDP victories ANYWHERE in Parliement and an even more desperate Dion wanting to be Prime Minister. It was nothing but a power grab by desperate people and Ignatieff doesn't seem to me to be the desperate type.

2) Harper's budget will pass muster

Ignatieff seems to be pragmatic. He knows Harper's budget won't destroy Canada, and he also knows that the Coalition has been a PR nightmare. The Liberals need to bide their time and wait for Harper do really screw up. Failing that he at least needs time to get some fundraising going before an election.

There is one X-Factor here. Harper is insanely power hungry and loves to push the opposition into submission. He might put forward a budget that Ignatieff couldn't support and still call himself a Liberal. Who knows though, Harper caused the Coalition Criss by doing something like that and I'm not sure he would do it again so soon.

3) Ignatieff as PM wouldn't be much different then Harper

Ignatieff supported the American War in Iraq. He's very foreign affairs focused and he doesn't look at America as the Great Satan. The only place that he and Harper may disagree is social spending, but since Harper has been trying to be warm and fuzzy I have a feeling Ignatieff would be very similar (maybe it's a HOPE rather than a feeling hehe).

IT HAS BEGUN!!!

2008-12-07T10:36:00.005-05:00

With Parliament in 'time-out' the Liberals have taken to fighting amongst themselves. Some backbenchers have called out for Dion to step down, but now John Manley has called for him to step down.

As a Liberal, I believe the first step for my party is to replace Stéphane Dion as leader with someone whose first job is to rebuild the Liberal party, rather than leading a coalition with the NDP

Manley was a number of things during his time in the Liberal Party: Minister of Industry, Foreign Affairs, Finance, and Deputy PM. He pushed for leadership of the party after Chrétien retired and I'm sure he is still bitter about loosing, so take his comments with a grain of salt. Also worthy of note is that he isn't currently an MP or involved in politic. I only mention Manley's comment because both Rae and Ignatieff have commented that they would like to see the leadership convention moved up. Now that a high profile former member has publicly called for Dion to step down now I figure the flood gates are open and current high profile members may start the same call.

*Update*

Looks like I was right, as both Ignatieff and Rae have called for a new leader before Parliament resumes.

hehehe

2008-12-03T08:46:00.000-05:00

This is a pretty funny spot on commentary of the current events.

What can I say?

2008-11-30T23:34:00.008-05:00

When I first heard about the possible Opposition Coalition, I regarded it with indifference. This is Canada and we don't have Zimbabwe'ian Power Sharing Deals. By convention (not by law) the leader of the political party with the most seats becomes Prime Minister. Canadians like conventions because they allow us to essentially have a law, without the messy business of enforcing them.

Now that the ink is dry on the contract, I guess it's a reality. I thought to myself, is this legal? Can they do this? Unfortunately the answer is yes.

We have been taken into completely uncharted waters. The ONLY other example of a party governing with fewer seats than the Opposition was the 15th Parliament. In this situation Mackenzie King (Liberal) arranged a Coalition with the Progressive Party BEFORE a Prime Minister was appointed. Ultimately he lost support from the Progressives sparking the King-Byng Affair.

What's important to take away from this is that Dion COULD have seized power, before Harper was sworn in, with his Coalition. This probably won't sit well with people as they realize that again, we treat convention as law. However the 'moral imperative to act' that Dion has spoken about apparently didn't exist six weeks ago, nor did it exist when he endorsed the Throne Speech. The moral imperative only sprang into existence after Harper spoke openly about removal of the Federal Political Party Subsidy. All of a sudden Harper has ruined the economy, the country is on the way to ruin, and only the dynamic duo of Dion and Layton can save us. Propped up of course by the BLOC, which according to internet rumour has been promised four senate seats and $1bn directed towards Quebec.

Alot of space has been wasted speaking of the Separatist angle. I don't care that the BLOC is involved, mostly because their raison d'être long expired and they are simply a Quebec Protest Party.

I've also heard rumours that Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, has been promised a senate seat for her support.

I feel disenfranchised.

I feel like a Triumvirate has been struck, with the country being carved up like a turkey. Not only that but it's possible that senate appointments and special money offers have been made, dividing the spoils after the sack, rape, and pillage of Ottawa.

Canada's North, now accepting shipments!

2008-11-28T18:29:00.001-05:00

I just finished reading this article about the first commercial shipment delivered via the NorthWest Passage. I'm doubtful, but HOPEFULLY Canadians can recognize the possibilities for opening up our north.

Coalition sounds so European

2008-11-28T11:09:00.004-05:00

It appears the Conservatives are forcing the Opposition Parties against the wall with measures to be introduced in an economic update.

These moves would cut federal spending by putting freezes on salaries, removing Christmas Bonuses from Crown Corps, and as a stab in the face cutting federal subsidies for political parties.

The much coveted subsidy gives parties $1.95/per vote annually as long as they achieve two percent of the popular vote. It also costs the government $30,000,000 a year, which ostensibly is why they are putting it on the chopping block.

The Conservatives have been heavily criticized by the Opposition for not doing enough to save the economy. Personally I think they are doing exactly what I would do so I'm not offended by their limited measures. However this vote subsidy thing doesn't quite sit well with me.

It doesn't sit well because I don't know when it's paid. The Liberals have had well publicized financing issues for some time now, and they recently had a vote to approve an agreement to start a planning session to investigate this problem. As you can see, I'm not terribly sympathetic.

However my sympathy may extend depending on how the subsidy is dolled out. From what I understand these things are done quarterly, but I don't know for sure. If I'm right this would mean that Canadian Political Parties were expecting a big payday at the end of December.

This would mean that the Liberals (and possibly the other Opposition Parties) could theoretically be ruined by one terrible quarter at the exact WRONG time. I'm not saying give up on ditching the subsidy (at least for the time being) I'm just saying wait a quarter. Give them SOME time with foreknowledge that they must modernize their funding immediately instead of just dumping it on them.

An interesting byproduct of this possibly immanent doom has been the discussion of a COALITION by the Liberals and the NDP. Theoretically if the Conservatives lost the support of the house, the Liberal/NDP Coalition could step in and form a government without a new election. Such a beast would be unwieldy and awkward, but somewhat intriguing. For instance, you would not see Michael Ignatieff as leader of this coalition, but you could almost certainly see Bob Rae. Good 'ol Jack would have to step aside for a time and with one simple act the Conservatives would have brought about their own downfall.

Extending this fiction further, I could see a merger of the Liberals and the NDP. A mass exodus of fiscally conservative members would flee the new party for the CPC, which would now be more centre than right. A splinter would happen in the CPC bolstering the Christian Heritage Party and causing it to double in size over night (bringing them up to 0.4% of the Popular Vote). And with that, we would go from Five, down to Four. That is until the Greens also join the Liberals and the NDP as they would have lost funding, and purpose.

A new united fanatical left, a centre-right, and separatists. I have a very active imagination :)

Coming back to reality, depending on how this subsidy is dolled out I might support cutting it off, I might not. Depending on handouts is not my idea of solid financing, but shooting a starving dog before it's next meal is rather cruel and unnecessary.

*edit* Update. It appears Mr. Harper is intent on actually staying Prime Minster as the subsidy has been dropped from the agenda. Now all that imagination and postulating has gone to waste hehe.

We Are Boned!!!

2008-11-24T18:12:00.004-05:00

I just saw this article from MotherCorp talking about a possible $27B deficit in 2009/10 and a whopping $46.8B in 2010/11. This is a worst case scenario representation from a self styled Think Tank named The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. I've never heard of them (doesn't say much, I know almost nothing about think tanks, let alone which ones are reputable) but a quick check on there site reveals an ideology one could safely call GreeNDP.

Now, assuming my assessment of their ideology is correct I would say their numbers would predict a higher than normal deficit. I say this because social programs cost a lot of money and if they like large social programs they would like to see the money flow. That would also mean that their worst case scenario would be far to 'deficit friendly' for me to consider it to be possible.

So why did I bother posting about this then?

Because I'm probably wrong... but I really hope not. I don't want to see any deficit, let alone one that's larger than our annual interest payment, and if we were running a $46B deficit just to fund special interest social programs I think I might be sick.

They do have some different numbers to look at, including a best case scenario. In this scenario we run a $7B deficit in 2009/10 and $5.4B in 2010/11. It is a best case in that the economy doesn't totally tank, so if I'm right about the social programs, then those are still being fully funded.

In my opinion, even with the lower numbers we are boned. For the past 10 years or so we've been heading toward a debt free Canada. In my life time it was on track to happen and my children could have grown up in a Canada with far more options than I did.

Now it looks like we are heading towards a growing deficit just to pay the monthly bills. When my wife and I cannot balance the chequebook we cut back, but I guess governments don't have the same rules.

Buyouts, Selloffs, and Bailouts!!!

2008-11-21T10:55:00.002-05:00

I think if Jack "The Moustache" Layton were Prime Minister right now, he would be dolling out money hand over fist to the ailing auto sector, which is lobbying with every bit of power it still has to get money out of our government. One of the arguments was that dealerships are not retail stores for auto companies. They buy their own inventory and are separate businesses that will suffer from the collapse of an auto company.

A counter immediately followed that stated since these companies are there own businesses doesn't that mean they can jump ship to another still existing manufacturer and be just fine...

Government: 1
Failing Companies: 0

I'm not without sympathy for both the companies that could go under and the workers that will be out of work, but if you have messed up your company it's not the Government's responsibility to fix your failures. I think that making sure a banking system is operating like it should is as far as a government should go in terms of bailing out companies.

The workers however should have a high energy well funded retraining campaign that either gets them into a similar but healthier industry (is there one?) or retraining for something else entirely.

The PEOPLE are the resource we need to protect, not the job they are doing today, nor the company they work for.

Round and Round She Goes...

2008-11-16T20:15:00.004-05:00

So the Federal Liberals have already started fighting over who gets to inherit the Grits. It appears that Bob Rae wasn't fond of a closed door meeting and decided to boycott the entire debate because of it. I'm not particularly fond of "Comrade" Rae, but he does have a point in that the meetings should be open to the public, but his reaction was just plain lame. Your not allowed to run away crying every time you don't get your way.

I have a priceless image in my head of Rae informing Harper about properly addressing an MP while he's being shoved into a locker head first.

The debates only featured three (well two without Rae) candidates. Michael Ignatieff and Dominic LeBlanc and with Rae backing out I wonder how the night went.

I've been looking into these three and so far I don't like what I see. Bob should have stayed with the NDP and Michael seems to combine everything I dislike about Harper and Dion into one man. (It's strange because I really thought I would like Ignatieff, he's a History PHD for crying out loud). The only X-Factor is LeBlanc. He could be interesting being that he's young and from the East Coast, but the only information I have on his policy ideas are vague and non descript.

We'll see what the next few months bring, but if the Liberals cannot pull it together I see a Conservative Majority next time around.

Welcome to the 2nd Great Depression

2008-11-11T11:05:00.006-05:00

I'm experimenting with alarmist headlines to see if I can boost readership. ;)

Honestly the Depression is what I think about when I read about infrastructure money flowing from the latest Provincial Conference.

Now I think infrastructure spending is LOOOONG overdue, and I don't think that injecting jobs into a floundering economy is necessarily a bad thing, so maybe I would have set off the Great Depression too. I think the big thing is in how this infrastructure spending is handled. From what I've read and heard it was being held up because Provinces/Municipalities couldn't match $ for $ the Federal contribution (a common requirement for Federal Funds).

Now that the Federal money is flowing (probably not aided by Provincial/Municipal Funds) what will it actually be able to do? Who will it benefit? Will it fix crumbling roads in Winnipeg, build the latest LRT extension to Toronto, or build the latest highway extension to Calgary which, I think is in Whitehorse.

It looks like it might build a high speed train between Quebec City and Southern Ontario. Interesting idea (a good one I think) but what about the rest of the country? I'm sure more proposals have been tabled and we the people won't hear about them until they are being cancelled.

Also on the table during this Conference were bailouts for Banks (25 Million pledged like a tsunami relief telethon) and also money for "the auto sector and a broad coalition of industries" which wasn't commented on.

Final Words: Brandon Crisp

2008-11-08T18:22:00.004-05:00

I've been following this story (as have many Canadians) and while it has a tragic end, one element of the tragedy is most offensive to me.

Brandon Crisp disappeared from his parents home after having an argument with them over playing a video game. They claimed that he had become addicted and unable to stop playing the game, had met someone online, and was now in the clutches of an online pervert made powerful by Online Gaming Competitions and the evil Video Game World.

The reality is much more mundane (so much so that it doesn't even make the RSS feeds of CBC News). He ran away because his parents took away a toy, he ditched his bike and climbed a tree, fell out, and died from his wounds. It's a sad and tragic story, but it's made more so by the quick and unrepentant vilification of anything to do with video games by the parents and the news media.

Now Brandon is dead, and his killer has been found. It wasn't an Xbox, Video Game, or a Child Predator. He simply ran away and fell out of a tree. I wish the parents well in their grieving, and I hope they can publicly admit that labelling an entire group of people (gamers) as possible perverts and child molesters was wrong, and apologize.

The BLOG Title

2008-11-06T12:10:00.006-05:00

I just realized that I've never actually explained my BLOG title. I consider this BLOG to be an exercise similar to writing a book (a very boring book nobody would buy, but a book none the less).

What this means is that I had to choose a title I felt was appropriate. Unfortunately I forgot to include an 'introduction' or sorts that explains my thoughts on issues in this country.

I love Canada. I've lived here my entire life, almost coast to coast. (I lived in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland). However there is one thing that bothers the HELL out of me about Canada as a country, and Canadians as a people.

We don't like achievement.

Give me a moment to explain my position before you right me off as a bitter whiny no nothing. Achievement (and I mean REAL Achievement) is something not everybody can do. I cannot run a mile, let alone run it in a timescale credibly measured in seconds (or minutes hehe). Those who can, have achieved something wonderful, and should be celebrated.

In Canada we have a culture that down plays any domestic success that couldn't be achieved by the vast majority of our population. We do this so that those who can't won't feel bad. However, and this is the really twisted part, we think of ourselves as a great country with lots to contribute on the world stage... As long as it's other COUNTRIES that we show up, we love to achieve great things. (Winning Gold Medals in Olympics is a good example)

The stupid part of all this is that with no support at HOME to do great things, any success we have in the WORLD is almost a fluke. Anybody who tries really hard and shows they have real ability (as opposed to just potential) is shunned by our conservative minded culture.

If an athlete lobbies their local municipality for better sports facilities they are told "We can't build a special facility just for you, that would be wrong. The ones we have are just fine for most everybody". If a student lobbies their school for better facilities, they are told something similar. Very rarely is ambition and effort actually rewarded in this country, and I personally think this is our greatest failing.

Human nature doesn't lend itself to 'the best'. Most people are very content doing average, or maybe a bit better. This is perfectly fine, but a problem arises when you lower what 'the best' means. Because of our culture we have actually made mediocrity 'the best'. What has happened with this is that mediocrity has become something to achieve, while the new middle ground lies somewhere above spelling your own name, and below knowing the current Prime Minister, above driving your car to the neighbours house but below driving it five blocks to your local 7-11, above ordering pizza for every meal but below making a meal 5 times a week. You get my point

If it takes true effort and results in actual achievement we as a culture disapprove, hence my title of Achieving Mediocrity. I personally think that almost every single domestic issue in our country today (this includes child poverty, crime, overwhelming debt, lack of innovation, and health care) is a direct result of this unofficial policy, and we would be a much better country if we could toss it aside.

The problem of course is getting people on board. I'm don't believe in forcing people to change. They must change because they think it's a good idea and genuinely agree with you. Otherwise your not actually improving, simply shifting. Besides the government (the people able to force change) should barely be involved in this anyway. I think that they should definitely make money available for programs and systems, but it should be people like you and me doing the hard work.

A friend told me once that when you empower a people, they will surprise you. I believe in that sentiment and hopefully Canadians will realize how much they can actually do.

Ontario Teen Found

2008-11-05T21:03:00.005-05:00

Well a sad end to the story I mentioned several times before. While it isn't 100% certain the Barrie Police are fairly confidant that the body found is that of 15 year old Brandon Crisp. So far the 'video game' angle hasn't borne fruit and the Police aren't willing to comment on weather they suspect foul play.

It's hard for me to comment further on this, as I personally think that Video Games had nothing to do with the boys death. I do wish the family well in healing and want to know exactly what happened so we can prevent this kind of tragedy in the future.

California's Prop 8

2008-11-05T14:22:00.003-05:00

It looks like the Gay Friendly Golden State has actually shown itself to not be so.

Proposition 8 was voted on last night (along with a tonne of other stuff, Yanks may take two years to get an election done but they sure as hell vote on alot of stuff at once) and the recently granted rights to marry for Gay Couples have been rescinded. I'm not terribly sure how American Law works, and if this can be appealed, but it's unfortunate.

Welcome President Obama, now get to work!

2008-11-05T12:17:00.003-05:00

OK, finally the 2 year ordeal is over and we can focus on what Obama will physically do rather than what 'He could do... for my soul...'. I worry about one thing, Foreign Policy.

Why do I worry about this? Because I'm a Canadian and I don't care if American's get health care or mortgage protection. However how Obama handles the world definitely effects me.

Today Russian President Vlad... I mean Dmitry Medvedev announced a plan to put Russian missiles in the Kaliningrad Oblast (The little bit of Russia off on it's own on the Baltic Sea) to counter any possible threat from the American Shield.

Reaction from several nations ranged from slightly alarmed to indifferent. I would put myself in the alarmed camp, but more than just slightly. Personally it has nothing to do with the current plan to counter the American plan. The planned missiles are short ranged and designed for non nuclear payloads. However what this represents is much more worrisome.

Russia and the United States waged a 50 year flexing match in the last century, and while the US (and by extension Canada and the 'rest of the West') won that match, it seems we failed to learn from it. George W. Bush spent 8 years pushing a solidly American Agenda, which wasn't much different from most of his predecessors, it just so happened that no country existed to curb that agenda and old George got a little trigger happy.

He created a plan that I honestly believe he thinks was for protection (the missile shield) but he created it in this utterly stupid mindset that just because America can, it should. The Russians are reacting in the only way they can, because they weren't consulted and felt threatened.

The reason I'm not terribly upset and worried sick is that Russia's response is measured, and I think a solid effort to diplomatically resolve this issue will work. I also think that if America curbs it's own Imperialist Activities Russia can be diplomatically talked into doing the same.

On a side note, Medvedev also used this time to announce Russia's decent one step further into becoming an Absolute Monarchy again. He announced a plan to amend the constitution to allow Presidents to serve 6 years instead of 4, to allow for greater possibility for change. It won't be long now until we here of 'honest' and 'legal' elections demanding that someone take the reigns of the poor Russian Federation for life.

McCain to be the next President...

2008-11-05T01:08:00.006-05:00

That's right folks after loosing the presidential election in 2008 to Barak Obama, former United States Senator, John McCain has accepted an offer to be President and CEO from none other than Canada's own McCain Foods Limited. This bold and maverick move was prompted by McCain Foods offer of guaranteed weekends off, and free early bird special at the local Smitty's. When asked about this drastic change of pace, McCain offered the following statement:

"The American people have voted, and now I have found my true calling. Have you tried these Superfries?"

It's late...

Thanks Bob

2008-11-01T11:39:00.003-04:00

Well Mr. Rae just had to accounce his candicy for Liberal Party Leader before I got my platform done. Thanks Bob :p

Oh well, if this Leadership convention looks like the last one (and it seems to be already) I can see a firm Conservative Majority in the next election. Hey it took Canada's founding party being dropped down to TWO SEATS for them to take a step back and think about how they were conducting themselves.

On a side note, What is wrong with CBCNews? It keeps giving me RSS format feeds for everything :(

Why we have trouble attracting Doctors

2008-10-27T18:10:00.002-04:00

I came across this article today talking about a South African Doctor who was recently denied permanent residency based on the fact that his daughter would cause undue stress on our medical system.

Clearly this is bureaucracy gone mad. This man has five children, one who is currently a doctor willing to move from South Africa wherever his father settles permanently, one who is a pre-med student at UofA, one who has cerebral palsy, and two we know nothing about. Oh and his wife is a teacher...

Am I missing something? Even if he wanted to bring his daughter to Canada (he doesn't) how can one special needs child offset two doctors, a possible third, a teacher, and two other people who, if they are anything like the rest of their family, would be amazing additions to our country!?!?

Missing Child Update...

2008-10-26T22:34:00.003-04:00

So, the parents of the missing boy I mentioned earlier have discovered that blaming Microsoft or the Internet for their son's disappearance won't bring him back.

Instead they blame Online Gaming Tournaments

He did not blame Xbox maker Microsoft Corp. for Brandon's disappearance, conceding that computers and the internet are facts of life. Online tournaments are the real problem...

I'm honestly at a loss for words. Again, my sympathies for the child, and the parents; but they allowed their 15 year old child to play a Mature title online unsupervised and they blame tournaments!?!?

I lied...

2008-10-22T17:18:00.004-04:00

So I said the next post would be about my idea for a Liberal Platform and restructuring. Well I lied. Why? Because it takes a long time to actually coherantly think out an entire platform for all issues. I've started but it's only about 1/3 complete and I've already done the easy stuff. In the mean time how about the following:

MotherCorp has yet again vilified video games; This time in regards to a young boys disappearance. Frankly I'm sick and tired of being the whipping boy for the hordes of parents, media, and policy makers who are too afraid to actually try and fix issues. Oh well, I hope the boy is alright and makes it home safe.

Dion

2008-10-20T17:19:00.003-04:00

Well it's official; Stéphane Dion is resigning as the Federal Liberal Leader. He will stay on until the party leadership convention probably to be held in May of next year. This isn't really a major news item, as it was highly anticipated.

What IS worthy of note is watching the MotherCorp's own Susan Bonner trying to fabricate a story of a party split arguing over the leadership. It was rather pathetic to see her badger each Liberal Interviewee with the same question, "Will you run?" and then not even letting them answer when they gave the standard "This is Dion's Day, not mine" Oh well.

Regardless of an uncouth CBC, who will the next leader be? I'm not sure, but I think the Liberals need to reform from the ground up to remain relevant. With the Tories changing their tune recently the Liberals basically don't have a base anymore. They used to be on the side of free trade and social programs, now the Tories espouse both options.

Personally I would like the Liberal Party to take up things I see as important. Yes this is selfish... It's my BLOG :p

I've written about what I want out of Government before, but never at length, and never with forethought. It was always a rant. My next post will be somewhat of a full party platform that I would like the Liberals to pursue.

Open letter to Paul Gross

2008-10-19T10:02:00.005-04:00

Hello Mr. Gross, I recently watched Passchendaele with my wife, and while I applaud your attempt at creating a truly Canadian War Epic, I have several recommendations.

1) When hiring your actors, look for things like talent, ability to enunciate, and stay away from people who make funny noises when they run.

2) While being a Director/Writer/Actor can be prestigious, please pick one. Just because you tried, doesn't make it good.

3) If you choose writer, please remember these important tips:

Dialogue is important, and shouldn't be verbose and clunky
Flawed characters can add to a story, but it's important to have the flaws make sense
Eviscerating your political enemies in fiction only works if your good at it
Writing eccentric characters can be difficult, especially for you, I suggest you start with getting a 2 dimensional character working first
If you are unsure if something is working, have a friend of coworker read over it first; If they laugh hysterically at your dramatic high points, I suggest rewriting them

4) On second thought, if you choose writer, please reconsider.

5) While directing a love scene, please consider more shots of the actor's faces, as I grew tired of the torso of passion.

6) While acting in a love scene, please reconsider your delivery of a line like "I have to go". May I suggest ZIPPING UP FIRST!

7) Movies are expensive to finance, I suggest sticking with CBC mini series

I hope these suggestions are of assistance to you in any of your future endeavours.

Free Trade

2008-10-17T19:10:00.005-04:00

Canada has had an interesting history with free trade for some time. Before Confederation we toyed with the Reciprocity Agreement with the US, and frankly we were doing very well by it. Unfortunately the States wanted to put some pressure on us (and possibly even force us to join them) so they terminated the agreement.

Some years later we ALMOST got a similar agreement reignited, only to have it shot down during a change of government.

Since those early days free trade has come and gone, but regardless of weather heavy tariffs were involved or not, Canada's economy has very much been tied to the American one. Recently the American's decided that they didn't like their economy and have flushed it down the toilet, putting us at considerable peril in terms of income and stability. Enter the EU!

Today Canada started the process of creating a free trade agreement with the EU similar to our current agreement with the US and Mexico (NAFTA). What this allows us to do, is be the tariff free energy whore for two large economies instead of just one :)

I'm terribly excited that we've gone forward with this plan, as free trade is extremely important for Canada, and having all our eggs in the American basket has never pleased me. Understandably the bulk of our trade will still go through the States for the foreseeable future, but at least we will have an option now!

What can I say?

2008-10-15T13:23:00.003-04:00

The Tories ended up pretty much where they started off. Slightly stronger, but Canadians aren't ready to trust Harper and his Blue Party with a majority.

The Red Party however is really limping away from this one. Sure it's not even CLOSE to as bad as the Conservatives in 1993, but the lowest popular support since 1867...? That's gotta have Dion crapping his pants. I originally thought this would be the end, and Dion would be out, but now I'm not sure.

Ignatieff and Rae are the two would are changing my mind due to the comments they made to the MotherCorp today. They basically side stepped and downplayed ANY possibility of a leadership race. Trudeau as well, a new MP and son of Pierre, downplayed any leadership possibilities. I am not saying there won't be a race, but I'm much more on the fence than before.

What does this mean? Well frankly it means nothing. I think we are in the exact same position that we were in before the election, and it was a stupid waste of money. If Harper aborts THIS Parliment on his own I'll vote Christian Heritage Party before I vote CPC.

How are your tax dollars spent?

2008-10-10T08:04:00.001-04:00

Probably making this very neat flash movie I found on the Ministry of Finance's website :)

Libertarianism: Anarchy or Just Society?

2008-10-10T07:02:00.004-04:00

I was recently checking my candidates in Trintiy-Spadina and I noticed I have a Libertarian running. I've flirted with the Libertarians before but I've just never been able to commit either as a party or when someone specific is running in my riding, and I've finally discovered why.

I'm not a Libertarian. At least not entirely ;)

The Canadian Libertarian party stands for strict hands off Government. This means that Laissez-Faire market principles are applied to all facets of life. You don't pay tax because you can just buy the services you want on an open market, and not pay for the ones you don't want. This type of thinking is embodied in the statement:

"I know how to handle my own money better than the government does!"

This thinking also enshrines the rights of the individual above all else. It allows you to do all sorts of things considered illegal in Canada today such as personally own weapons of war or consume any material or drug you desire.

This is where the anarchy comes in. While technically not full on anarchy Libertarianism allows for aspects of it. All individuals have exactly the same rights, and the law would strictly forbids you from infringing on rights of others. So if you wanted to have a polygamist group in a fully armed base camp 20KM outside Ottawa exhorting the value of being high on ecstasy while having sex; it would be legal. Similarly you would have the right to buy medical insurance, buy a home in the suburbs, buy a car, marry, have a family, and live life exactly as you live it today. Theoretically you will also have more money in your pocket with which you can choose to keep or choose to donate to a favourite charity.

I don't want to force anybody to give up their dream of running a drug induced polygamist sect with .50 calibre truck mounted machine guns in Southern Ontario, but I would look at that as honestly giving too much personal freedom. I would look at that as infringing on the rights of the state. With Libertarianism the state has no rights. It is not an entity which exists for any other purpose other than to protect the rights of individuals.

Libertarianism views the best government as the least government. They abhor things like Welfare, EI, and generally anything that can be attributed to a Nanny State.

Personally I don't go that far. I think that these systems are positive, I'm willing to pay tax to support them, but that they are in dire need of review and repair. This is why I'm not a Libertarian. Theoretically I should be a Liberal. They support social programs with minimal government intervention in the market place. (I support regulation, I don't support tariffs)

So why am I not voting Liberal? Because they won't reform their own social programs. They love them too much and seem to want nothing more than to add more bloat and money instead of cut and fix. I was and still am hoping that the Conservatives would ideologically cut down on our social programs, and everyone who I talk to who is a CARD CARRYING LIBERAL doesn't waste a second to tell me every dollar they have cut because they are no good neocons out for blood. It's funny because I don't think Harper has done anything really. A few minor cuts here and their, nothing big. It's not like he repealed welfare hehehehe. I think they would all die of heart attacks if I were ever in power.

Unfortunately Harper won't do it for me either in the long run. The Conservatives would cut these programs because they don't believe in them. They would throw the whole system away rather than reform it. Maybe if they are in long enough to cut everything, every single system we have, and then it will have been so long that the Liberals have no idea what it used to be like and get in on a platform of bringing those systems back, but have to do it from scratch.

The Debates

2008-10-03T09:43:00.005-04:00

I started a post about the French Debate yesterday, but I got distracted and then watched the English debate last night. Thus you get a twofer!

I felt the French Debate was very much a four on one brawl in which Harper constantly was being assaulted by all the other party leaders with little chance to respond. However this could have been because I was watching the English dubbed version and perhaps I missed out on one word answers to questions etc. Regardless I left the debate feeling very empty because no politician seemed to answer any of the questions directly. Everything was a dance and very uninformative.

I felt the English Debate was considerably better. When a direct allegation was made, that person was able to respond. I felt that several points were answered directly, and people got much more right down too it. The following is a leader by leader analysis after both debates:

Gilles Duceppe
Before this election I had never actually heard Duceppe speak, nor had I really ever thought of the BLOC as anything more than raving separatist lunatics. Duceppe changed my opinion almost immediately after speaking. He is clearly a smart man, who has the pseudo-professor sophistication of Dion combined with the pseudo-common man plainness of Harper. Honestly if he would just change some of his policies I would vote for him in a heartbeat. He is passionate about Quebec, and he clearly feels pride in it. I don't get that feeling from any of the other party leaders about anything (except Dion when he says BOOK hehe). He does have some downsides of course, theoretically the separatism (but he didn't mention it once in either debate) but mainly during the debate he kept interrupting when he would ask Harper a direct question. Granted Harper wasn't giving a direct answer, but he WAS getting around to it. All in all I think even in his current form he would make an excellent leader of the opposition. (personally his protectionist policies for manufacturing jobs are too much for me to want him to be PM)

Stephen Harper
I've voted for Steve twice before and I really didn't want to vote for him this time. He pissed me off by calling the election, and I honestly think he's been allowed to be a bully too long. However during these debates he held his own, stuck to his guns, and frankly came out as the winner in my mind. (for my vote, Honestly I don't think anybody won the debates)

Elizabeth May
May got in several great points and really got me thinking that maybe the Green's weren't a bunch of crazypants! Then she starts talking about how the Conservatives have the largest amount of personal data collected for 'analysis' than any other government in Canadian history and It makes me think she wants to go for her tin foil hat. Honestly I have decided that despite several reasons to like the Green Party, and May, overall they are still too fringe and not fit to govern. I also LOVED the fact that the Green Party platform want's to discontinue or severely curtail mineral exploration and mining in this country, yet May lamented the loss of three 'great' Canadian companies, all three of which are mineral exploration/mining companies. Hudson Bay, Inco, and Falconbridge.

Stéphane Dion
Dion Dion Dion... I REALLY wanted to WANT to vote for you since you won the nomination for your party's leadership waaay back. However since then you have done nothing to really pull me in and show me that you would lead our country best, and a Liberal government would be good for Canadians. You have reiterated that it was the government of Chrétien that fixed the financial mess of Mulroney and I think a very valid point was made when Layton cursed the government of Chrétien for cutting hospital beds and shoving financial responsibilities on the provinces to fix that mess. Yet you claim to want to continue the Liberal method of 'fixing' our economy and I honestly don't think we have enough hospital beds left. Yes the Liberals got us out of deficit spending, yes we paid for it dearly, no we shouldn't go back to deficit spending, no we shouldn't cut the bone when the fat is gone.

Jack Layton
Jack, I've never met you (although my wife met you wife and she said she was nice.) but I'm going to go out on a limb and say your an asshole. Your tactless attack ads and 'one liner zingers' as one of your aides put it do nothing to promote the values supposedly found within the 'New Democrats'. These debates have shown me that not only do I disagree with your policies, I also disagree with you personally. I hope you leave politics and your party is incorporated into a new PAN-Canada non separatist BLOC with Duceppe as leader.

So that's it, the cat's out of the bag. I'm going to vote Conservative... again as the best of the worst options. Frankly I disliked Harper's attack ads so much and his abortive attitude on his own government that I thought I would vote for anybody but him, but the other parties have even less going for them than the Conservatives. *sigh*

It's Late

2008-10-01T00:59:00.005-04:00

So it's 1:00am and I can't sleep because I am thinking about ways to improve the country. Is that sad, pathetic, or patriotic?

Anyway I normally think allot about Canada, but I've been thinking about it especially since I enrolled in a Canadian History course (post confederation). Today was our first group discussion and I was grouped with two first generation Canadians, and one second generation. They all had good things to say about Canada, but one theme seemed consistent; They were annoyed that Canada lacks definition of a 'normal'.

They love that every culture is celebrated, but they also want something to bring everybody together. I also want this, and it pleases me that they were so receptive to the concept. I figured I would put forth one possible plan that I think has merit.

I want a Canadian Monarchy.

I know what your thinking; We already have one! Well your right we do have a monarchy, but honestly it's not all ours. I don't mind Elizabeth II and she has visited Canada more than any monarch in our past, but she cannot always be operating in our interests, and regardless of weather you like her or not she doesn't represent Canada. Let me explain.

While we have very few laws that govern who our monarch is, by tradition we just elect whoever the British put forward. (this tradition is mostly theoretical because I am pretty sure we only gained the ability to disagree with the Brits in or around 1950 and Elizabeth became queen in 1952).

The British Monarch is legally not allowed to be Catholic, based on a law that dates back I think 1688. Additionally they are considered the head of the Church of England, which essentially means that they will be Anglican or pretend to be. This is not in line with Canadian pluralistic values and freedom of religion.

The British Monarch is also subject to Agnatic Primogeniture which means that the first born son in a family inherits the realm, disregarding women. Again a conflict.

While all of Canada has had a British Monarch since the 1760's there is still much resentment that a Britain sits atop the Canadian thrown by non British Canadians. (Predominantly French Canadians)

I think these three points best represent why the current monarchy is not in our best interest. So with these points one could say why not just declare a republic and be done with it. I guess I could say that I like the crown, but also I don't think a republic would do it.

Canadians (even very new Canadians) are used to a monarch, or even like having a monarch (as a way of NOT being American) and frankly with the constitutional limits on the monarchy, an appointed monarch would be no different than an appointed president, so why not?

Why does all of this matter? Who would be King? Isn't Kingdom just as sexist as Agnatic Primogeniture (since there isn't the equivalent Queendom)? I would say your right, and that's why I don't think a King, or a Kingdom is in order for the new Canadian Monarchy. I personally think we should redub ourselves as an Empire.

Empire is a gender neutral term (as Emperor and Empress both work) and I personally think that it much better represents Canada. We are a collection of races, cultures, languages, and religions. We are not a Kingdom by the grace of God, we are an Empire by the choice of our People. Think of it, the first Empire in history that obtained it's cultural diversity not entirely through war and expansion, but mostly by encouraging immigration!

Some very good questions come to mind, such as how to handle succession, and peerage (royal titles), and a host of other things. I'm not sure to be honest, but I do like the idea of living in an Empire, especially one that publicly promotes Cultural Diversity (by not being restricted to foreign monarchs), Religious Freedom (by not being the head of a state run church), and Women's Rights (by not passing over someone for being a Woman).

Perhaps we could have a plebiscite each time the monarch dies, in which case any and all Canadians would be on the ballot. Perhaps not every Canadian, as the idea is to create an ideal figurehead so I would think no criminal record.

Regarding peerage, I'm not sure if it would be required to be honest. Theoretically the Senate would fill that roll in the past so maybe their appointment would be enough.

American Debate

2008-09-27T10:04:00.007-04:00

I watched the American Presidential Debate last night and it was rather interesting. I've never actually heard either man talk at length before, and I've heard that Obama is considered the premier orator of our time. Frankly neither man is a great orator, but at least both are leagues above Bush. I think there is an aura around Obama that is giving him much more credence that he deserves.

It was interesting to listen to both of them and then compare and contrast them to Canadian politicians. Basically Obama sounds allot like Layton and McCain sounds allot like Harper. Of course the central core to their political beliefs will be different but the rhetoric they shovel back and forth is the same.

Personally I felt the debate was a draw. McCain scored a slight amount with questioning Obama's experience and Obama scored back with questioning the value of that experience. I don't know if it was because I'm not an American thus not embroiled up in their politics, but I found the debate much less infuriating than listening to our own politicians.

I started this BLOG because I was very confused and agitated about who to vote for this election. I was tremendously confused and irritated. It's now half way through the campaign and I feel like I'm going to vote Conservative, but several things they have said are really starting to bother me. I don't think it's enough to change my vote, but I will watch Harper very close during his next term (assuming he gets in).

I had written before that I felt the Liberal campaign was dead in the water, but now I'm not so sure. Dion seems to be making a resurgence, and he seems relatively strong at least in the last day or so. It will be interesting to see how the rest of the campaign goes.

Interesting

2008-09-25T18:26:00.005-04:00

A few days ago I wrote about a Man Who Died in a Winnipeg ER after 34 hour wait. Well according to this article it turns out that he was a legless homeless aboriginal man.

The article goes on to say that this and other issues with Aboriginals in hospital ER's are the result of racism. (instead of overworked and underfunded administration as I put forward). It speaks of another incident where a man with a broken jaw was first asked to leave, and then we he came back forcibly restrained because the hospital staff 'said' he was drunk. The article then goes on to advocate having an Aboriginal liaison at all hospital ER's to make sure 'their' people get proper treatment.

I'm sorry this man died. It was a preventable death and a tragedy. But right now I'm going to loose my cool and swear a little bit.

What a load of bullshit! This story about a man who was 'called' drunk is the worst kind of racist bullshit. I personally have seen the crap administration staff go through and I cannot imagine someone who was being calm and relaxed would be refused service and LABELLED a drunk just because he was Aboriginal, and then later beaten down for not 'knowing' his place. Utter and complete bullshit. The guy was probably drunk out of his fucking mind and wouldn't sit down and wait like everybody else, and when he got belligerent they asked him to leave, and when he came back they called security.

We need to fix how someone can just be allowed to die in a waiting room of all places, but the way to go about it isn't to blame the system for Aboriginal woes.

Harper and the Arts

2008-09-25T11:37:00.003-04:00

Harper raised hell recently when he made some comments critical of Canada's Arts Community. Here is a great article on the issue.

I think it's funny to look at what exactly Harper said, and what he's being accused of. He said:

I think when ordinary working people come home, turn on the TV and see ... a bunch of people at a rich gala ... all subsidized by the taxpayers, claiming their subsidies aren't high enough when they know those subsidies have gone up, I'm not sure that's something that resonates with ordinary people

Harper was talking about the French Canadian Gemini awards (The Gemeaux). I cannot tell you what they said, nor can I verify Harpers statement that subsidies have actually gone up. (which by the way should be the real problem with his quote).

What I can tell you though is that Harper is right. My entire life my family has done nothing but bitch and complain about whiny actors/actress' on stage at events begging for more money and demanding higher subsidies.

I've personally gotten offended when I've gone to the Manitoba Theatre Centre. I had just got to the point in my life where I was able to afford tickets and each performance I am greeted with a 20min long sermon on how I need to donate more because what they have is just not enough and it's 'obvious' that I can give more.

Arts are important. They are an intrinsic part of our culture and identity. I don't think Harper advocated destroying the arts with that quote, and it irritates me that I live in a country that can't take criticism.

However this is a political campaign and frankly Harper is just as guilty as everybody else in jumping on the bandwagon whenever anybody makes what is perceived as a slip up.

Liberal Election Hopes Dead In Water

2008-09-23T14:07:00.005-04:00

At least that's what I think after reading this. Methinks Dion has to go if the Liberals ever want a chance at being elected ever again.

I was watching an interview with Don Newman and Dion yesterday and Newman just tore into the poor guy. Dion was adamant that the Liberals improved the economy after Mulroney 'ruined' it and they would do so again after Harper. Newman then piped up that several factors combined that allowed the Liberals to improve the economy at that time and none of those same factors currently exist, so how can they hope to achieve the same success now. I thought that was a fair question, but all Dion had to say was that the Liberals did it before and they can do it again... because they govern from the Centre...???

I couldn't believe what I was hearing and I'm glad I never voted for this idiot. Maybe next time if someone with a backbone and some wits about them is Liberal Leader but at least Dion allowed me to cross him off my list.

Manitoba Man Found Dead After 34Hour Wait In ER

2008-09-23T12:19:00.004-04:00

That was the headline of this article and I tell you, even I was surprised.

The Filmon Government of the 1990's was harangued and harassed about hallway medicine and people dying waiting for treatment. It was rightfully so and Doer got in on a promise to correct these horrible mistakes.

In the first few years of the Doer Government people also died in ER rooms, and it was blamed on Filmon's mess. Doer promised to make it better and to be perfectly honest it looked like he had.

However this incident is different. This man was not even checked out by the triage nurses. I have a theory of how this happened. It has no facts, just my crazy thinking. Tell me what you think.

I figure He was more than likely told to go sit down and wait for 'a few minutes' by a nurse who was working her 17th hour of a 16 hour shift. I bet you he died minutes after sitting down. The nurse then went off shift not even giving him a second thought. He wasn't bleeding out of his eyes or anything and he would be checked in soon enough.

Regardless since he was already dead he didn't check in and the new nurse coming on shift had no idea about him, nor any inclination to check on him. Of course until 34 hours later when he probably fell over or started to smell.

I know the above is not fact, it's just how I see this theoretically playing out. He wasn't checked out by Triage, why or how I'm sure an investigation will find out in five or six years. Regardless; I've been to ER's before in Manitoba and when it's good you wait an hour, when it's bad you wait allot longer.

I don't know how to fix it, and frankly I'm sick of the debate. It is clear to me like so many of our social programs in this country that Healthcare is broken. Should it continue to be the dominion of Provinces? Should we allow two or three tiers? What should the government be expected to pay so that it's people can be healthy and happy? I don't know, and I'm not qualified to give those answers.

I know many people would just love to jump on the bandwagon of 'If you want to change Healthcare you obviously want the American System'. The world is not us and them, CAN and US, or black and white. I don't know if the American system is a good one (from what I've read it seems to cost twice as much as ours per person, but I don't know if that's per person enrolled or per person in country. For us it's the same thing but not so for them), but I do know that ours isn't working the way it should and we should look everywhere at every example to assess, critique, and ultimately change our own system!

Montreal goes car-free for a day.

2008-09-22T09:40:00.006-04:00

I just caught this article and thought, hey that's a nice idea.

Then I started thinking about the public transit system in Montreal? Is it any good? I can only imagine if they tried this in Winnipeg :)

Canadian Satire

2008-09-19T12:40:00.018-04:00

I grew up on two political satire shows. Royal Canadian Air Farce (recently redubbed Air Farce Live) and This Hour has 22 Minutes.

I loved these shows, and couldn't wait each week for the next installment. Since becoming an adult I've found that not only can I not stand these shows, I think they're just plain poor. (That's Canadian for They Suck).

I don't know if it was because I was younger and the amateurish imitations of politicians appealed to me, or maybe I was just brain dead (I also used to love Full House and Family Matters). In any event neither show does anything for me, especially since Rick Mercer left 22 Minutes.

Now, Mercer has his own show called The Mercer Report. I thought this would be an excellent show allowing me to enjoy my favourite part of 22 Minutes but for the whole show. Unfortunately the show is a lame duck 2/3rd's of the time. I can enjoy it, but it rarely bites like good satire should.

Recently I started watching American satire shows The Daily Show & The Colbert Report. These shows are funny. Damn funny in fact. They are biting, witty, and enjoyable to watch. They are also on four times a week.

Personally I think that Canadian satire shows need to take several pages from their American counterparts and hire better script writers, go four or five times a week, and become enjoyable again. Some say that there isn't enough going on in Canada for a four episode per week format. I say to that bollox. Do you honestly think there is that much of interest that goes on in the USA for an hour (Daily+Colbert) each day? It's not the source, it's how you frame it. I saw Jon Stewart talk for at least five minutes about what seemed to be a 2 minute interview on Fox News with Sarah Palin. Granted this particular skit wasn't comedy gold but it was still funny, and it was TOPICAL.

Take a look at the latest 'blog' entry from Rick Mercer: (I say 'blog' because it's just a text version of his on show rant)

He is talking about the election we are having right now, but it sounds like it was written a year ago (with Sarah Palin added to be TOPICAL).

First it talks about the scary 'Harper Hidden Agenda' which really hasn't been spoken about for about a year

*edit* Apparently he is an idiot savant. This article from Sept 13th quotes Dion talking about the Harper hidden agenda again. I guess Dion flogs the same dead horse as Mercer.

Second it calls Stephane Dion the Liberal Interim leader... who was Bill Graham before the 2007 leadership convention...???

And last it talks about a 'soon to be called' election. This entry is dated September 8th, the day after the election was announced.

Now as if the entry wasn't bad enough, but what about since the election? Not a word online. I didn't watch the show this week but I'm betting they delay online content a week to guarantee people watch the show. This is just too long. I can watch the entire episode of Daily Show or Colbert Report online the day after it plays on air. Not just read a transcribed rant gussied up to look like a BLOG entry a week after it was aired even though it was already stale then.

Canada Silent on Finland Broadband plan....er What?

2008-09-19T12:40:00.017-04:00

I was reading this story from the MotherCorp and it seemed rather critical of Canada's inaction when it comes to getting high speed internet to our rural population. Finland has just pledged about $100 million dollars towards getting all rural homes in Finland high speed internet (1mbps) by 2010 and really high speed (100mbps) by 2016 (fully 1/3 of the entire cost for the plan).

I don't see why we should be looking at or commenting on Finland for doing such things. By doing a quick wiki I have the following figures:

Finland
Population: 5,320,102
Density: 16/km²
Area: 338,145 km²

Canada
Population: 33,378,000
Density: 3.2/km²
Area: 9,984,670 km²

Now I don't have all the answers, but lets assume that aside from these factors all things are equal. (I know they aren't but I have a hunch that if I could account for them it would just prove my point more).

The full cost of getting 5.3 million people over 340 thousand square kilometres is about $300 million dollars. That's about $57 per person with a density of 16/km².

To extrapolate that into Canada we are looking at about 33 million people over just under 10 million square kilometres. Without even calibrating for density just a direct crossover it would cost just under $2B with our population. Now considering our density is so much lower than theirs, it's actually more like $10B.

Again I am not accounting for anything outside my numbers because I don't have that information, but still the CBC is wondering why we don't have $3.3B (1/3 of the project cost) just lying around to get High Speed Internet to rural Canadians???

*edit*
I guess I messed up when I tried to post this earlier because I had another section before. Regardless here it is again.

What about ability to pay?

I don't have any figures when it comes to Finland's annual budget but I can use GDP as a proximate figure for economic well being and extrapolate from that. (Now I sound like a Climate Scientist).

Finland's Nominal GDP is $245.491B Dollars. Their contribution of $100M Dollars is approx 0.04% of GDP. Canada's theoretical contribution of $3.3B Dollars would be approx 0.24% of GDP.

Again I cannot stress this enough that I know using GDP to guess at annual budgets is bad economics. I'm just using it as a comparison of theoretical economic health. I also know you cannot spend your GDP (I wish we could though, new rail network here we come :D).

Regardless looking at the comparisons I can conclude that Finland looks like it can afford $100M Dollars much more than Canada can afford $3.3B Dollars.

Evolution and the Catholic Church

2008-09-17T12:21:00.005-04:00

I just came across this article that says that the Catholic Church does not owe Darwin a posthumous apology. This comes on the heels of the Anglican Church offering Darwin an apology for the cool reception his ideas received 150 years ago.

Frankly I don't see why the Anglican Church nor the Catholic Church should have to apologize for the reception Darwin received. His book wasn't banned, his ideas weren't declared heretical, nor was he condemned. The Catholic Church publicly endorsed evolution way back in the 50's which is a bit long for some, but considering there are denominations now in 2008 who claim the earth is only 6,000 years old and Satan created Dinosaurs to test the faith of Mankind I figure the Pope was at least neutral if not 'progressive'.

Anyway I bring this up mostly for a quote from the Vatican's Culture Minister Gianfranco Ravasi. In the article he states:

"Maybe we should abandon the idea of issuing apologies as if history was a court eternally in session..."

This is the funny thing about staying around for so long. You have to apologize for things you did that eventually become 'wrong'. I'm not sure what to make of his comment but it doesn't fill me with happy thoughts I'll tell you that.

Campaign Promises

2008-09-17T11:44:00.005-04:00

Different parties try to sway you with different promises. It's funny to see the Red's and the Orange promise things they know they cannot deliver. What is the Blue reaction? Promise to release something that should have been public years ago.

It seems that Harper is trying desperately to paint his Blue party as a sure thing in uncertain times, while the Red and Orange are trying to say that drastic action is needed in these unsure times because putting your head in the sand will not solve the problems. I usually don't agree with anything any of them says, BUT I do know that Harper's model gets you votes in Rural Areas, which if this article I read recently has any bearing means that he's on the right track to get elected.

Election Poll

2008-09-16T11:14:00.005-04:00

I really don't know who to vote for in the election. I was fairly ignorant when it came to thinking Harper was different. I remember while growing up my parents would always tell me that it didn't matter who you voted for, your always going to get screwed. I always thought they were being too negative. Now I'm not sure.

I've looked at the platforms of all the minor parties and most of them scare the hell out of me. As for the major ones the NDP has always irritated me, and while the Green's can be somewhat tempting, they have no concept of energy management or natural resource usage. Basically it boils down to I don't want any of them. Zero, Zilch, Nada. NONE!

I want a party that says things like:

Free Trade is good, and if Barak or John want to renegotiate NAFTA, sure no problem... It's going to be on our terms this time.

Paying down the National Debt is very important, because once it's paid off we can stop living like 'Penny Ante Americans' and actually build some new infrastructure.

Afghanistan hasn't gone well, and it hasn't gone well because of a lack of funding and a lack of proper engagement. Engagement needs to increase not only with local tribes and people, but neighbouring states.

Our Arctic is incredibly important to us. It has been neglected, and the people forgotten. This will stop now. Not six months from now, not six years, and it won't get stuck in an endless financing debate.

Health Care/Welfare/CFS/most social programs are broken, and fixing them does not entail simply shoving more money down their throats.

Native issues are strangling our country financially and culturally. They alienate our population, and cause disdain and hatred. All grievances need to be aired, weighed, and solved.

To be honest I've got more, but I would be happy with these. The Conservatives made some promises and sent out some pamphlets of allot of these after the last election, and then nothing. Not even a status report, just... nothing. So yeah I'm not sure.

Welcome

2008-09-16T11:01:00.005-04:00

Hello folks and welcome to my first BLOG post.

This is not the first BLOG I've attempted, but claiming a lineage of half done or aborted attempts does nothing for PR, so for all intents and purposes, this is my first BLOG post.

The content of this BLOG will not be consistently one topic, as while I may be a very boring individual, but I spread my drab interests across a wide variety of topics. For the most part you can expect comments on domestic issues, world issues, history, religion, and probably some movies as well. This does not rule out that I may one day make a post about the lint on my desk, or pet fashion.