CARE to USAID: Shove it!

I'll probably write more about this later today after work, but for now all I can say is Kudos to CARE for telling the US Agency for International Development -- USAID -- to take a hike and keep the $45 million it donates to CARE for food aid.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Get your motor running ...

The speed limit on many of Canada's highways is way too low. Many roads in the back country posted at 80 km/h should really be 100, and most expressways posted 100 should be anywhere from 110 in the cities to 130 in rural areas.

I'm not suggesting we go the way of the Autobahns in Germany -- which technically have no speed limit but still enforce a guideline of "reasonable and prudent," meaning one can't endanger the lives of others. There, the "recommended" speed is 130. But I would like to see more reasonable limits along with much stricter enforcement aimed at speed demons.

So to watch this video today, of some truly reckless people who think they have the "right" to drive 300+ because they can afford to drive a Ferrari or Lamborghini is truly frightening. There could have been some real carnage if someone law-abiding had been on those highways and byways in Alberta.



Personally, I'd like to see those cars repossessed -- not to be destroyed but to be given to charities. After all, civil society deserves as nice a ride as those who obey the law but are disgraced by their moronic comrades.

UPDATE (08/17/07, 7:01 AM EDT, 1101 GMT): It now appears this video -- or at least the participation of one or more participants -- may have been faked. Still, that's no excuse to daring to be stupid or reckless.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Crush dead

What is it with pro wrestling? Now it's Brian "Crush" Adams, formerly of Demolition.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Brooke Astor 1902-2007

It's hard to imagine the world without Brooke Astor. By the time the Astor Foundation wrapped up its affairs about ten years ago, she had given away nearly 200 million bucks to improve the lot of her fellow New Yorkers. Truly the last of a breed in the class of the Rockefellers, Carnegies and Fords.

Can you imagine Donald Trump or his kids being that charitable?

Don't be ridiculous.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

NO S%&@, Mitt! (And Bye Bye Karl!)

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney says he may have misspoken when he said his sons' volunteering for his campaign was the equivalent of if they had volunteered to serve in Iraq. (None of them have.)

Meanwhile, breaking news this morning: The power behind the throne at the White House, Karl Rove, says he'll resign at the end of the month.

Expect a presidential pardon around Labor Day even though Rove hasn't been charged with anything as of yet.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Who said Iraq would be a quagmire? Dick Cheney ...

... in 1994.



To be fair, Cheney wasn't the first to say this. Schwartzkopf pretty much said the same thing two years earlier in his autobiography, "It Doesn't Take A Hero" -- right towards the end, when he answered the most frequently asked questions he had received after the First Gulf War. But the general also had a warning that the future was not global but regional conflicts, and the key to winning them would be the ability to manage them smartly -- which Bush and Cheney have not done well at all.


Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Most ridiculous item of the week (2007-08-12)

Long before he became part of the FBI's infamous "Goon Squad" and before he became the source known as "Deep Throat," Mark Felt handled a patent infringement case for the Federal Trade Commission, regarding a brand of toilet paper called "Red Cross" and whether it misled people in thinking they were purchasing something endorsed by the Red Cross; a non-profit, non partisan NGO.

This wasn't an isolated case. The Red Crosses and Red Crescents of the world (and in Israel, the Magen David Adom) protect their trademarks and with good reason: The symbols indicate humanitarianism and impartiality, so much so that the only other group entitled to use them are medical corps and only in times of conflict (to indicate military EMTs and physicians). Even using the Red Cross on a commercially sold first aid kit is technically illegal.

Or ... is it?

Fast forward to the third millennium. The pharmaceutical giant, Johnson and Johnson, has now turned the table and is suing the American Red Cross over its decision to license the symbol for the sale of products at commercial establishments. Everything from toothbrushes to humidifiers. What is J and J asking for? An injunction demanding the inventory be turned over so they can be destroyed.

It's kind of complicated in a way when one considers J and J had the trademark before the Red Cross was founded (how they lost it on the way, I'm not quite so sure). The two do have an agreement on who gets to use the symbol and when but that dates back to 1895. Moreover, the revenues the American Red Cross gets from the sale of the products in question is puny, about $5 million per year. In a normal year, they raise about $4 billion -- it spiked up to 6 last year because of the outpouring of donations to the Katrina relief effort.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why a charity shouldn't be allowed to sell commercial wares as part of its line of business, so long as it doesn't become its primary source or such business undermines its original purpose. It's hard to believe the same company that got out of an entire line of business during the 1980s (the decision to stop producing acetaminophen in capsule form, after two cyanide poisonings) as the ultimate act of corporate citizenship would now turn around and say that a charity that is probably one of its best customers can't go into business themselves even if the profits go right back into the charity itself.

I don't know how I'd rule in this case. How would you?

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Your vehicle may have been recalled -- so find out

I was going to write today about mine safety in Canada versus the United States but Buckdog beat me to it and pretty much said what I wanted to (thanks!) so I want to talk about one thing that seems to have come up of late at work -- a lot.

It's bound to happen but making vehicles isn't a perfect science. Every so often there is a recall (ordered by the government) or a safety campaign (voluntarily ordered by the manufacturer). There are really no secrets about these, notwithstanding what some auto writers claim. They are well publicized. Nor are there any so-called "secret warranties." There are warranty extensions on occasion, but the companies also go out of their way to let the owners or lessees know.

There's a catch, however. By law, the companies only have to notify the first registered owner of a vehicle; or if the owner has changed, the subsequent owner -- but only if he or she has let the company know that such a change has happened. A company's records will show four things -- the date of the recall, when the letter was issued, the date it was performed and the date it was "closed" by the dealer (that is, the dealer lets the company know the work was done and it can registered as such.) Some consumers do call just for that purpose (a good chuck of the e-mail I handle deals with that one question, whether there are recalls) but some are clueless.

There are no time limits on these recalls. They remain open until every vehicle recalled is either worked on and / or declared "branded" (i.e. totalled or scrapped) by the police. Believe it or not, some vehicles ten years or older were recalled just months after leaving the assembly line, the owner sold the car before then and the subsequent owners -- sometimes quite a few of them -- have no clue, until their suspension cracks or catalytic converter blows up, they get the work done by an independent garage, and months after that finally find out there was a recall after all. Reimbursements are considered but they are on a case by case basis.

Much more recently, at least two vehicle lines for some model years have had a warranty extension against corrosion of the rear suspension -- a quite long one -- and our records show the work to replace the one sold with the vehicle hasn't even been performed yet!

So if you buy a new car and later move, let the car company know -- the call centre phone number is in the owner's manual, or find out the number by calling toll free directory assist. If you're selling the car, let the new owner know how to get in touch. And if you're buying a used car -- whether it's from a dealer, any dealer -- take a few minutes to call the car company and let them know you're the new owner and make sure the FIRST question you ask is, "Are there any recalls?" (Of course, you'll need to have the vehicle identification number, or VIN, handy -- not all vehicles produced during a model year have necessarily been recalled.)

Where I work, the company to whom we're contracted requires us to do the search anyway (by the VIN) but some may not. But as a consumer you have the right to know. Heck, why not give them a call anyway? You'll touch base with a human person, and if there is a recall it will be done with genuine manufacturer parts (not aftermarket like what are sold at some places which will not be mentioned) and it'll be done at no charge.

Hopefully, your car or truck will never be recalled or subject to a service campaign. But if there is, it's one of the few things that will increase the resale value down the road.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Québec woman can't take hubby's name -- no woman can

A recent migrant to Québec from Ontario is upset that she can't get the province to agree to have her husband's name on her provincial driver's licence. That's due to Article 393 of the province's Civil Code, which states: "In marriage, both spouses retain their respective names, and exercise their respective civil rights under those names."

This is part of a group of articles that were enacted back in 1981 and went further than anywhere else in Canada to ensure the equality of the sexes in marriage. The only legal reasons a woman may be permitted to take her husband's name is if her own is difficult to pronounce or is the subject of ridicule or infamy (example: a woman would have a case if she was called Hitler or Hirohito). The law has also led to a very interesting situation: Many fathers in the province allow their kids to have their wife's or common law partner's name for precisely the same reason.

The woman here -- Caroline Parent -- is asking nothing more than for women to be given the choice as is the case in the common law provinces.

I'm not sure that's a good idea. We're entitled to a name and unless we have a good reason we're entitled to keep that name. Changing one's name presumes you're selling out to your spouse and turning over your rights, even though the law for at least the last two decades or so has made it clear that spouses are fully equal in a marriage -- period. There may be historical reasons for the rule but I just don't see it being valid anymore. I think the law in Québec should be taken nation-wide. It recognizes that as long as both partners are law-abiding, neither is a threat to the other's rights and privileges.

There may be a case based on freedom of expression -- but I would argue that that can be limited by what's justified in a free and democratic society which is that mothers and fathers are equal and neither has authority over the other.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

They knew and did nothing

After the Arar report was declassified today and the revelation the Canadian government knew what was going to happen, one has to wonder whether it may be time to disband CSIS and turn foreign intelligence back to the Mounties.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

I support MMP

At the upcoming provincial election, the people in Ontario will also vote in a referendum on whether to dump first past the post and replace it with mixed member plurality -- a form of representation by population. The method proposed is not somewhat like the system in Germany and New Zealand, where one votes for both a local candidate and a party slate.

I support the move, precisely for the reason some are opposing it: It will mean the end of endless majority governments. Why is that important?

It may be true that majorities produce stability. But they also produce arrogance. As the system is presently set up in Canada, someone could win an election outright with as little as 35% of the popular vote then rule like a dictator (with a compliant bunch of minions in the legislature) for the next four years. Coalition building would require broader and more palatable policy options that draw consensus rather than division. And it would permit "dream team" Cabinets, such as the Red-Green alliances one often sees in Europe.

Besides this is totally unlike the pure PR system in Israel, where a party wins seats with just 2% of the popular vote; it's little wonder why coalitions are so unwieldly there. The floor proposed here is slightly higher -- 3% -- but given the party seats would level out any "overhangs" it would prevent fringe groups from gaining access to the legislature unless they first had fairly broad local support.

By ensuring the representation closely reflects how people actually voted, one will feel their vote counted. Moreover, by having two ballots one can split the vote so they can vote for one party's candidate (or rather his or her slate) for the top job while selecting another party's local candidate.

Some have argued against the idea of closed lists. And this is a concern -- generally I support the principle of no representation without selection. However, the fact is parties will have to justify who appears on their lists and why. If a party decided, for instance, to choose a slate made up entirely of white males from Toronto's financial district it would risk getting punished not just on the list but on the local level as well. Going back to Israel and its pure PR model -- would any party stand a chance if it just fielded a slate entirely from Tel Aviv or Meggido (Armageddon)? Not likely.

There are kinks in the system and they can be worked out but this may be the best and only chance we have of getting it done. It's unacceptable a party can win the popular vote and still lose the election. MMP will prevent that from ever happening again. That's why I'm going to support this and work among my colleagues and here to get it up to the 60% vote needed to pass.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Money for Nothing: The Magazine

If those of the cloth want to know why people are so cynical of religion, they only have to look in the mirror and see the hypocrites in their midst.

Such as this guy, one Jason Christy, who collected money for ads to a Christian magazine ... then allegedly pocketed the money for himself.

Christian publishers like Gary McCullough, director of the Christian Communication Network and a competitor of Christy’s, accuse him of running an “ongoing scheme that has defrauded many Christians.”

McCullough says Christy uses his website to prompt Christian churches and organizations to buy ads for the corresponding magazine but then prints only “a few hundred copies” and mails them “as if they are part of a much larger distribution.” Then, after the ministry has spent thousands of dollars and begins to ask for tear sheets or copies of the magazine, Christy balks, McCullough said.

“Each month Christy would apologize and give an excuse or wonder himself why I had not received copies of the magazine with my ad,” McCullough said. “This was all an elaborate con. The Church Report was never printed with my ads—because it was never printed.”

Christy apparently continues to sell ads and collect payment, claiming a circulation of 30,000, even though there apparently has been no print version of the magazine published in more than a year.

And these are the people who keep voting Republican, time after time after time. Simply breath-taking.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

The Sesame Street Bus

This is an old joke that goes back a bit, but it's still a good one.

A subway driver gets the scare of his life when his train is hijacked and forced to take a joyride all around a major city. He's dealt with muggings and stabbings, but this one breaks his nerve. He tells his supervisors he's sick and tired of driving underground -- but since he's a few years away from "thirty and out" he uses his bumping rights and demands a surface route. Not wanting to lose a loyal employee, the transit company agrees.

He shows up at the bus depot a week later and is stunned to learn he's been assigned the Sesame Street run. He shrugs and begins his rush hour run.

At the first stop, a better built woman steps on board. "Hi, you must be the new driver," as she swipes her smart card against the meter. "My name's Patty." She takes a seat near the front.

Several stops later, another better built woman steps on board. "Oh, you're the new driver," she says, and she takes her pre-paid ticket and validates it in the meter. As the printer stamps the card and it beeps, the woman says, "My name's Patty." She takes a seat in the middle of the bus.

Two miles down, a middle aged man boards on. He pays cash, then tells the driver, "Hi, my name's Saul, and I'm special!" He then bends down, takes off his socks and picks some bunions off his feet. He then puts his socks and shoes back on and goes to the back. The driver, who's seen it all as a train operator on the subway, is really dazed.

The rest of his shift is otherwise uneventful. He comes home, and his wife asks him how the buses were.

"If I have another day like this one, I'm going to take the package as soon as they offer it. I just can't wait four years until I make my 30."

"What happened?" asked his wife.

"What happened???? Two all-beef Patties, special Saul on his knees, picking bunions on a Sesame Street Bus!"

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Guess who's claiming the papal vote was rigged?

Back during the 1980s and 90s when I was really adrift in terms of my faith, I somehow got hooked on a little magazine called The Plain Truth, edited by Herbert W. Armstrong and his successors. Remember that guy? He claimed that Americans and Brits are really Israelis, that we should follow Jewish dietary laws, and that Christmas and Easter are pagan holidays and the only "correct" days of worship are Jewish holidays. I had to chuckle at a lot of the magazine's articles as well as the weekly show The World Tomorrow, but back in 1988 they actually had a very insightful article about the Free Trade election in Canada and what was at stake -- covering some points the MSM missed, such as the US needed a viable partner to take on the European Union.

Interestingly, Armstrong to the best of my recollection never specifically condemned Roman Catholicism. In fact, he had audiences with several Popes during his lifetime. He kept saying something about the European Union being the seventh and final "revival" of the Roman Empire but neglected to mention the "sixth" -- the Hitler / Mussolini cabal -- rejected Christianity as a religion for weaklings. (And for what it's worth, the Vatican did turn a blind eye to the Holocaust which is still a stain on its reputation today.)

Fast foward to 2007. Armstrong is long gone, and the copyright of the books fell into the hands eventually of the "Philadelphia" Church of God. It's a long story but let's just say this church decided to publish Armstrong's books under "fair use" laws after Armstrong's old church turned its back on its past and became part of the evangelical movement. Somehow, the PCG won an upset victory over its rival.

The PCG's magazine is called The Trumpet. And while they're certainly right about Wojtyla and Ratzinger taking on the "liberation theologians" they really go into speculation about whether the papal vote was rigged.

I picked up the magazine at a local restaurant. It seems like every third article they find some way to smear the Vatican or mainline Catholics in general, just enough to avoid libel laws. And this is anything but a principled magazine that The Plain Truth was. In my humble opinion, it's a religious version of MAD.

Look, it's no secret that Wojtyla changed the voting rules during the 90s. This was actually picked up by the press, contrary to what the PCG claims. Catholics knew about the change quite well too. The reason for going to a simple majority after 34 ballots (dropping from 2/3)was to ensure a papal enclave wouldn't last for months, as it often did during the Middle Ages. Someone has to be running the government of a country, even the world's smallest.

As for the "amnesia" the PCG criticizes about what actually happened, it's important to remember the cardinals take an oath of secrecy before the conclave beings. Of course there was going to be a denial of the actual vote, even though it eventually leaked out anyway. The McKenna brothers weren't supposed to know Wojtyla won in 1978 by a vote of 99-9 with 9 spoiled ballots, but they did find out anyway. Newspapers weren't supposed to find out Ratzinger led on the third ballot over Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires 72-40, before winning on the fourth 77-34. A cardinal actually confirming this -- or his assistant -- would be excommunicated if caught, but that didn't stop the leak from happening.

So what if Bergoglio won a surprising level of support? Everyone knew it was Ratzinger's election to lose. Everyone said his greatest fear was Maria Martini of Milan.

And besides, Ratzinger is in my opinion at least, talking sense when he says he'd like Europe to rediscover its faith. Is that really a bad thing? One can support the separation of church and state and still be a faithful person. Just because someone said all roads lead to Rome doesn't necessarily make it so. And regardless of what most secular analysts, most religions, teach -- the War Against Terror will eventually be won. Just not the way we're fighting it right now.

Oh, one other thing -- why is the Philadephia Church of God when most of their offices are in Oklahoma?

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Mount Steele smaller

At least PMS can't be blamed for this, but when a mountain suddenly gets smaller without warning it's a very troubling sign.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.