Thoughts - By Simon Strasser

Why we need nuclear power (for now)

2011-05-30T20:25:00.002-05:00

One of my first campaigns as an environmentalist was to put up posters one night with a friend in Switzerland against nuclear power. I am still not a fan of the risks it poses or the fact that we pass the nuclear waste to generations coming after us to look after. But I have changed my mind and here's why:

To me the absolutely scariest thing we can pass on to our children and subsequent generations is the changing climate we are causing by CO2 emissions. That takes absolute priority #1 for me. Reducing CO2 emissions must happen in many ways one of which HAS to include switching from CO2 producing energy generation to NON CO2 emitting sources. There are some realities I have to face as an environmentalist - as much as I don't like some of them. Here they are:

1. Replacing traditional power sources is a daunting task. Solar, wind, geothermal, etc might eventually do it but it will take time (decades) even if get working on it at a whole new level compared to now.

2. We only have so much political will and economic incentives to play with. That's just a reality we have to face. Globally leaders are now taking action to phase out nuclear power. But look at what's happening - more coal and natural gas will be burnt to make up for it. Even in Germany and Switzerland! (see here for example).

3. It is not realistic to expect to phase out nuclear AND all the other CO2 producing energy sources. We may wish it was but it isn't.

4. In places where hydro is not an option on a large scale you're left with wind and solar (mainly) as alternatives. Those are not adequate to totally replace coal and gas (what would happen on a windless night?). There always has to be a stable predictable component as part of the energy mix. Wind and solar don't provide that.

It makes me really mad actually that around the world we are now seeing a growing move away from nuclear because of Fukushima. Not because I believe that nuclear is without risks but because I believe the risk of climate change is far greater. Now instead of putting our meager resources towards fighting the global rise in CO2 we are fighting nuclear power. Nuclear power is scary in a spectacular sort of way - Chernobyl, Fukushima - but has in fact killed few people compared to what the predictions for climate change are. Even compared to how many people die from respiratory diseases caused by coal fired power plants probably. The fact is (for me anyways) that on balance I would much rather take the risks and potential for radioactive pollution over what climate change promises to bring... I really do. I am not alone either - the prominent environmentalist George Monbiot makes a very good argument too.

We need nuclear power. For now. Imagining that the world will actually switch of fossil fuel burning and nuclear at the same time is simply not realistic and it's dividing our resources that we need to fight climate change. That is the only issue that needs to be solve IMMEDIATELY. I know I am not winning this fight - nuclear is now clearly on the way out - environmentalists are rejoicing - but they are hoping for something that won't happen - the replacement of nuclear with an almost unimaginable investment in renewables.

Let me say this in conclusion though: I believe that the real future is not nuclear, but a mix of renewables produced much more locally (to reduce loss in transmission). Imagine every roof with solar panels, small wind turbines in many locations, all houses heated by geothermal energy, wave generators on oceans, and small dams on many rivers and creeks (with fish ladders of course). It will take time to get there though and until we're there we will need nuclear as well.

The Per-Vote Subsidy is Good for Canada!

2011-05-17T22:07:00.005-05:00

For the last number of years we've had a per-vote subsidy in Canada. Meaning that for every vote a party gets it receives something like $2 in funding per year. This subsidy was brought in together with legislation severely limiting corporate and private donations to political parties. The Harper government is about to scrap this subsidy - which is sadly a popular move the consequences of which people unfortunately do not realize. Some points:

- Yes, it removes "tax payer" funding for a seperatist party.

- and yes, it means a party is responsible for it's own fundraising and can't depend on the government. Seems good right? Not so fast!

Ask yourself: Where will parties get their money from now? It will go back to big business and the wealthy providing the majority of support. Of course, politicians listen to those who control the money and so we are returning to the era where corporations and the most wealthy set the agenda for this country (as it is the case in the US already). The per-vote subsidy was in fact a way for the agenda of the people of Canada to be tied to party funding. Politicians really did work for the people of Canada. It's ironic that a government that proclaims exactly that - to advance the agenda of the people of Canada - is killing the subsidy and will undoubtedly be the big winner in this due to their support in the corporate community.

So who is the Harper government going to work for to a large degree? Not the people but in fact for those corporations which are supporting them. It's another example of how the Harper Conservatives seek to undermine democracy in this country and are doing it in a way that the majority of people do not realize what is really happening. And just conveniently killing the per-vote subsidy happens to cut a good chunk of the funding to all political parties except the Conservatives - and that's the real reason Harper is doing this.

Another Sad Day in the Harper Saga

2010-11-17T21:29:00.002-06:00

Today marks another sad day for our government and Canadian democracy. I am talking about the Conservatives killing of bill C-311 in the Senate. This was a bill on climate change that was finally going to put something less than pathetic and embarrassing in writing in Ottawa. This bill has been bounced around the Hill for over a year and now it's come to a sad end.

Several things that are really quite noteworthy about this:
1. It's highly hypocritical that Harper is using the Senate to do his work now that it's convenient to him. Had this been a Liberal tactic a few years ago you wouldn't have heard the end of it from the Conservatives. It would have outraged the reformers out West who proclaim to so strongly believe in Senate reform (or even it's abolition). But as we've already seen numerous times, when it comes to getting his way Harper has no qualms about finagling with democracy just about as much as our system allows (recall our two prorogations!!)

Personal note: I personally do not believe that the Senate voting down a bill constitutes an attack on democracy as such necessarily (but this bill wasn't even debated in the Senate!)... but Harper and his Conservatives SHOULD given how they've been lambasting the Senate for so long...

2. It's another sad day for climate change action (or lack thereof) in Canada. Yet again we are showing no leadership whatsoever but lagging behind just about anybody else out of fear of job losses supposedly (among other things). Had we shown leadership sooner we could by now have a vibrant green technologies sector employing a growing workforce. We could be leaders and benefit from it! Beyond that, climate change is maybe the greatest threat to our security of all time. That should matter to Conservatives. But that brings me to my third point:

3. Without saying it out loud (mostly) Harper and his party actually still doesn't believe climate change is real. He's fired the scientists who are supposed to advice him on this (see my blog post from a couple of years ago)... he's going against just about every respectable climate change scientist.

I'm hoping one day Canada will lead again and show some vision and foresight. That we again will proudly take a stand, even it if isn't convenient at this very moment.

What's in our budget bill?

2010-08-25T22:30:00.002-05:00

Well this is a little late to comment on... but I'm finally blogging again and this seemed like a very important piece of politics to comment on.

In the US it has long been a custom to dump all kinds of unrelated items into budget bills. It's an easy way to pass things without much notice and sometimes to avoid defeat as defeating a budget bill is pretty serious. In Canada that would in fact lead to the government falling and so now it seems our Prime Minister has adopted this practice as well to pass all kinds of things that would make your hair raise if you knew about it... sadly few people do. It's called an omnibus bill and it's referred to as C-9. Here's a few things I found out:

This "budget bill" tackles environmental assessment. It gives the environment minister (hmm... is that likely to be someone with expertise in environmental assessment?) the power to waive assessments on a wide range of commercial projects. Apparently this includes tar sands projects and pipelines! Wow! It also sets up provisions to tell Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. without consulting parliament, and will allow overseas operations of Canada Post to be privatized.

It's not even so much what's being forced through parliament that worries me but the blatant abuse of our democratic system. A government should represent it's people and Harper is bending all the rules he can to push through his agenda over what he majority of Canadians support (let's not forget one of the most undemocratic moves to ever happen in this country, when Harper TWICE shut down parliament through prorogation with absolutely NO real excuse other than to avoid scrutiny or defeat). This all has very dictatorial undertones. Now this might sound extreme, and I think it's for that reason many Canadians just don't see the outrage of what's happening - it doesn' t seem real that we'd have to worry about our basic democratic principles. But it is real.

Time for a post

2010-02-01T18:06:00.003-06:00

Well, this must be one of the least active blogs out there. But I figured it was about time to post something again.

Let's start with an update. I've moved again (didn't I just move a few posts ago lol?).
Now I'm in Sudbury for an awesome new job!

One of the hot topics up here is the miner's strike. But I won't even touch that one because I don't really know enough about it and it's sort of a hot potato. Let's just say I hope the strike ends soon and they can all go back to work because this city would be happier if that was the case. For that to happen I think both sides would have to offer some concessions. Well, that's true in most situation where there's a strike isn't it?

What else? ... well on the political front there's nothing happening because apparently our prime minister can just decide to shut down parliament. For however long it pleases him it seems. Does something about this sound wrong to you? (At least for a "modern democracy" as ours professes to be?). Actually it's really wrong and I find it comical (in a sad way) that the party that used to love calling the Chretien Liberal government a "dictatorship" is now doing things that are way further away from the spirit of democracy. Shame on them all!

... can't say I'm excited about Ignatieff though. I wish somebody like Paul Martin or Frank McKenna came back to give it another shot. Maybe we'll have to wait for Justin Trudeau... but do Canadians actually like a politician with Charisma? I think we distrust that almost on principle here... it seems to "American" maybe...

Well, what a random post, but there you go. I should post more!

Climate Change Deniers Appointed to Top Boards

2009-06-08T20:11:00.001-05:00

... well reading this made me feel the need to make a post! Straight from a Green Party news release.

OTTAWA--In another behind the scenes attack on science, the Conservative government has appointed well-known climate change deniers to key funding agency positions, setting the stage for shutting down much needed research in Canada. "I am unfortunately not surprised by this newest outrage," said Elizabeth May, Leader of Canada’s Greens. "This Conservative government has displayed itself to be anti-science. We are losing our top researchers to the United States and other countries where the urgent need for research on climate change is recognized."

The Fraser Institute's Mark Mullins, a critic of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has been appointed to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), joining mathematician Christopher Essex, who calls climate change a myth. Another climate change denier, Harper's former chief of staff John Weissenberger (who works for Husky Energy in Alberta) was appointed to the board of the Canada Foundation for Innovation. These two funding agencies are a significant source of research monies for academic work on climate change. "The very fact that these appointees refuse to acknowledge the scientific consensus surrounding climate change calls into question their competency to sit on these funding boards," said Lisa Fox, Environment Critic for the Greens. "Credibility in the scientific community should be an important qualification for deciding which academic studies will be funded."

The Conservative government is becoming known for its record of inserting politics into science. In the spring of 2006, all IPCC material was yanked off of the Environment Canada website and Environment Canada scientists have been muzzled ever since. When the Nobel Prize was awarded to 200 of Canada's top scientists, the Harper government utterly failed to recognize their achievement. Many climate change related programs have been forced to fold due to funding cuts. The future of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Research is also in jeopardy, as their funding is not being renewed.

"The Conservative government's latest attack on scientific research in Canada is way over the top. Part of the purpose of having independent granting agencies such as NSERC is to insulate the funding of science from political interference. We are missing opportunities, losing scientists, and losing the respect of researchers worldwide,” said Ms. May.

False Global Warming Argument

2008-12-13T23:17:00.000-06:00

I just ran across this while talking to my science students. So I thought I'd summarize the issue: Over the Earth's history there is an incredible correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and average temperature. When you look at the curves closely though you observe that CO2 levels go up a few hundred years AFTER the temperatures start rising. Doesn't this show that it is NOT CO2 that causes global warming? (this is the argument of the anti-global warming lobby). The answer is no, and here is why:
In the past change came about because the Earth's orbit changes. When the orbit was favourable to warm climate the ocean's temperatures started going up. Warm water cannot hold as much CO2 (and our oceans are the largest CO2 storage). So after a few hundred years CO2 levels start rising. At this point a feedback develops (more CO2 -> warmer temps). So CO2 still led to warmer temperatures but the initial kick came from the Earth's particular orbit.

Our situation today is unique because the temperature increase is initiated by an increase in CO2 in the first place (our orbit is NOT in a configuration favouring warmer temperatures - so you can't explain warming in this way). Now as temperatures rise the oceans will start releasing CO2 in addition to what we are already doing.

This is why the argument against CO2 being responsible for global warming does not hold. It is a tricky one and one that many people unfortunately don't know the whole picture about.

Governing Canada

2008-12-04T21:00:00.002-06:00

Today I'm angry ashamed and disgusted. What is going on in Ottawa is an absolute disgrace on all sides. Here's my view point by point:
- I don't believe there is this huge urgency to bail out various companies as the "coalition" suggests... heck not even the Americans have bailed out the auto sector yet. So I'm with Harper on this one.
- BUT. Then why did he propose to scrap striking rights, and end public funding for political parties (the idea of which is to reduce big business influence on politics) in his economic update? Harper obviously figured nobody was going to have the guts to challenge him so he was going rule like he has a majority and ruin the other parties financially while he was at it. Shameful and unnecessary.
- It is NOT undemocratic for a coalition to take over the government if they feel they have more in common that what separates them.
- What IS undemocratic is for Harper to shut down parliament at this critial time. How can he justify this other than to say he wants to save his own skin - and NOTHING gets done in the meantime for Canada at this critical time. It is a dictatorial move - and not the first one by Harper.
- Why the heck Dion thought he could lead this coalition is beyond me. He is the weak link and nobody wants to see this guy as prime minister. I cannot understand how the Liberals (and NDP) let this escalate with such a weak leader. These past few days they should have sat down with the Conservatives to come up with a plan they can support. I believe the Conservatives where humbled enough to actually cave in on the major issues.
- It is too bad Quebec has once again been demonized. Harper hinged his whole rejection of letting his government fall to the coalition on the Bloc's support in a measly three votes over the next 18 months. The Bloc has supported the Conservatives on numerous occations in the past and nothing was wrong with it then. We are once again playing politics with Canadian unity and once again we are throwing wood on the fires of seperatism. That is scary.
- Finally, this episode has once again thrown light onto this weird situation we have with a head of state who is expected to not act as such (making the PM the defacto head of state). The right decision for her would have been to refuse to shut down parliament (because there is NO reason to do so except to save the Conservative government). But she can't make that call because it would be an outrage if an appointed and perceived as ceremonial head of state overruled the PM.

I just truly hope it is not Canada itself that has become the stake in this high power game. I love this country and I am angry to see how our politicians are dragging it through the dirt without regard for how seriously the consequences might be (economic and political).

unreal

2008-12-01T23:40:00.002-06:00

Canadian politics seem unreal right now.
What the hell is going on?

Let's all dance in the streets!

2008-11-10T09:00:00.004-06:00

It doesn't get any better than this as far as celebrating the historic US election. Enjoy! :)

It's the Economy Stupid!

2008-09-24T20:04:00.003-05:00

I am boiling watching the coverage of the US financial crisis. Here we have the whole political troop of them ignoring what was obviously a system that was headed for disaster for years. This system allowed practices bordering on predatory to lure people into borrowing money who could obviously not afford it. It was a sytstem that made the voter feel good (based on a lie) and allowed the fat cats to get fatter.

Now it's all crashing down and what is the best they can come up with? 700 billion (!!) dollars to bail out - guess who - the fat cats. And who's paying for it? The people on so called "main street" - in other words those who have already been dumped on once by exactly the industry they're now supposed to save.

I sort of get that letting it all collapse is not an option, so the plan may now be necessary, but what is the real outrage is that the politicians who are supposed to defend the interest of the common citizen failed so massively. They let a system get to a point where the only option left is bailing out ruthless businesses who should be watched much more closely. But guess who will make the big contributions to election campaigns...

It's sad and outrageous.

... and in Canada

2008-02-26T20:40:00.002-06:00

... the Conservatives deliver another boring budget.

I have been pleasantly surprised that Harper hasn't quite turned out to be the anti-christ, but on the other hand he hasn't done anything that I've noticed that has somehow stood out as bold leadership or visionary. Maybe that's not necessary. Maybe all you need to do is run a government smoothly and quietly and get the job done.

But here's the problem with this: we need some bold leadership right now. Canada has one of the most beautiful natural heritages in the world and we are doing very little to protect it. No sober thoughts go into how we are treating the environment for one of the dirtiest kinds of energy: oil from tar sands. We are throwing peanuts at the global warming issue which is undoubtedly going to affect Canada more severely than many other countries (because the temperature at the poles is predicted to change far more than anywhere else...). No bold leadership to support new technologies that could help us solve these problems.

... and quietly some very disturbing things have happened: Harper has dismissed the ONLY science advisor left to the government. He is threatening the senate to pass the crime bill (and the senate's best role has always been as a place for sober and less political second thought). Before that there was the whitewashing of the Afgan prisoner scandal, the loss of support for many programs (climate change initiatives, the national daycare program and the Kelowna accord to name just a few). I will give Harper one big compliment though: Some great new national parks are being created in the north and that is great news. I hope more is to come on that front!

I would like this country to be known for bold leadership, but I just don't see it and I don't know who can deliver it out of those suits currently running things. So it will remain boring and we will end up looking back and thinking "why didn't we take a chance and stand out a bit?".

What is Obama talking about?

2008-02-04T18:32:00.000-06:00

I like the guy but all I hear is this:
"We're tired of the old"
"We have enough of the politics of fear"
"We will bring new hope"

OK, Obi-Wan-Kenobi. Sounds fine, but what does it mean in concrete political terms? I have a feeling most American's don't know and neither does Obama. Maybe he's taken a page out of W's book who got elected twice without saying anything meaningful along the way.

Don't get me wrong though. I would never compare Obama with the W otherwise. I think he' s probably a great guy, and I would not fear for the world the way I do with Bush at the wheel. It would just be nice to hear something concrete. But maybe the american electorate prefers to do without that? It certainly hurt Al Gore that he had so much substance... too much substance.

For all our political problems in Canada I think that's one we don't have. Our current crop of party leaders all love to talk policy and have about as much charisma between them as a gaggle of geese. Canada Geese that is.

I'm a lamo poster

2008-01-23T07:28:00.000-06:00

Well, I though I might be getting back to posting something on a semi-regular basis, but unless you count 3 month intervals I'm not doing too well... Could it be because the world has become such a great place there is nothing for me to rant about anymore?

Very unlikely.

So I'll briefly bring this back up to date (imagine a whole post with each point below) LOL:
- I got my foot in the door of the museum world! I'm now a part-time space content specialst! :)
- I'm still in London, but living on my own again...
- I think the best democratic ticket would be Clinton w. Obama as a vice. He needs the experience... I am not sure why he's in such a hurry to be president. He's young and I am convinced would be a better president one day with a few more years under his belt.
- Too bad Al Gore didn't get back into this race (can't blame him though - given how he was treated last time around). But he's a guy I really respect.
- Go Habs Go. ... man the Leafs are blowing it again!
- Find out about the Security and Prosperity Partnership. In a quiet and creeping fashion Harper is giving up Canadian sovereignty and nobody seems to care. It's a bit scary really. The Green Party seems to be the only one raising this issue, but they aren't really being heard (that's why we need proportional representation).

... more some other time! Hopefully before 3 months have passed again!

Eat your veggies! ... and some meat too!

2007-10-14T09:03:00.000-05:00

Another interesting article in the Globe and Mail.

A Cornell study shows that eating plants is good for the planet but we should eat some meat too because eventhough it takes lots more land to feed cows than to grow veggies, cows can graze where veggies won't grow.

Here are some numbers from the article:

30% of Earth's surface is being used for livestock and feed production. That is 70% of the world's agriculture lands...

18% of global warming is due to livestock (methane production etc). More than all forms of transportation combined.

6.2:1 is the ratio of feed to meat production

pretty interesting I think.

Election time in Ontario!

2007-09-27T10:29:00.000-05:00

So, it's election time in Ontario and I decided to get involved. I guess I'm the ideal volunteer... lots of flexible time on my hands... So yesterday I drove around for quite a while (I live in a huge rural riding) posting Green Party signs at road intersections (and a few lawns as well).
The Green party has unprecedented support here (above 10%) but there aren't many volunteers, so it really feels like one can have a pretty direct impact on the campaign.

The big issue for me in this election is funding of religious schools. The conservatives promise to fund religious school if they get elected. They say it's fairness since Ontario funds Catholic schools but now other religious schools. I agree that that's not fair, but I actually think we should have ONE public school system. That's the most efficient, and the only way to ensure a uniform education. I do not want my tax dollars to go to teach creationism or even some form of sharia law! The Green party is for one school system (the only major party in Ontario with this most logical stance). If one really wants to help people who send their kids to private school we could give them an income tax rebate (since they don't use the public system). In my view that is quite different from funding those schools.

The other thing we get to do here is vote on a referendum. The question is if we want to go to a new electoral system, that will create better proportional representation. In the new system, in addition to the candidates who win their ridings, an additional number of candidates would be elected based on party support in the election (the parties would draw up a list to elect members from). I am very much in favour of this new system. It is high time that the voice of those voters who support small parties are heard!

Hey! Does this guy still exist?

2007-09-17T15:39:00.000-05:00

Yes, I do!
So you'd think having quit my job I'd have lots of time to blog... well I've had a busy summer... and I'm on a dial-up connection, so the posts have not been happenin'.
So what have I been up to? hmm... I travelled to Newfoundland for a week of wilderness camping and a wedding in St. Johns. Then I went to Calgary for 10 days to finish a paper and go on a couple of dives in Lake Minnewanka. After that I spent a week at a cabin near Pembroke ON, and then a week at my friend Chris' place. I went on another couple of dives - this time in Killarney (Georgian Bay). Then I came home and worked a bit on the farm, but soon I went off again for lots of shananigans at a cottage north of Sudbury. Finally I took my sister to Cedar Point (Ohio) for a couple of days. But now I'm back in London ON and I have no plans other than working on the farm and renovating a house on Richmond Street... ah yes and there is the issue of finding a job... I'm still not sure what I want to do, but I'm really seriously thinking of applying to teacher's college, but I also want to see what opportunities exist at museums or community colleges. The one thing I know is this: I love teaching and interacting with the public - so I should find a way to integrate that with my work.

MLB Hypocrisy (& Money)

2007-05-23T17:18:00.001-05:00

Last week Jason Giambi made an even clearer ambiguous statement about his past dope use (if such a thing exists). He sais he is sorry he "did that stuff". Now the Yankees are thinking about trying to get out of their ridiculous contract with him (claiming he breached the terms). I am all for being tough on steroids, and the current MLB policy is still a joke.

However - the hypocrisy of this situation is just incredible. We all knew that MLB players were doping up for many years. The Yankees wanted Giambi because of his potential to hit homers for them (not caring one bit how he did it). They agreed to pay Giambi some crazy amount of money (that's just like Steinbrenner). Now he's not hitting homers like he used to and so suddenly they act all angry and disappointed about his admitted use of "flaxseed oil" (or whatever Barry Bonds claims he used) and are looking into dumping him. It has nothing to do with steroids. As a matter of fact if Giambi could hit lots of homers and still dope (without being found out) the Yankees (and most other organizations) would be all for it.

In fact the Yankees threats against Giambi are encouraging players to remain silent (and lying) about their past dope use. It's all working out perfectly for the MLB: a wussy testing policy and threats of exile to Siberia for guys who come out and admit to dope use. It shuts up critics AND allow the continued use of steroids (homers = money) by guys who know how to exploit the huge holes in the testing system.

Way to go Bud Selig!

PS Selig should have the guts to go see Bonds hit his record homer. He oversaw the steroid era proudly, after all, until it suddenly became a problem for people outside the game. He should actually stand there afterward and publicly take credit for bringing in so much money and allowing guys like Bonds to "grow" into the players who reinvigorated the MLB that became so lame after the 94 strike.

The Quest for Lord Stanley's Mug

2007-05-15T01:46:00.000-05:00

The NHL playoffs are getting interesting! ... sadly without my Habs having ever even been in it this year. So I'm cheering for the Senators. They had a beauty of a game against the Sabres tonight and I'm looking forward to seeing them play in the cup final! So - GO SENS GO.

A lot of hot air

2007-05-06T22:41:00.000-05:00

Well, I'm glad to hear that the Canadian government is setting "tough new standards" to clean up the air and reduce greenhouse gases. At least that's what I heard in a commercial on the radio last night.

At last! We are doing something! We are airing commercials. What a joke.

I can't even express how disappointed I am in the lack of leadership on the environment from the Canadian government. The Conservatives only brought in a half baked bill after the issue of global warming has obviously become about as big as health care. They boast on how tough these standards are, and how they are the first to do something. They forget to mention that they cancelled all kinds of programs last year when the environment wasn't such a hot topic. And as to the toughness of the new legislation... well it's lukewarm action (even the Alberta oil patch says they can work with it - which tells me that it's not tough enough) that lacks imagination and concrete proposals on how the goals will actually be achieved.

We are so afraid to hurt our economy we are completely missing the boat actually becoming a world leader in the new economy - the economy of sustainability. In the long run this will actually cause us to miss out on investment.

Oh, and a word on the Liberals. Stephane Dion talks green pretty well. But the Conservatives are right: The Liberals failed to take any action (other than talking) for their entire time in power. So I don't know, unfortunately, if I could even trust Dion to actually do something should he get the chance. Right now all his green talk seems pretty hypocritial to me frankly (though I am glad that the issue is at least kept front and centre by the Liberals).

This generation of politicians will be remembered one day for their big talk and their little action, when imagination and foresight could have made Canada into a world leader in tackling one of the most daunting challenges to ever face humanity.

Learning from Bush

2007-04-25T11:59:00.000-05:00

It seems that sadly the Harper government is starting to take lessons from the Bush administration on how to paint a rosy picture of a war that is increasingly going from bad to worse. The Globe and Mail reports some disturbing findings:
1. A report prepared for the Canadian government detailing, among other things, prisoner abuse by Afghan police (to whom Canada turns over prisoners it captures), is denied to exist.
2. When it becomes obvious the report does in fact exist it is released...
3. Heavily censored for "security reasons". The interesting thing is that all reference to torture, abuse, things going badly in general is blacked out while the positive developments are left in. The article linked above paints a pretty appalling picture frankly.

What does Harper think? That we're too stupid to see through this? That nobody will notice? To me this is another heavy handed attempt by the Conservatives to control information and twist the truth. Unfortunately this is becoming a hallmark of this government. I hope Canadians don't fall for it. Personally I am increasingly disgusted. So much for the promise of an honest government. It's a shame!

Circumcision

2007-03-28T11:40:00.000-05:00

In response to this article (it can be found in various forms all over the news today).

This topic makes me angry enough to write a post. The facts are:
1. A study has found a large drop in HIV infections in circumcised men.
2. The UN recommends circumcision for heterosexual men based on that.
3. I realize that HIV/AIDS is an extremely serious problem in the world.

Circumcision is male genital mutilation. That's it. It is the only form of simply snipping something off the human body that is accepted. The reason for that is cultural. Circumcision used to be part of initiation rites (and still is in some religions). This is the only reason we accept it in our modern culture. Yes it has big benefits in reducing HIV infections, but that's not the point. It is not acceptable in my opinion to cut off part of the male anatomy as a health measure. I mean, would be cut of various other body parts if it was found to be beneficial? No. The human body is made the way it is, and should be left the way it is. The key to HIV prevention is not circumcision but education, condom use, and proper funding for programs to help the poor in the third world. HIV has become a minor problem in Europe and North America through those measures (and at least most European men are not "cut") - the same is possible in Africa and Asia if the will is there. To simply recommend mutilating men throughout Africa is not a solution - it is a cop-out.

You may say, "what's the big deal? Lots of men are circumcised and they don't mind". That's true, but they don't know what they are missing (they can never compare before and after - men who get circumcised in mid-life say it has a huge negative impact on their sexual lives), and I am convinced that such a traumatic event in early childhood or even adolescence can leave lasting psychological damage. It simply seems barbaric to me to just cut off parts of the body. Most people would be apalled if it was suggested that for example women should be "circumcised", even if great health benefits existed. It should be the same way for men (and especially in the US - where HIV infection is not even a major concern in most demographics - but the US is one of the only first world countries where a majority of boys get circumcised - for God knows what reason but certainly not medical) .

... it's been so long

2007-02-13T14:13:00.000-06:00

Just letting everyone know I still exist.
I've stopped blogging for a long time. I may never start again... who knows.
Since I last blogged much has happened.

My life has changed. It continues to change.
I hope I will end up happy somewhere. I hope I can make a positive difference somewhere or for someone.

Take care my friend.

Texas redistricting

2006-06-28T10:24:00.000-05:00

In reference to this CNN article.

The US supreme court has thrown out a small part of the Republican engineered redistricting in Texas. Apparently oddly shaped districts were finaggled to grab some extra Republican seats. One of those will have to be fixed.

The real problem here is that decisions about redistricting and election mechanics in general are in the hands of politicians to begin with. It is hard for me to understand how a modern democracy accepts as normal such a blatant conflict of interest. Fair elections in the US are under constant attack from politicians with their own interests. This is one example. The obvious example that had the biggest political impact was Florida 2000. A decision on recounts should have never been in the hands of Republican appointees, and even the Supreme Court in the end made a partisan decision.

Electoral boundaries should be created by an independent body. Canada provides a good example of a modern and fair system. Elections Canada makes all the decisions related to riding boundaries, number of MP's and election mechanics (such as where to place polling stations). Elections Canada is completely independent from the government, as it should be.

On Iraq

2006-06-21T16:50:00.000-05:00

I don't know if I'm supposed to be happy or sad about the news from Iraq today.
Seven US soldiers are facing charges of murder of an innocent man, and unrelated charges in at least one other incident where Marines apparently slaughtered even women and children are probably still forthcoming in the near future. The good thing is, I guess, that at least something is being done to punish the perpetrators, but overall it's a very sad story.

Not the kind of story you need to win over hearts and end terrorism. Together with Guatanamo (and today Bush says he wants to close it - I'll believe it when it happens), Abu-Graib, and the entire Iraq invasion to begin with this has been a huge setback in the only "war on terror" that can be won. The war that builds a better image of the west among Muslims.

Now on to part 2. While I think the Iraq invasion was a huge mistake, I have to say that I am disgusted with the politicians who now want a "withdrawal deadline", most likely for political reasons. It is especially hypocritical for guys like John Kerry who voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq several years ago.
The fact is America entered Iraq. There is no easy way out. Pulling out before the country is ready to face up to sectarian violence would be a disaster for ordinary Iraqis, for the middle east in general, and for our effort to end terrorism. It is true that Bush/Cheney never had a plan for Iraq once Saddam was toppled, and the plan is still flawed today - but withdrawal is the worst possible thing that could be done. Withdrawal has to come as fast as possible - when the Iraqi army is ready (that is not for a while from what I can tell) - not when it would be convenient for midterm elections. So for once I agree with Bush (wow!).

Instead of yapping about leaving Iraq, democrats should spend their energy on showing Americans how inept this current government has been since the very beginning. How flawed the invasion of Iraq was and how it has made America less safe. They have plenty of material to trash the Republicans. If only they knew how to spread their message and if only people listened eh?

first draft done...

2006-06-13T18:47:00.000-05:00

whew... My thesis is keeping me very busy these days... no time to rant. No time to think. But today I finished my first complete draft. - not with mucht time to spare either, since it's due with the committee by the end of next week. Defence is July 11th.

short rant: "Why is it that everybody I talk to hates people who cell phone and drive, yet I see people do it all the time (sometimes just before I have to screetch to a halt on my bike so I don't get hit)? It's as dangerous as drinking and driving (statistically proven). So: Don't cell phone and drive!"

Terror arrests in Canada!

2006-06-03T11:33:00.000-05:00

Wow. I have to say I am surprised. I guess we'll find out the details soon enough, but I just didn't think that someone would find it worth their effort to try to bomb targets in Canada. It's scary. Have we become a target because we stand for freedom and democracy though? No. I don't think so. My guess is that this plot was inspired by the terrorist acts in the US, UK, and Spain. An attempt by some local extremists to stand out. I truly hope that this event does not lead to a change in Canadian policy abroad. The best way to fight extremism is to work on the root cause of it: poverty and violence.

Another Low for Harper

2006-05-25T08:06:00.000-05:00

Now our Canadian Prime Minister accuses the national media of being biased against him and refuses to talk to them. This comes because the Conservatives see it as their right to determine who asks questions so they can avoid having to answer the tough ones. It's completely ridiculous. Harper's dictatorial "message control" has gotten completely out of hand. You can't be Prime Minister and not expect tough questions. And you can't just talk about what you like to talk about.

... and if he thinks the media is biased I wonder how he would characterize how the Liberals had nothing but questions about the sponsorship scandal to answer for years. Though warranted questions, I'm sure the grits got tired of it, but they never went this low.

Robertson Says God Told Him About Storms

2006-05-18T10:41:00.000-05:00

Pat Robertson says: "If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms".

Wow. What a revelation. This is ridiculous.
God has told me that next winter there WILL be snow in Canada.
What is he going to do with this revelation? Claim that each storm is a sign of God's disapproval of some "liberal" policy?

Let's just hope that McCain won't become friends with this guy shortly to improve his chances for 2008 (Falwell is bad enough).

At least I had a good laugh today! Thanks Pat!

Sad times for Canadian Environmental Policy

2006-05-06T08:11:00.000-05:00

I'm commenting on this CBC article (in part)

I guess I should have known that this would happen, but nevertheless I am angry and sad about the direction the Harper conservatives are taking on our environmental policy (if one can call it a direction at all). Funding for programs to reduce greenhouse gases has been reduced by 80%, and a whole host of programs have lost most of their money. Among them: money to phase out coal fired plants in Ontario, money to help people retrofit their homes to make them more energy efficient, money for alternative fuel development (even Bush sees the importance of this one!), and many others...

To this government the environment doesn't matter, and in this day and age that is just infuriating. "Made in Canada solution" my ass! The Conservatives are just looking for a cheap way to save a buck. Again though - why am I surprised? I hope all the opposition parties take up this fight, but so far I haven't heard much...

Oil Profits

2006-04-27T10:46:00.000-05:00

This is the news today:
Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest oil company, reported Thursday the fifth highest quarterly profit for any public company in history. They report (an apparently disappointing) 7 percent gain in earnings to more than $8 billion in the first quarter. Meanwhile gas prices are higher than ever...
Here's some food for thought:
- Exxon argues this is good for everyone since many Americans own Exxon stock.
- Gas prices are at record highs.
- US senators want to give $100 to each tax paying American (wow! How imaginative and useless)
- There is another push to open the arctic Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Even though that won't really make a dent in prices for many years to come.
- Oil companies still get huge tax breaks in this country (they need them, apparently).

There is no coordinated strategy in the US (or Canada) to address the real problem: We are too dependent on oil. Fuel efficiency standards should be raised and enforced, and people should be encouraged to drive less and smaller cars. How about e.g. putting money into public transit, giving people a tax break if their commute is shorter than average, or rewarding people who increase their house/business energy efficiency by improving insulation? Real investment into technology has to be made. Hybrids, hydrogen fuel cells, solar power, wind - they won't solve any problems today, but may hold some promise for the future.

Habs 2 - Hurricanes 0

2006-04-24T23:39:00.000-05:00

Habs are up 2-zip on Carolina in the first round series of the playoffs. Sweet!

Better Democracy?

2006-04-19T07:44:00.000-05:00

Stepher Harper got elected on the promise of "cleaning up" government, and giving MP's more power. So far he's been a big disappointment in these areas:
1. His new ethics legislation conveniently leaves loopholes allowing many former Tories to quickly become lobbyists. In general the proposed changes fall short of the tough talk he used in the election against the Liberals.
2. Harper is now appointing parliamentary committee heads. Something he loudly used to criticize.
3. Ministers are being forced to speak with a "unified message". What it means is that everything ministers say to the press (when they get permission to talk) has to be approved by the PMO.

It almost sounds like we're going back to Chretien type control from the top, and I don't like it. It just proves again that when it comes to control, most governments can't give any of it up. Give Paul Martin credit for being one of the few recent politicians who did (and he payed the price for it didn't he?)

Barry Bonds

2006-04-18T10:23:00.000-05:00

OK. So it's been quite a while since my last post... anybody still reading?
I blame the fact that I have a thesis to finish, and that I went for a job interview, and that I enjoy pokerroom.com too much (ouch!).

Anyways. Barry Bonds. Don't the pictures say it all (1992 left, 2004 right)? A great player who had so sink so low... it's sad, but an accurate reflection of where baseball has been headed for a while (since 1993?). Bud Selig can make all the fuss he wants now, but the fact is as long as the money was flowing in and homeruns were bringing people back to the game he didn't give a hoot about steroids.

So...
- Fire Bud Selig now.
- I hope Barry Bonds never passes Aaron or even the Babe. I hope his knee and elbow fall off tonight.
- Barry Bonds should not get an asterisk by his record. We will never know how many others doped for sure.
- Barry belongs in the hall of fame. So does Pete Rose.
- A display on steroid use belongs into the hall as well...

Finally: Why the hell are pitchers still walking Bonds twice a game? He's currently batting .180 and hasn't hit more than 2B yet! Pitch to the guy until he's actually shown some indication that he's still a dangerous hitter!

... and an addendum

2006-03-23T11:22:00.000-06:00

Newfoundland also takes in $80 million a year from VLT's (video lottery terminals).

Is sealing needed?

2006-03-16T15:11:00.000-06:00

So, we approach the time of year again when Canada heads out for its seal hunt. This year the quota is set at over 300'000 animals. From what I've read this hunt will inject about $15 million into the economy of Newfoundland (and much smaller amounts for the other Atlantic provinces).

Environmentalists call the hunt cruel, unnecessary, and a shame on Canada's image. Supporters call the seal herd "as healthy as ever" (at 6 million animals, up from 2 million in the 70's), and point out that the families who mostly benefit from this have already been hit hard by the collapse of the fisheries.

I understand the environmentalits view, and I hope that the hunt will be abolished eventually, because in my view wearing fur is out of fashion anyways. Frankly, however, I don't quite understand why they make such a big issue of this. My suspicion is simply because baby seals are cute and the hunt is bloody. Far more deer get killed every year, but they are not as cuddly... so... no protests. It is also essentially true that the herd is at a healthy level. Like deer, it can support a hunting season. We have so many pressing environmental issues, let's focus on important ones!

I also have to take issue with politicians though, calling the $15 million dollars "vital" to Newfoundland. It's small change in the big picture. Just this last year the federal government agreed to a deal that will give Newfoundland over $1 billion additionally per year in offshore oil revenue. You can't tell me that we couldn't abolish the hunt and use a tiny fraction of this new money to compensate the hunters with it. In the long run it might even help the economy through increased tourism. It certainly doesn't help when your province makes the global news once a year thanks to a bloody hunt (though it's in truth not as aweful as Paul McCartney would like to make it).

Do I need Say Anything?

2006-03-01T18:02:00.000-06:00

An image from the BBC showing a Swiss glacier (Triftgletscher) in 2001 and today. Before the 1990's the whole basin was frozen. But there is no global warming. Nope.

Things I don't get about King Ralph

2006-02-28T22:12:00.000-06:00

How come Alberta feels such a terrible urge to dump the public health care system in favour of a partially private one? They claim it's too expensive currently...

Yet Alberta is by far the richest province, with more money than they know what to do with (reportedly a $10 Billion surplus this year). You would think that means they can afford not only the current health care system, but one of the best public ones in Canada. Taxes are already low after all, and King Ralph has gone to such gimmicks as a $400 cheque for every Albertan to cover high energy costs. Now THAT is a waste of money (if anything - give people a tax rebate on their new windows or insulation).

No Hockey Gold

2006-02-22T16:57:00.000-06:00

Nope. Canada goes home early from the Olympics. Today they lost 2-0 to Russia. That in itself is not too shameful, but the fact Team Canada didn't get up to play until "it counts" is too bad. Yes, it didn't really matter that the Swiss shut us out, but the consequence is that we had to play Russia early rather than later. I hope they learn that you can't just wait until it counts but that you have to form a team with a winning attitude. Like the Russians.

Now, I have been heard to say that the Olympics will not be a success for Canada unless we make it at least into the gold medal game, but I take that back. Canada is having a great winter Olympics overall, and I really hope I can make it to the 2010 games in Vancouver!

What else? Yeah I could talk about lots of serious stuff today, but I won't. This is a post from the lighter side! :)

what the hell?

2006-02-20T15:14:00.000-06:00

First we lose 2-0 to Switzerland, then 2-0 to Finland. What the hell is going on with Canada's men's hockey team? I sure hope they get their act together soon, because otherwise the next four years will suck (ok, maybe that is a bit dramatic eh?). But still.

... and the Muslim Reaction

2006-02-11T09:33:00.000-06:00

Great! I got some real responses. I made a reply to that in the post below...

I do briefly want to mention another point of this cartoon debate here, and that is the Muslim reaction. While I certainly feel that the newspapers crossed the line on this one, the reaction is in no ways appropriate. The angry, flag burning, crowds only reinforce our stereotypical image if Muslims. Muslims need to show that they can enter into a meaningful dialogue. In fact many Muslim groups in (e.g. in Canada and the US) have taken a much more pragmatic approach than what we mostly see and read about in the news. The Muslim reaction has been highjacked by extremists who enjoy stoking the fire and that is a shame.

Coming up with "holocaust cartoons" in protest, shows that the extremists actually missed the whole point of this. They are now just offending back - how then can they be angry? They are now doing the same thing. I wish those Muslims taking the moral high ground would lead the debate rather than the extremists who get nowhere in the end.

Freedom of Speech: A Holy Cow?

2006-02-08T07:56:00.000-06:00

This posting may be controversial, but this is my take on this business. First several newspapers publish cartoons which clearly represent an insult to Muslims. They don't do if for reasons of freedom of speech but because they see something funny, or true, in the cartoons. Protests erupt around the world. Now many more newspapers print the cartoons, this time to defend freedom of speech.

In the western world today freedom of speech has become this thing that you cannot touch. A holy cow. You can say anything you want to anyone. It's your right. If someone suggests that you shouldn't have said something, then there is an uproar. It's your right that's being attacked.

I don't know, but in my view there is a limit to this. I think it's ridiculous that we hold up freedom of speech as this untouchable law of democracy. There ARE things that shouldn't be said, and people have a right to be offended if it is being said. But where to draw the line? That is the question. For me the line is when someone tells a blatant, hurtful lie (e.g. denying the holocaust), or insults someone else's deeply held sensitivities (drawing the prophet Muhammad is deeply offensive to Muslims, though we may not understand why). We have a DUTY to defend the truth and to be respectful. So you say: "This is dangerous Simon. What if a future government forbids us from critiquing it?". Well I don't think it's that hard to see the difference. An educated person can figure out the appropriate limit.

Now a professor in Canada posts the cartoon in the name of freedom. This takes the cake! Our academic freedom is given to us exactly so that we may defend the TRUTH. Not defend anything, but defend the truth. To make a highly insulting statement about Islam certainly does not defend the truth, but simply the right to be an idiot on campus. That for me crosses the line, and I think it's perfectly appropriate that this professor has been asked to take down the cartoon.

This is my view, expressed freely. But I follow some rules here (do they really restrict me that much?) that we are all taught my our moms: "Don't lie, and don't insult people unnecessarily". Are our moms bad for telling us this? No. I think they understand something that the defenders of "anything goes" seem to have forgotten.

Frank McKenna not running...

2006-01-30T13:08:00.000-06:00

Too bad. I would have liked to see a strong atlantic Canadian party leader. Maybe Tobin will run?

Canada goes Conservative

2006-01-25T10:20:00.000-06:00

So there's several points I have to make:
1. The Conservatives did win... I did not at one point think they would.
2. They got seats in Quebec, again, I didn't think they would.
3. The Greens did not get a seat.

The second item is very positive in my view. A different alternative than the Bloc was desperately needed in Quebec. The first point... well I guess it was time for the Liberals to take a break. Everybody, including me, has certainly gotten quite sick of the whole mess in Ottawa.

Now as to the Conservative agenda. There's several things I like and I hope they can get moving on. That includes "devolving" power to the provinces, reforming the Senate (I doubt this will happen though), and, yes, even some of their environmental plank. I think there will be a lot of stink if we pull out of Kyoto, but more might actually happen than under the Liberals. The Conservatives will have to show that they care about emissions DESPITE getting out of Kyoto. The Liberals have been using their Kyoto signature to avoid doing anything.

I also hope that Harper forgets about his social Conservative agenda. Gay marriage is done. Abortion should not become a topic, and hopefully services will not be gutted in a "common sense revolution". I sort of expect to be disappointed, but only time will tell.

On to point 3: The Bloc got under 11% of the vote nationally - and 51 seats. The Greens got almost 5% of the vote and 0 seats. That is why we need a system of at least partial proportional representation. It will make Canada stronger.

Here's stupidy for you...

2006-01-19T18:53:00.000-06:00

A Globe and Mail poll finds two-thirds of people voting that they think "politics has tainted the Supreme Court of Canada". They agree with Harper I assume who has just made this an issue.

Harper wants a different process to appoint judges. More like the US, where we are just witnessing now how these things are done. The US system as a matter of fact is way more political, and it seems to me the US high court is much more partican - despite senate hearings and everything. Just recall the 5-4 vote for Bush in 2000 (Florida recount). 5 republican appointed judges vs. 4 democratic appointed judges...

If Canadians feel that the High court has been politized they should realize that Harper's idea is only going to make things worse. Much worse. The current system isn't so bad. I hope we stick with it.

Another Blunder in "War on Terror"

2006-01-15T11:37:00.000-06:00

I'm referring to the attack on a Pakistani village by the US a couple of days ago. The target: Al-Qaeda's #2 leader. Fine. But it turns out he wasn't there...

The real problem is that the US launched missiles into Pakistani territory without permission from that country. Now you can say that in the war on terror you have to act fast, but the fact is that the MOST IMPORTANT thing in the war on terror is to build alliances in the muslim world and not stoke the anger any further than is necessary...

This attack offends one of the strongest allies (Pakistan), creates anger there, and didn't even yield the desired result. The US should have asked the Pakistani army to carry out any assault. Nothing else can be justified.

Just another example of how badly the Bush administration is in fact doing at applying a proper strategy in foreign relations.

Time for Change

2006-01-05T14:04:00.000-06:00

Well today we read that the Conservatives have taken the lead in public opinion polls in Canada (or are at least tied with the Liberals). I have to say, Paul Martin has been running a lacklustre, deflated campaign. The Liberals seem desperate and without a clear plan. The Conservatives on the other hand, for the first time in a long time, seem focussed and full of stamina and ideas.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper? God, that sounds wrong! But it's becoming closer to reality. The one good thing is that it would force a "renewal" for the Liberals. Paul Martin needs to retire - the Liberals needs new energy and leadership. The government needs new energy and leadership! If only there was another real alternative other than the Tories...

Penguins and Polar Bears

2005-12-07T13:38:00.000-06:00

So last night we went to see Aeon Flux. The movie was alright... visually certainly quite something, but the dialog left a bit to be desired (a lot actually). Anyways, that's not what I wanted to write about...

Before the movie we saw a commercial for Coca-Cola. It shows a polar bear family in winter. The cub slides down a hill and runs right into a bunch of penguins who give it some coke (Mama and Papa bear then join the fun and drink coke with everyone).

Now what's wrong with this? Well polar bears and penguins do not mix. Few animals live further apart on the earth. There are no polar bears in Antarctica, and no penguins at the North Pole. This seems like a fairly innocent mistake, but it is exactly these sorts of small things that lead to very fundamental misconceptions in people's minds. We don't think about it, but the image sticks, especially for children, at whom this ad was clearly aimed.

We fight misconceptions (in science and other areas) on a daily basis. It's amazing to realize how seemingly innocent they often arise!

Let there be an Election!

2005-11-28T22:47:00.000-06:00

The government of Canada has "lost the confidence" of the opposition. No real shocker there. I predict right now that not much will change. We will still have a liberal minority, although the Bloc will gain some seats, and maybe the Conservatives and NDP too...

Now why the opposition parties were this eager to have an election when we can all see that nothing will change is a mistery to me. Is there really nothing that can topple the Liberals? ... well maybe I'll be proven wrong, and the Liberals really will lose...

US Torture

2005-11-18T18:09:00.000-06:00

This ABC article talks about the type of torture applied selected prisoners by the US.

Subjects are left standing for 40 hours, doused with water in a room at 50 F throughout the night, slapped, and mock drowned. Now you can argue as long as you want that these people don't deserve any better (as some people do), but that argument is completely irrelevant.

The reasons:
1. Torture does not yield good intelligence. If I thought I was being drowned I would say anything to stop it. We all would.

2. The US wants to set a standard for "democracy and freedom" in the world. These sorts of stories destroy whatever the US might in fact be achieving in changing attitudes, and certainly sets no standard.

3. The war on terror will never be won by force. Terrorism will never be "rooted out" by killing every terrorist, it actually fuels it (as Iraq should demonstrate). Terrorism can only defeated by showing the world that there is another way than violence. How to achieve this is not an easy question, but torture will not do it.

This whole mess is shameful.

"There is no democratic government in Ottawa these days and there hasn't been one in a long time."

2005-11-15T19:40:00.000-06:00

This is the statement from the letter of the day today on CBC.ca.

I get really angry about these sorts of statements. People who say this know nothing of real dictatorships, abuse of power, and lack of democracy. It's an insult to people who've suffered and still suffer in countries such as North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, formerly Chile, Russia, etc. etc.

Canada is not perfect, but it DOES have a democracy as closely as any country today.

Birdflu Fear

2005-11-14T12:19:00.000-06:00

I heard a show on the NPR where they interviewed a guy who's been stocking up on canned tuna and water, sealing the house etc. All this to be ready for the birdflu pandemic he is expecting any moment. I'm sure this guy also spend thousands of dollars on the "millennium bug"...

- Now this guy isn't your average citizen I'm sure, but nevertheless he represents what is a completely unreasonable fear among many people about things such as the birdflu, or mad cow disease. Why do we want to raise billions of dollars to fight these things which have frankly killed almost no one in the grand scheme of things? If we fought much more real threats like this (e.g. car accidents which kill 60'000 people a year in the US alone) we would probably end up living in a padded room without any contact to the outside world before long...

I understand the fear. The birdflu is something we can (yet) control and we're not used to it. Our news media is driving the frenzy - warning us about something new at every turn. People worry themselves sick about things which will likely never affect them. It makes no sense.

This is not to say that we shouldn't take care. Wash hands, don't speed excessively, cook meat thoroughly, don't smoke, quarantine chicken farms with the birdflu, don't eat fatty foods all year. Beyond that - well drop the fear and live a bit!

Liberal Corruption and Conservative Action

2005-11-04T10:13:00.000-06:00

As I expected, the Gomery report has revealed little beyond what we already knew in May. The findings are however serious, and I do feel that the Liberals have come to take power too much for granted in Ottawa. Maybe a while as the opposition would help.

Unfortunately there is no credible alternative to the Liberals. Neither the NDP or the Bloc will form the next government, and the Conservatives have not made the headway they need to form a majority government. Fine. They could form a minority government and try to rule by building consensus.

The real problem however is that the Conservatives have no support in Quebec. They run behind the Greens there. A government without a single minister from Canada's second biggest province will be a disaster and further raise tensions. The only option I see is for the Conservatives to form a coalition with the Bloc to solve this (or appoint senators as ministers?). The gist is that it is completely irresponsible of the Conservatives to push for an election when they have been unable to build even the slightest support in Quebec.

What is the solution? Hmm. I don't know. The Conservatives for one should fire Harper and find someone who can build support in Eastern Canada. A Bernard Lord comes to mind... The NDP also needs to speak to Quebec more effectively. Policy wise you'd think they provide an attractive option for Quebequers.

When the only alternative Quebequers see to the Liberals is the Bloc, then we are in a very dangerous situation.

The End of Two Solitudes

2005-10-26T10:37:00.000-05:00

I'm back! ... well at least I'm making a post...

On her inauguration Canada's Governor General called for the end of "two solitudes", a stronger country moving forward together. She made this call in the spirit of a changing nation: It is getting harder and harder to define Canada as its English and French founding parts. More and more Canadians have roots in places all around the world, like the Governor General, who was born in Haiti. She recognized that this "multicultural tapestry" is in fact redefining (and erasing?) old Canadian divisions, and gives us the opportunity to move forward as a nation. I agree.

Today, sadly, I read that a longtime Quebec seperatist poet, Raymond Lévesque, is turning town a Governor General's Performing Arts Award because of this statement. She did not, in his words, recognize the two "founding nations" of Canada. Yes, that is true, but he completely missed the point. It is not that she is denying Quebec it's uniqueness, but that she sees that we have become a country of many more than two founding nations.

Lévesque also believes that "new Quebequers" should not get to vote in a referendum on independence. This undemocratic attitude demonstrates a dangerous tendency among some seperatists to disregard the increasing contribution to their province of people from other than French or English backgrounds. It is in fact maybe the biggest threat to the sovereignty movement - that as for the rest of Canada - the Quebec identity is evolving into a multicultural tapestry. If the old divisions are becoming harder and harder to see, then Canada stands more strongly united. Quebec - and Canada - are so much more for standing together, evolving together, towards a bright future. I hope this recognition will grow from coast to coast as we sometimes seem to drift ever further apart (western alienation, Ontario grumblings about transfer payments, Quebec sovereignty, Atlantic dissatisfaction).

I was born in Switzerland, but I am Canadian with all my heart!

Things that occupy me... Hockey

2005-09-13T23:49:00.000-05:00

I a big Habs fan. Training camp has opened, the fantasy hockey draft is coming up. The Globe and Mail had this nice summary of where some of the Habs players currently stand.

It'll be a tough season again for the Canadiens I suspect (fighting to make the playoffs at the end), but the team has lots of potential in my view.

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job"

2005-09-12T14:57:00.000-05:00

... so Bush told his friend Michael Brown who was at the time overseeing the slow and disorganized response to hurrican Katrina as head of FEMA.

Today, mercifully, Brown has resigned from FEMA, and with this an embarrassing episode for the Bush administration has come to an end (not truly though, since 5 of the 8 top FEMA people are Bush family friends with little experience in emergency response). I've been wondering for a while now, how long it would take before one of Bush's appointments of one of his buddies would backfire. It finally did when the former president of the Arabian Horse racing association (or something like that) had no real idea how to handle a disaster on the scale of Katrina.

It is too bad that the price for this horrible appointment had to be so much added unnecessary human suffering in a situation that was already desperate. I hope Americans will remember this, but I am not sure they will.

Sharia Law in Ontario?

2005-09-07T10:40:00.000-05:00

Since 1991 Jews and Christians can settle civil law matters in religious courts. Now the questions is, if this should be allowed to Muslims as well? The worry of course is that women's rights could be eroded under such law. Even if it is only voluntary many Muslim women will be pressured into accepting a religious judgment rather than one by the government.
Not giving Muslims the same religious "rights" as Jews and Christians is not fair either, as it discriminates against that religion.

To me the case is clear. People who live in Canada, and in Ontario, have to live by the laws of Canada and Ontario. Period. There should be NO religious courts for any denomination. I highly value the way Canada allows multi-culturalism to flourish and encourages people to integrate their roots into a "Canadian web". However when it comes to the law this is misguided and ultimately leads to unequal treatment of different people before the "courts". There can only be one set of laws, and these are the ones established by the Canadian people through its government and judiciary. When I became a Canadian citizen, or in fact even a landed immigrant, I accepted this fact, and live by it.

The only possible exception to this statement for me is when it comes to first nations. Native Americans have been here long before Europeans and their laws (and this is the key), and in many cases their way of solving civil issues (e.g. healing circles) work much better in the context of their culture.

Pat Robertson

2005-08-23T10:43:00.000-05:00

Well, you can read this story just about anywhere... here is a link to the Globe and Mail version of it.

The brave crusader Pat Robertson is calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. Mr. Robertson is supposedly a Christian. Obviously he actually understands nothing of the message of Christ, which is strictly non-violent in every respect (could you imagine Christ assassinating the corrupt priests in the temple?). What is even more ironic is that this guy sees himself fit to call Islam a fundamentally violent religion.

It's sad that so many people listen to and believe in what Mr. Robertson is spouting out.

Conservative Clean Air Plan

2005-08-22T14:09:00.000-05:00

So I'm back from my holiday in Cape Breton... and I find this interesting article on the Conservative Party website.

Essentially they are promising, if they should form a government, to institute a 16% tax deduction for transit passes. A nice encouragement to use buses and trains certainly, and something concrete rather than all the talk of "attacking global warming" without any real plan by the Liberals.

Now, does that solve this issue? By no means.
For one, the federal government, as well as the provinces, should start putting much more emphasis on funding public transit infrastructure. The conservative plan, at least as roughly sketched out in this article, does not address that. A real (fast and punctual) train link between Windsor and Quebec City, and a rail link from Calgary to Edmonton would be a great. More train, rather than bus, services are also needed in most of the big cities.
The other issue is bikers. If riding a bus gets you a tax break, then how could biking be rewarded? Not only is biking good for the health, but also an even lower emission alternative to cars. I'm not sure how bike riding can be encouraged/rewarded, but it's something worth thinking about.

Wear a helmet stupid!

2005-08-09T16:12:00.000-05:00

A couple of new studies show the dramatic effect of loosening mandatory helmet laws for motor cyclists:

An increase of 81% in deaths in Florida. An increase in hospital care cost from $21 million to $44 million. This mirrors results from Kentucky and Louisiana, which showed an increase of 50% and 100% respectively when helmet laws were repealed.

I don't get it. Just seeing a biker without helmet makes me think of how horrible an accident might go for them. Why is wearing a helmet such a burden? This is like seat belts. Everybody should have to do it. Period.

NOTE:
I never used to wear a bike helmet. Since 4 years ago I always do (the influence of a girlfriend!), and it's really not much of a nuisance.

Another Massive Surplus

2005-08-08T16:53:00.000-05:00

In response to this Globe and Mail article.

Projections again point to a massive fiscal surplus in Ottawa this year (~ 9 Billion). We can argue whether this should lead to tax cuts or program spending. We can also argue about whether maybe the Liberals should find a way to make better projections. What I want to point out though is this:

"Surpluses, however, don't go to waste. The extra money recorded at the end of the year is automatically applied to the massive national debt. The recent string of surpluses has allowed the government to pay down more than $60-billion in debt over the past seven years, which saves more than $3-billion a year in interest charges."

Paying down the debt is a key to more efficient government. I fully support an even more aggressive attack on our national debt, so that we don't waste 40 cents of every tax dollar (a figure I remember from a few years ago) on paying interest. The political payoff for doing this may not be great, but I hope Canada keeps it up.

Antarctica

2005-08-04T10:17:00.000-05:00

We all know that global warming will eventually lead to a rise in sea levels due to the melting ice in Antarctica. Never mind that this should be another reason to seriously start worrying guys like Mr. G.W. who care first and formost about the economy... coastal areas are vital for the economy around the world...

This CBC.ca article is actually interesting because it talks about some specific numbers: The Larsen B ice shelf had a size of 3000 square miles until the early 90's. Since then 5700 square kilometers of it have disintegrated (the ice shelf is thought to have been stable since the end of the last ice age). Now that the shelf is no longer holding back glaciers they are pushing ice bergs out into the ocean at a much faster pace.

Does it sound like we don't have a chance to affect huge changes like that on the far side of the Earth? Yes maybe, but everybody can do a little bit. Drive a litte less, don't turn on the AC quite so high, and don't heat to 25C in winter. Replace the old drafty window... Even if our CO2 emissions aren't the cause of global warming (though scientits mostly agree that it is), saving energy can only benefit us. Having said all this... I'll be driving 3 hrs to camping this weekend, will fly to Nova Scotia the next, I'm running an AC full time (for my fish)...

The things we aren't willing to give up!
(note: I'd like to see "march of the penguins"... I hope they will never lose their habitat completely!)

Misquoting Iraqis

2005-07-25T19:54:00.000-05:00

This CNN article is a disturbing account of the US military apparently simply making up quotes for Iraqis. Interesting that these Iraqis are voicing the US policy...

The story also highlights another issue. The lack of critical analysis of the US media. I maintain that the media reports the facts (at least when one goes looking for them one can usually find them), but what's lacking is a critical analysis of said facts. This article should be much more critical and demand some answers. Everyone, and especially the US military, has to be held accountable for distorting the truth.

It's a shame.

The NHL is back...

2005-07-22T18:07:00.000-05:00

I'm happy this crap is finally over.
It'll be interesting to see if the Canadiens start to fare better under the new salary cap system. There certainly won't be an excuse anymore for them for not being a better team. I want to see some habitants ass kicking next winter!! :)

Anyways. I think they dropped the ball a bit again on rule changes and doping. I hate the idea of the restricted zone for goalies behind the net, and I think they should have been tougher on the goal pad size reduction. I'm also not too sure if I like the shootout idea - but whatever. I do like the tag-up offside. That'll make things smoother. - and come on! Two random tests a year??! Sure the penalties are pretty though, but two random tests a year is ridiculous. Even baseball now tests 6 times.

Now if we could just contract some of those lousy southern teams away...

The cost of By-pass surgery - US vs CDN

2005-07-13T15:48:00.000-05:00

	US	Canada
Total heart bypass surgery cost	$20673	$10373 (!)
Lab test for blood gas	$21.61	$7.22
1h operating time	$397.05	$313.76
Catheterization (slipping plastic tube into artery)	$511.70	$306.86
US avg. per capita health care expenses (2003)	$5635	$3003

These numbers (US $) come from a study discussed in the Globe and Mail.
My take: So despite our griping about high taxes, in the end Americans pay much more. But because it is listed as "health insurance" on their pay cheque they don't gripe about taxes. Those unhappy Canadians should just remember what these numbers show: our system is much more efficient (much of the cost difference is attributed to higher admin. costs in the US). Having said that, we could certainly improve on wait times...

Hypocritical Harper

2005-06-27T21:50:00.000-05:00

So now a vote that gets the support of the Bloc (in this case same sex marriage) "lack legitimacy"? What are you saying Harper? That the Quebecers who voted for the BQ didn't really cast a legitimate vote? That the Bloc in fact is not legitimate? ... Or even that your own attempt to defeat the government would have been "illegitimate" with the support of the Bloc?

Federalists may not like seperatists, but that in no way makes their voices "illegitimate". This latest episode shows that Harper has a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a democracy. A Bloc member, as do members of any party, has the same right in Ottawa as anybody else. Period.

Casting this as an issue of federal vs. seperatist is completely wrong anyways. Same sex marriage is an issue that stands on its own and has nothing to do with breaking up Canada.

Liberal dealings

2005-06-24T10:14:00.000-05:00

Well, the Liberals have passed the "NDP amendement" to the budget.
I find it amusing that the Tories are "outraged" about a deal with "socialists" and "seperatists". Especially after they were happy to try to force an election that they knew would only increase the BQ's strength because they have been so inept at making inroads of any kind in Quebec.

On the other hand I don't understand what the Liberal's rush is with regards to the same sex marriage bill. Why does this bill have to pass right now, when most provinces already allow same sex marriage anyways? I don't understand why you can't keep the current definition of marriage, but allow civil unions for same sex couples, that carry the same rights and obligations as marriage? I think it would address the "human rights" case, and I don't believe it would necessarily fail in the courts, given the recent supreme court ruling on the issue.

This one time Rumsfeld gets it right

2005-06-23T10:25:00.000-05:00

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Rumsfeld fan. But in response to some calls set a timeline on withdrawal from Iraq he's got it right: Setting some artificial date for leaving will play into the terrorists hands. They need to know that the US will be there until Iraq can fully take over security for the country. The many Iraqis exposing themselves at great risk by participating in the new army, police force, and government need to know that they are not being abandoned. That's the least the US owes them.

For those US politicians urging an "exit strategy" I only have this to say: Maybe you should have thought harder before giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Maybe you should have looked at whether there actually was a real plan for after Saddam was thrown over, because "winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis" has been a miserable failure. But to now abandon Iraq would leave us with the worst possible scenario: An unstable country, marred by violence, and a people suffering worse than under Saddam.

It is too late now to backtrack on what has become an unpopular war in the US. Those politicians worried about re-election, should have to defend their decision to give Bush the authority to invade before voters, and hopefully finally pay a price for it!

Funny or Sad?

2005-06-22T12:42:00.000-05:00

So I'm reading a CNN travel report about Scotland, and this is what they say:
"The large number of dead pheasants on the road made for a vivid reminder of Scotland's rich wildlife."

Wow. We are at the point of getting reminders about the number of wild animals by the amount of roadkill we see.

This also makes me think of Japan's great "research program" into whales. Right now they want to (and probably will) double the number of "research specimens" they catch. Of course we all know that what's really happening is that they just want to offer more whale meat on Japanese plates. It's sad that a supposedly modern nation cannot make a little sacrifice to leave these majestic and beautiful sea creatures alone.
Maybe their research consists of counting the "kill" to judge the richness of the world's oceans?

Air Conditioner

2005-06-06T11:57:00.000-05:00

So we broke down this weekend and bought an air-conditioner. So the fish don't get too hot...

I thought I was doing great because the unit I bought had an energy efficiency rating of 9.7, and a piece of paper on the box informed us this was on a range between 8 and 10, 10 being the most efficient...
Then I ripped the paper off, and what do I discover on the back? A rating scale raging from 9.7 to 11.2... 9.7 being the "least efficient"... It's the Canadian ratings scale on the back.

It just shows you how arbitrary things like that sometimes are. In this case it looks like Canada has tougher standards, but I'm sure I could probably find examples of the reverse too...
It illustrates a fundamental problem with environmental standards. Something that might at first look great (hmm... like the Clean Air Act) is in fact not all that great at all when viewed by different criteria. The only thing that really works is for me to turn off my air-conditioner. On a broader scale, people, companies and governments, should not take comfort in meeting some environmental standard, but keep working at trying to do better. This is a subject I shall soon expand on... :)

The Grewal Tapes: Take Two

2005-06-06T11:43:00.000-05:00

Well I must say, I'm getting more and more disgusted with this story!
Now it's obvious beyond a doubt, according to experts, that the tapes were doctored (see this article). Not only that - BUT the 14 min. or so the conservatives have additionally released now contain some key statements showing that 1. Grewal was pushing (as I suspected), and 2. that the Liberals refused to make a firm commitement (although I'm sure they were listening). The tapes were transferred to CD in Harper's office...

This whole story is ridiculous. Harper, Grewal and Co. are clearly desperate when it should be easy for them to find a way to attack the Liberals. Instead of taping conversations they should maybe look at the real reasons why they can't get elected (hint: social issues)... things a new leader, such as say Peter McKay (who's distanced himself from the tapes), could maybe address.

PS ... and what the heck was Grewal doing, trying to get strangers to take a "package" to Ottawa from Vancouver (Air Canada is investigating this illegal act)? Apparently it contained a tape... This, people, is a joke. Albeit a sad one.

New lows in Canadian politics

2005-06-01T14:19:00.000-05:00

For the last few days I've been following the Grewal tapes story...
A Tory MP claims he and his wife were offered a senate seat and an ambassador's posting in return for an abstention from the recent confidence vote. He's got taped conversations supposedly backing it up...
The liberals claim he approached them first...

Here's my take on this:
First of all I think it's despicable how low Grewal has gone. An MP has no business running around parliament hill with a mike taped to his belly. If people should be expected to always be "on the record" as Harper claims, then Grewal should have just brought an open microphone to his meetings, and on a more serious note, I would worry gravely about the security of our country... I have a feeling Grewal was pushing the Liberals to make an offer to him - he was trying to goad them into it - why otherwise the mike?

And of course the Liberals listened. What do you expect? Certainly Harper would have offered something to a potential Liberal deserter. Now is what the Liberals did proper? No. Certainly not. On the other hand whoever believes that there are no rewards in politics for supporting a party is just plain naive. It's not pretty, but nothing new, and certainly not something peculiar to the Liberals, exposing them as even bigger crooks, as the Conservatives try to spin it. It's disgraceful that our parliamentarians have fallen to such lows, and I truly hope they find it in themselves to behave with some dignity soon (and the Grits aren't innocent - clearly we've already seen from "adscam" how low they can go).

PEI Electoral Reform

2005-05-27T15:21:00.000-05:00

This CBC Article outlines electoral reforms under consideration in PEI (moving from 17 ridings to 10 ridings plus 7 seats given out according to party support).

If you've read my earlier post on this topic you will see that what they're proposing is in fact very close to what I suggested as a solution at the federal level: A mix of traditional seats associated with ridings, and a number of seats designed to offset in-balances in the first-past-post results.

This is great! I hope PEI voters see this as a great step forward (like me!). Hopefully this will show to Canadians that such a system can work, and in fact will produce fairer results (and reduce voter apathy?). With BC also considering reforms (and Ontario?) I think we might be approaching a time when the political landscape will change considerably in Canada. Small parties will gain a voice, and majority governments will become less certain (a potential negative - due to higher instability - but I think this is a price worth paying).

Movies... (By request of Jon V.)

2005-05-25T11:13:00.000-05:00

1. Total # of films I own... hmm about 20 I'd say
2. Last one I bought... I bought 4 DVD's for $20: T3, Brother Bear, Charlie's Angels 2, and The In-Laws...
3. I last saw Kingdom of Heaven... it pretty much sucked except for the battle of Jerusalem. Tonight I'll watch Hero. That's an excellent movie.
4. Top 5 alltime: Shawshank Redemption, Leon (The professional), Schindler's List, The Last Samurai, T2: Judgment Day, October Sky, and Pirates of the Caribbean... oops, that's 7 isn't it?

Guatanamo Confusion

2005-05-22T16:19:00.000-05:00

I saw this interesting piece in the Globe and Mail today.

It talks about the military tribunals now underway for the detainees in Guatanamo Bay. What I certainly suspected is unfortunately clearly emerging at these tribunals: The US has little evidence against many detainees, with many cases of likely mistaken identity. The prisoners have little access to legal representation, and are kept in the dark about what allegations are made against them (due to "national security"). There are no criteria that clearly establish the rights of these men, and confusion reigns. What is the most disturbing is that these men can seemingly say whatever they want to little effect, yet they are kept there partially because of intelligence they can supposedly provide on possible future attacks. Some of those men certainly pose a danger, and are deservedly behind bars, but a country with the might of the US should be able to identify those from the chicken farmers and 14 year old boys!

Nobody can give back the years taken from 9/11 victims, and those responsible should be punished. At the same time nobody can give back the years spent by many innocent men in a sad outpost of the US's ill conceived response to the 9/11 attacks (still no sign of the most wanted man on Earth - Mr. Bin Laden!). These men deserve speedy trials, based on fact - and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Then they deserve to either see their country, families, and freedom again, or if guilty the cold concrete of a jail cell!

... and the same goes for the 1000s of prisoners in Iraq...

Amazon Rain forest

2005-05-19T15:46:00.000-05:00

This from an ABC article:
- Amazon Rain forest destruction is up 6% in 2004, to 10,088 square miles (down from the record of 11,200 in 1995 though). That is an area the size of Belgium (or Massachusetts).
- An estimated 20% of the 1.6 million square miles of the Amazon rain forest is already destroyed.
- The Brazilian government is spending $140 Million annually on initiatives to reduce rain forest destruction.

I found this: Brazil spends about $10 Billion on its military... pumps about 1.5 million barrels of oil a day (at what - $40 to $50 per barrel?), and the rest of the world isn't helping Brazil to save its forests much either... We must be able to do better, no?

Belinda Stronach

2005-05-19T15:30:00.000-05:00

What I think BEFORE the budget vote:
Belinda Stronach's switch has several unfortunate aspects:
1. Yet again, the left wing of the conservatives takes a hit. That party needs people like her to make a serious move towards the centre, and the "blue" Tories will use this to strengthen their hold on the party (see 3.)
2. Stronach does not deserve a cabinet seat. How has she earned it? She's inexperienced, and has shown no commitment to the liberals (having been a Conservative until now...). It's a blow to many of the honest back bench Liberals who are much more deserving than her... but then again - maybe it WILL be her that saves the Liberals?
3. Cynicism in the west about federal politics can only increase, and will undoubtedly strengthen the old alliance part of the Conservatives.

In the long run this move might mean nothing, but in my opinion it's not a good one in the present situation. It might save the Liberals (Stronach will be the real loser if it doesn't), and despite the fact that I would much rather have a Liberal than a Conservative government, I think it might be time for an election. Paul Martin has shown a real lack of vision (throwing around money wildly and without plan - beyond saving his political life), the house can't get anything done, and former conservative leadership candidates get Liberal cabinet positions... what the hell?

Pollution kills nearly 6000 a year

2005-05-02T12:50:00.000-05:00

... in Canada.
That's the headline.
That's almost twice 9/11. If that doesn't provide a good reason to reduce pollution... I don't know.
The sad thing is that the whole health aspect of environmental protection gets very little attention because it happens "unseen". It's not a big blow, but a person here, a person there. But it's real nevertheless.

and now to something completely different:
David Anderson, ex-environment minister is retiring. Within the Liberal Party he was a strong voice for the environment... let's hope whoever governs can (and does) count on people like him in the future!

Auto Insurance

2005-04-27T17:46:00.000-05:00

Check this out: CBC Article
Pay as you drive Auto insurance... I like this idea. The more you drive the more you pay.

Jack Layton

2005-04-27T09:08:00.000-05:00

Today Jack Layton has agreed to support the liberal budget, which Martin has agreed to "jack up" with billions more for social programs and the environment. I think through the last few months of tumultuous politics in Ottawa Layton has actually made a very strong pragmatic impression. He has not backed down from his principles to support the Liberals, and at the same time he isn't playing politics to gain votes the way Harper is. He saw a way to put the NDP stamp on the budget, and he did it.

It's just too bad he was one MP short of holding the balance of power.
I wish the whole adscam would translate into NDP support to some extent rather than conservative, but would I consider voting NDP myself? I'm not sure...

Arctic Wildlife refuge

2005-04-21T09:16:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, unfortunately the US house has agreed to open the arctic wildlife refuge to oil drilling...

What is really sad is that yet again the environment is losing out to big business interests.
Supposedly this is going to lead to less dependence on foreign oil, and lower gas prices. What is funny is this: it won't be for 10 years before we'll get oil out of there. The bill has made NO requirements for car companies to increase fuel efficiency (the root of the problem), because supposedly this leads to (get this) a loss of jobs in the auto industry (how? developing better engines would create jobs), smaller cars (what's so bad about that?), and reduce auto safety (whatever - if we all drove tanks we'd be safer I guess). On top of this the bill proposes 8 billion in tax cuts to promote coal (wtf?), oil (yeah they need it), nuclear, and natural gas energy. ... and at the same time there is no money for public transit. How does all of this add up?

I expected all this, but I'm very disappointed anyways. Catering to big business is everything, and the auto industry is in such poor shape it can't develop some better motors? As a matter of fact I will predict today that the lack of leadership from the US auto industry will lead to a global erosion of their market as other countries WILL take fuel efficiency more serious.

I just hope somebody will see the light sooner or later...
CNN Article

Paul Martin's Gamble

2005-04-19T12:54:00.000-05:00

OK, this is a bit cynical, but nevertheless...
Had auditor general Sheila Fraser released her report during Chretien's days he would have shrugged if off, called the $100 million "not that much money" and after some crying foul by the opposition most people would have forgotten about the whole thing.
Paul Martin I'll assume wanted to do the right thing (get to the bottom of things), and must have thought that people would be able to dissociate his government from Chretien's... But now the Gomery inquiry he called is digging a deeper and deeper grave for the liberals. Paul Martin isn't seen as the guy who brought integrity back to government, but as the leader of a corrupt regime that needs to be "changed" (sorry for the pun). His gamble has back fired.

Well, the liberals haven't been booted out quite yet, so maybe I shouldn't call this one yet, but it sure seems that way. Chretien, for all his faults, was an extremely savvy politician, and I think he would have lifted the big rug for this one. Martin should have learned a few lessons from his predecessor...
(Cynical I know... I'm happy that Marin tried to be honest - or at least it seems so - but it hasn't been a good "political" move.)
Let's hope Canada will be better for it in the end... (if only there was another alternative to Harper I might have quite a bit of hope actually).

CO2 emissions report

2005-04-18T14:36:00.000-05:00

Here's a quick follow-up to the last post:
The US Governments Energy Information Administration has just released an interesting report, stating that reducing CO2 will not slow down the average economic growth rate:
Globe and mail report
Energy Information Administration

Kyoto: What does my bike contribute?

2005-04-16T13:57:00.000-05:00

So I'm not sure Kyoto is the only (or even best) way to address the carbon emissions we humans are creating, but I decided to calculate some numbers so I get an idea of what it takes to reduce greenhouse gases. I own a GEO metro (fuel efficiency of about 8 l/100 km on highway), and for comparison I'll also use a *typical* SUV (fuel efficiency of about 16 l/100 km on highway). Burning one litre of gas releases about 0.6 kg of CO2 (www.clearwater.org - I converted from 5 lbs/ 1 gallon). So here are some numbers:

I bike to school, rather than drive about 300 days of the year ( = 10 km x 300 = 3000 km).
GEO: 3000 km => 234 litres => 140 kg CO2
SUV: 3000 km => 468 litres => 280 kg

The average driver puts about 20000 km on the odometer each year:
GEO: 20000 km => 1560 litres => 940 kg of CO2
SUV: 20000 km => 3200 litres => 1920 kg

So: By just biking 10 km on nice days (that's healthy too!) I reduce my emissions due to driving by about 15%. Kyoto requires overall CO2 reductions of about 30% from current levels, so I get about half way there. Of course we use CO2 in other areas: heating, electricity, transportation for goods we buy etc. So just biking to school doesn't meet the overall Kyoto goal, but it does make a significant impact! Also note that Kyoto gives a quota of about 2 tonnes of CO2 / person / year (for every human on earth). The average SUV driver meets his/her quota JUST by driving! A good reason to get a smaller car I would say (of course some people really need an SUV so then it's different, but many of us really don't need it other than for status and convenience)!

Pink Floyd

2005-04-15T17:59:00.000-05:00

I just finished reading the highly entertaining new book by Nick Mason (Pink Floyd drummer) on the history of the band... This prompted me to run out and get two more albums (Ummagumma and Obscured by Clouds), and I wish more than ever that I wasn't such a jackass Ace of Base/2 Unlimited listener when they toured last in 1994, and cared about good music!

All I can do now is hope that they get together for something again and tour, but my hopes aren't too high. You never know though...

They just don't make bands like that anymore! :(

bumper stickers...

2005-04-11T11:08:00.000-05:00

This gets me going:
"Patriots only vote Bush/Cheney"...

What a load of crap! I saw that this morning on my way to the gym. The right wing attach in this country on the "unpatriotic" left is absolutely disgusting, and in fact I would contend, un-american. After all this country was founded on the principle of freedom and democracy. Being called unpatriotic for voting differently is completely against the spirit of democracy!

This sticker actually highlights a broader problem in the US: I think the sentiment of that message is at least partially why the democrats have been so unsuccessful in gaining support over the last 4 years. They are afraid themselves of not being seen as "American", and hence have become a soft opposition. I hope this will change, but I am worried...

(for the record: I would also be offended by a sticker saying "Patriots only vote Kerry/Edwards")

Proportional Representation

2005-04-09T15:37:00.000-05:00

What I consider the problem:
The Canadian (and US) system does not give political representation to parties based on their popular support, but uses a "first past the post" approach, where whoever gets the most votes wins a particular riding. Mostly this benefits bigger parties, that may win 40% of the votes in many ridings (and win a seat) and in the end get much more than 40% of the total seats.

What I'm thinking:
I would like to see a system where the seats are either distributed according to the popular vote (there are many examples of this in other countries), or at least a system where a certain number of seats are reserved to balance the differences between the votes and seats a party got.
For example, if the Greens (or Christian Heritage...) got 5% of the vote nationally, but got no seats, then they would get some of these "floating seats" to balance things. In the Canadian House of Commons I think a good number might be 50 seats that are "floating". Each party would be responsible to come up with a way to choose who gets the allotted floating seats.

The benefits (and backdraws?):
I think a system where every vote counts to some extent would have many benefits. First it would open up the political arena to more parties, broadening the input process. I also believe that this would greatly reduce voter cynicism, as a vote really does count even when it goes to a party that has no chance of winning some riding. A potential backdraw is certainly that it will become much harder for a party to form a majority government. This could certainly make things slower, but I think it would also require more coalition forming, which I think could often benefit the overall process...

All this applies in the US as well... I do not think it's healthy that only two parties control every seat in Washington. It would be great to have some Greens, Libertarians etc there...

Post #1

2005-04-09T14:21:00.000-05:00

Well,
This is something new... I am going to attempt my hand at "blogging"... after sneering at this concept pretty much since I first heard about it.
So why now?
Well, because I want to inflict my political opinions on whoever might come across this. If nothing else it will serve as a "depository" for my thoughts, which often get articulated in ranting speeches to my office mates, and are soon forgotten.

Whatever.
If you're interested read on, and visit again when hopefully I'll have some new content...