This is definitely not funny. Earlier today, there were no fewer than nine -- count them, nine -- bomb threats in Boston; one of them not too far from the head office of the company that now employs me. In this day and age, we get nervous about a discarded lunch bag or a milk box that goes "moo." So it's little wonder Beantown went into high alert when some electronic devices were found around town.
Only it now turns out it was a sick hoax, put on by the Cartoon Network -- the sister company of CNN. It was a publicity stunt for the late night show Aqua Teen Hunger Force.
At least when the Irish Republican Army was bombing things left right and centre, they called the BBC with a coded message giving some advance warning something was going to happen. Really going to happen.
What happened today really is like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre where there was none. When the Mounties closed in on the Toronto cell, they got them just days before they could blow up the CN Tower and Parliament. And some other plots have been stopped as well based on a "clear and present danger." Frankly I think that Time Warner, the parent of CNN and Cartoon Network should be forced to pay for the extra policing costs as well as the nuisance they caused. There is simply no excuse for inconveniencing people like this in the name of cheap fun or advertising.
Especially when the current owners of Time are mostly Arab sheiks who sleep with Republicans and curse Democrats. If they bothered to check into Boston, they'd find there are a lot more GOPers in Massachusetts than Fox News would like us to believe; even if they are mostly liberal.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
The environment commissioner needs its own office
Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General of Canada, has become somewhat of a hero not just to accountants but to most Canadians in general for blowing the lid of of Sponsorgate and even before that being extremely aggressive in her review of spending by the federal government.
Within the office of Canada's top bean counter is that of the environmental commissioner. This was a post created out of Jean Chrétien's first "Red Book." Sort of. The idea that Paul Martin and Chaviva Hosek, who really wrote the 1993 Liberal platform, was that the "Environmental Auditor General" would be a completely separate office; but whether because of an opposition amendment or a change of heart it was decided to put the office within the purview of the Office of the Auditor General.
Today, we learn that Fraser has fired the commissioner, Johanne Gélinas. It is thought that she had gotten way too critical of both the Liberal and Conservative governments over their environmental record and went from merely reviewing performance to becoming an advocate on it.
No disrespect to Fraser, but hasn't the OAG itself become an advocate of sorts over the years? In the absence until recently of a Comptroller General (a chief accountant for the executive), the OAG as the servant of Parliament has had to do double duty, reviewing as well as signing off on the books, while making recommendations on how to improve performance. Typically, Fraser and her assistants go through the government every three years which means only a third of the tax dollars we pay are reviewed each year. We kind of expect in the interim someone will speak for those who are powerless, and I don't mean lobbyists who are in bed with one side or another but someone who can look at the big picture with a totally unbiased and non-partisan perspective.
So it's only natural that Jélinas would want to put her stamp on the Green File. Just as the Auditor makes recommendations on how to implement best practices on spending, we need someone arms length to do the same for the environment. The current government isn't doing its job and it's pretty clear the NDP and Cons are going to strike any deal to avoid an election at least until this fall. So who will speak up? Big Oil? We know where they stand. Greenpeace? Too confrontational at times.
The office of environment auditor should have been kept separate in the first place. I would make it a separate office with its own staff and budget -- and like the OAG, I'd not only permit quarterly reports, but I'd require it so the government is constantly scrutinized.
Why Fraser made her decision may be her business. But as she reports to Parliament, it should be our business too. I think we need some answers. I have to agree with Green Party leader Elizabeth May in her assessment that this is "shooting the messenger."
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Within the office of Canada's top bean counter is that of the environmental commissioner. This was a post created out of Jean Chrétien's first "Red Book." Sort of. The idea that Paul Martin and Chaviva Hosek, who really wrote the 1993 Liberal platform, was that the "Environmental Auditor General" would be a completely separate office; but whether because of an opposition amendment or a change of heart it was decided to put the office within the purview of the Office of the Auditor General.
Today, we learn that Fraser has fired the commissioner, Johanne Gélinas. It is thought that she had gotten way too critical of both the Liberal and Conservative governments over their environmental record and went from merely reviewing performance to becoming an advocate on it.
No disrespect to Fraser, but hasn't the OAG itself become an advocate of sorts over the years? In the absence until recently of a Comptroller General (a chief accountant for the executive), the OAG as the servant of Parliament has had to do double duty, reviewing as well as signing off on the books, while making recommendations on how to improve performance. Typically, Fraser and her assistants go through the government every three years which means only a third of the tax dollars we pay are reviewed each year. We kind of expect in the interim someone will speak for those who are powerless, and I don't mean lobbyists who are in bed with one side or another but someone who can look at the big picture with a totally unbiased and non-partisan perspective.
So it's only natural that Jélinas would want to put her stamp on the Green File. Just as the Auditor makes recommendations on how to implement best practices on spending, we need someone arms length to do the same for the environment. The current government isn't doing its job and it's pretty clear the NDP and Cons are going to strike any deal to avoid an election at least until this fall. So who will speak up? Big Oil? We know where they stand. Greenpeace? Too confrontational at times.
The office of environment auditor should have been kept separate in the first place. I would make it a separate office with its own staff and budget -- and like the OAG, I'd not only permit quarterly reports, but I'd require it so the government is constantly scrutinized.
Why Fraser made her decision may be her business. But as she reports to Parliament, it should be our business too. I think we need some answers. I have to agree with Green Party leader Elizabeth May in her assessment that this is "shooting the messenger."
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
New Conservative ads possibly "funny face" redux
With the winter sitting of Parliament set to begin tomorrow, word comes out that the ruling minority Conservatives are going to run a set of negative ads during that time of year that attracts the biggest television audience -- the Super Bowl next Sunday. Reportedly, the commercials are drawn from the Liberals' leadership debates and Michael Ignatieff (now deputy leader of the party) questioning the environmental credentials of the ultimate winner, Stéphane Dion.
This is either a brilliant move on the part of Con strategists or it could really backfire the way the old Tory Party's "funny face" ads did in a last minute attempt to attack Jean Chrétien. I tend to think that it's the latter, and here's why.
For fully a year now, the Conservatives have tried to do anything to pretend that the environment is not a problem. All of a sudden, in the last month, they've decided to take it seriously. Perhaps they realize people in Central Canada and in the Lower Mainland understand just how bad the air and water is. Or the fact what's left of the fish stocks on both coasts are being destroyed not just by overfishing but by rapidly warming water.
Making a flip-flop like this without at least a reasonable explanation to its core constituents is tough enough (especially the most extreme branch of evangelicalism that denies global warming; to be fair many if not most "born again" people also recognize we're destroying the world). Try explaining that to the rest of Canadians who are already jaded and it becomes more of a problem.
Mind you, Dion does have some explaining to do of his own. Not on the environment but his openly musing earlier this week that the ten former members of the Liberal Party who were expelled for their roles in Sponsorgate might be welcomed back. This is something the Cons can definitely pounce on (and probably will in another ad next week) and he needs to make it absolutely clear that once you're out, you're out for good.
So, my advice to Dion would be this: Be relentless this week in Question Period and at the committee level. Be completely relentless. Ask why the change of heart, and why now. And don't just focus on the environment but the entire Conservative agenda and the potential impact and even damage it can have on Canada and Canadians in the short and long term. Talk about the air, yes; but also talk about families, defence policy, fisheries, and the fiscal imbalance. Take the wind out of the Conservatives so that when the ads air on Sunday, it's the Cons and not the Liberals who look like the indecisive ones.
And don't just do it this week, but every week until the election.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
This is either a brilliant move on the part of Con strategists or it could really backfire the way the old Tory Party's "funny face" ads did in a last minute attempt to attack Jean Chrétien. I tend to think that it's the latter, and here's why.
For fully a year now, the Conservatives have tried to do anything to pretend that the environment is not a problem. All of a sudden, in the last month, they've decided to take it seriously. Perhaps they realize people in Central Canada and in the Lower Mainland understand just how bad the air and water is. Or the fact what's left of the fish stocks on both coasts are being destroyed not just by overfishing but by rapidly warming water.
Making a flip-flop like this without at least a reasonable explanation to its core constituents is tough enough (especially the most extreme branch of evangelicalism that denies global warming; to be fair many if not most "born again" people also recognize we're destroying the world). Try explaining that to the rest of Canadians who are already jaded and it becomes more of a problem.
Mind you, Dion does have some explaining to do of his own. Not on the environment but his openly musing earlier this week that the ten former members of the Liberal Party who were expelled for their roles in Sponsorgate might be welcomed back. This is something the Cons can definitely pounce on (and probably will in another ad next week) and he needs to make it absolutely clear that once you're out, you're out for good.
So, my advice to Dion would be this: Be relentless this week in Question Period and at the committee level. Be completely relentless. Ask why the change of heart, and why now. And don't just focus on the environment but the entire Conservative agenda and the potential impact and even damage it can have on Canada and Canadians in the short and long term. Talk about the air, yes; but also talk about families, defence policy, fisheries, and the fiscal imbalance. Take the wind out of the Conservatives so that when the ads air on Sunday, it's the Cons and not the Liberals who look like the indecisive ones.
And don't just do it this week, but every week until the election.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Another reason to oppose North Korea
Yes, I know, it's a right-wing publication ... but World Net Daily had a report the other day about the extent to which Christians are being persecuted in the appropriately named Hermit Kingdom. Four people professing Christianity were executed recently. Their crime? They had a Korean New Testament in their possession.
One can expect this kind of oppression in most dictatorial regimes -- except that in many authoritarian or totalitarian systems, there remains an active Church (regardless of denomination) which works either actively or behind the scenes to promote its message as well as act as an official or semi-official opposition. This certainly was the case in many former East Bloc countries -- Poland, Croatia and Slovakia to name just three. In those cases religion certainly wasn't encouraged but it was tolerated. While the end of communism was a secular act, the people behind it was backed by faith and the sense of inalienable rights.
Why would the PDRK be so vehement in its actions and its desire to crush any light the Church might attempt to spark? Because the light of freedom, no matter how dim, ultimately outshines any darkness. That's not to say it's necessary to be religious to have freedom, but even secular freedom movements normally have at least some elements based on common beliefs or ethical values. And perhaps the Kim family has actually read and taken seriously the words of Jesus of Nazareth when he said he would return when his Gospel was preached to all nations (Matthew 24:14). They've seen the fall of the Iron Curtain and how freedom eventually swept through most of Latin America. And they saw the downfall of apartheid and the role of faith-based organizations such as the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches, and ultimately the Dutch Reformed Church which had once supported the system but then made a dramatic flip-flop.
They have no desire to let that happen in North Korea.
To the point where pretty much every other person in the PDRK is a snitch -- even an Army officer was executed when a fellow soldier caught him preaching to his unit. Many others are in slave labour camps.
Yet we are so preoccupied with Pyongyang's nuclear program and the complete incompetency of the food aid system that we've failed to speak out for people's freedom. The West, however, must. One of the main keys to a stable Asia-Pacific region is a united and democratic Korea. We need to speak out and regularly, and insist nuclear and food "aid" must be tied to greater freedoms. And we need to nurture, even if it is at great risk, the underground church.
If we succeed in Korea, we can start a domino effect for good. Mainland China would obviously be the next to topple, followed by Vietnam, Laos and Burma. And maybe we really could have peace in our time. So this weekend, pray for the people of North Korea.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
One can expect this kind of oppression in most dictatorial regimes -- except that in many authoritarian or totalitarian systems, there remains an active Church (regardless of denomination) which works either actively or behind the scenes to promote its message as well as act as an official or semi-official opposition. This certainly was the case in many former East Bloc countries -- Poland, Croatia and Slovakia to name just three. In those cases religion certainly wasn't encouraged but it was tolerated. While the end of communism was a secular act, the people behind it was backed by faith and the sense of inalienable rights.
Why would the PDRK be so vehement in its actions and its desire to crush any light the Church might attempt to spark? Because the light of freedom, no matter how dim, ultimately outshines any darkness. That's not to say it's necessary to be religious to have freedom, but even secular freedom movements normally have at least some elements based on common beliefs or ethical values. And perhaps the Kim family has actually read and taken seriously the words of Jesus of Nazareth when he said he would return when his Gospel was preached to all nations (Matthew 24:14). They've seen the fall of the Iron Curtain and how freedom eventually swept through most of Latin America. And they saw the downfall of apartheid and the role of faith-based organizations such as the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches, and ultimately the Dutch Reformed Church which had once supported the system but then made a dramatic flip-flop.
They have no desire to let that happen in North Korea.
To the point where pretty much every other person in the PDRK is a snitch -- even an Army officer was executed when a fellow soldier caught him preaching to his unit. Many others are in slave labour camps.
Yet we are so preoccupied with Pyongyang's nuclear program and the complete incompetency of the food aid system that we've failed to speak out for people's freedom. The West, however, must. One of the main keys to a stable Asia-Pacific region is a united and democratic Korea. We need to speak out and regularly, and insist nuclear and food "aid" must be tied to greater freedoms. And we need to nurture, even if it is at great risk, the underground church.
If we succeed in Korea, we can start a domino effect for good. Mainland China would obviously be the next to topple, followed by Vietnam, Laos and Burma. And maybe we really could have peace in our time. So this weekend, pray for the people of North Korea.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Royal snoop gets the slammer
A British newspaper was sentenced to time in jail today for hacking into the voice mail of the assistants of Princes William and Harry. I can't remember the last time this happened (prison time for a scribe who violated privacy rules) but it's a sign at least some courts recognize there really is a right to privacy and even celebrities have the right to be left alone as long as they generally stay out of trouble.
It doesn't matter that they are people on the public payroll or have a significant constitutional duty ... they're human beings and they need their own space.
It's becoming an issue as William intensifies his relationship with Kate Middleton. She's being harrassed as much as Diana was and maybe even more so. I doubt Will and Kate are going to get married this year -- after all, Betty Windsor and Phillip are celebrating their sixtieth anniversary this fall and I don't think The Firm wants anything to interfere with that. But Diana didn't put down her foot quite enough or often enough and it was ultimately to her detriment. Middleton needs to take the opportunity to do so now, before she and Will even get engaged. Matter of fact, if I were Middleton, I'd tell the media to back off or else I'd use my contacts in MI-5 and make them "disappear" the same way the late Augusto Pinochet did to several thousand Chileans.
Not that I really would (a royal, after all, should be among the first to defend press freedom in a democracy) but just putting the fear of God in some of the more unscrupulous members of the Fourth Estate might wake them up.
Or not.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
It doesn't matter that they are people on the public payroll or have a significant constitutional duty ... they're human beings and they need their own space.
It's becoming an issue as William intensifies his relationship with Kate Middleton. She's being harrassed as much as Diana was and maybe even more so. I doubt Will and Kate are going to get married this year -- after all, Betty Windsor and Phillip are celebrating their sixtieth anniversary this fall and I don't think The Firm wants anything to interfere with that. But Diana didn't put down her foot quite enough or often enough and it was ultimately to her detriment. Middleton needs to take the opportunity to do so now, before she and Will even get engaged. Matter of fact, if I were Middleton, I'd tell the media to back off or else I'd use my contacts in MI-5 and make them "disappear" the same way the late Augusto Pinochet did to several thousand Chileans.
Not that I really would (a royal, after all, should be among the first to defend press freedom in a democracy) but just putting the fear of God in some of the more unscrupulous members of the Fourth Estate might wake them up.
Or not.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Which Mounties did Stockwell Day speak to?
Policing is seen by many as an essential service, and in many jurisdictions they are prohibited from going on strike, but that does not mean they aren't allowed to form a union and bargain collectively. Every police force, that is, except the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That's right, the Mounties are forbidden by law from forming a union -- have been since 1919.
Now, some members of the Red Serge want to change that. There is a "staff association" but many have accused it of being the pawns of management and want a real union. But in comments today, Public Security Minister Stockwell Day claimed the "vast majority" of Mounties he's talked to like the status quo.
Which members of The Force? And in what parts of the country? One can make a statement like that with a straight face if he only asked people in Alberta, which has one of the lowest levels of unionization in the country. Did Day bother to ask others -- in other parts of the Prairies, the West Coast, the Atlantic? Or in Central Canada, where the RCMP has a substantially smaller but still significant role in law enforcement?
The fact is, while the Mounties are police and a militia unit simultaneously, they are public servants. And as employees of the federal government, the people of Canada really, they should have the same rights as those in the civilian service and the military. To treat them with a lesser standard and to deny them one of the basic rights of democracy, that to bargain collectively, violates one of our most important freedoms -- freedom of association. Liberal MP Dan McTeague wants to change that with private member's bill C-392.
Fortunately, I'm currently in a work environment where it's not really necessary to have a union. We're generally well treated and well compensated compared to our colleagues in other parts of the service industry. In fact, during my work life, I've only been a member of a union for two years and not once during that time did I see the need to file a grievance. And there have been times when I felt that unions had way too much power and influence in Canada.
That being said, I would like to know that if circumstances were to change in the future that made things difficult, the option existed to at least try to certify a union local. It's simply ridiculous that 21,000 men and women are specifically denied what the rest of us are entitled to under federal or provincial law. Stockwell Day might want to talk to some more Mounties -- he might discover there's a lot more discontent than what he's been led to believe.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Now, some members of the Red Serge want to change that. There is a "staff association" but many have accused it of being the pawns of management and want a real union. But in comments today, Public Security Minister Stockwell Day claimed the "vast majority" of Mounties he's talked to like the status quo.
Which members of The Force? And in what parts of the country? One can make a statement like that with a straight face if he only asked people in Alberta, which has one of the lowest levels of unionization in the country. Did Day bother to ask others -- in other parts of the Prairies, the West Coast, the Atlantic? Or in Central Canada, where the RCMP has a substantially smaller but still significant role in law enforcement?
The fact is, while the Mounties are police and a militia unit simultaneously, they are public servants. And as employees of the federal government, the people of Canada really, they should have the same rights as those in the civilian service and the military. To treat them with a lesser standard and to deny them one of the basic rights of democracy, that to bargain collectively, violates one of our most important freedoms -- freedom of association. Liberal MP Dan McTeague wants to change that with private member's bill C-392.
Fortunately, I'm currently in a work environment where it's not really necessary to have a union. We're generally well treated and well compensated compared to our colleagues in other parts of the service industry. In fact, during my work life, I've only been a member of a union for two years and not once during that time did I see the need to file a grievance. And there have been times when I felt that unions had way too much power and influence in Canada.
That being said, I would like to know that if circumstances were to change in the future that made things difficult, the option existed to at least try to certify a union local. It's simply ridiculous that 21,000 men and women are specifically denied what the rest of us are entitled to under federal or provincial law. Stockwell Day might want to talk to some more Mounties -- he might discover there's a lot more discontent than what he's been led to believe.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Love horoscope? Ha!
A few items I wanted to blog about today ... but there is this one that I just found plain silly. One astrologists' "love" predictions for 2007. This, from a link on the home page of my ISP.
I haven't been much for horoscopes in quite some time now. I found it way too speculative and vague -- and truly telling is the amorphism that ninety-nine percent of people know their astrological sign but only twenty-five percent know their blood type. In the long run, what's more important?
I've been through it all -- horoscopes, psychics, palm reading, numerology, handwriting analysis -- and in the end it's all a big money grab. Others, like reading the grind stains of a demi-tasse Turkish coffee cup, are truly laughable. In some respects, other searches for answers are too, but we are ultimately the author of our own destinies.
Yes, I do have a spiritual side. I also believe there is a spirit world that lives among us. But the addendum to that is that I think one plays with fire if he or she tries to tamper with spirits or lives his or her life entirely according to the daily positions of the constellations.
I have nothing against people who want to pursue that kind of line of work. And besides, there will always be a market for it. But to be bald, I've had a "love forecast" each and every year since I was fourteen, saying it was all coming up roses. Uh, yeah. If they had all come true, I'd either have had twenty wives by now and be living in the FLDS commune of Bountiful, British Columbia; or I'd be already preparing for the wedding of my daughter. I'm not married, and I have no kids. In fact, I'm two years older than when my father sired me.
If this is the year for me -- and right now, I have every reason to remain pessimistic than optimistic -- it won't be because the stars are aligned properly. It'll be because I'm in the right place at the right time with the right woman. So, like they say in Missouri, Show Me. Show me this is my year.
I'm not bitter about having no woman in my life. Just -- pissed off. I don't need a horoscope to tell me it's my year, because ... well, I just don't. Mostly because I don't believe it.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
I haven't been much for horoscopes in quite some time now. I found it way too speculative and vague -- and truly telling is the amorphism that ninety-nine percent of people know their astrological sign but only twenty-five percent know their blood type. In the long run, what's more important?
I've been through it all -- horoscopes, psychics, palm reading, numerology, handwriting analysis -- and in the end it's all a big money grab. Others, like reading the grind stains of a demi-tasse Turkish coffee cup, are truly laughable. In some respects, other searches for answers are too, but we are ultimately the author of our own destinies.
Yes, I do have a spiritual side. I also believe there is a spirit world that lives among us. But the addendum to that is that I think one plays with fire if he or she tries to tamper with spirits or lives his or her life entirely according to the daily positions of the constellations.
I have nothing against people who want to pursue that kind of line of work. And besides, there will always be a market for it. But to be bald, I've had a "love forecast" each and every year since I was fourteen, saying it was all coming up roses. Uh, yeah. If they had all come true, I'd either have had twenty wives by now and be living in the FLDS commune of Bountiful, British Columbia; or I'd be already preparing for the wedding of my daughter. I'm not married, and I have no kids. In fact, I'm two years older than when my father sired me.
If this is the year for me -- and right now, I have every reason to remain pessimistic than optimistic -- it won't be because the stars are aligned properly. It'll be because I'm in the right place at the right time with the right woman. So, like they say in Missouri, Show Me. Show me this is my year.
I'm not bitter about having no woman in my life. Just -- pissed off. I don't need a horoscope to tell me it's my year, because ... well, I just don't. Mostly because I don't believe it.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Passports won't stop terrorists
After the attacks of 9/11, it seemed doubtful that North America would ever see the kind of integration that exists in the European Union, to the extent that most of its member states (and a few others outside the EU) actually abolished border controls between them starting about 20 years ago (the integration was mostly completed in 1995). Understandably, the emphasis should be on what's called "free and secure trade" with the borders open to those who love freedom and close to those who hate or oppose it.
However, I sense that the new passport rules that came into effect today are going to be more than just a huge headache for the tourist trade -- they could break a long standing sense of neighbourliness between Canada and the United States; partners economically and militarily yet still keeping an arms length from each other.
That really is a bad thing. Going across the border to get foodstuffs or gasoline -- or depending on the jurisdiction, to legally gamble -- almost seems like a right of passage along the 49th. Not to mention all the family ties.
And there's that little thing called the Jay Treaty of 1794, which granted dual citizenship to North American Indians -- a right reaffirmed in US law in the 1950s. Natives have enjoyed umimpeded access across the frontier. What about now? You thought Oka or Douglas Creek was crazy, just wait till they try enforcing the passport rules at Akwesasne - St. Regis (the internationally recognized border cuts right through tribal territory).
No, I wouldn't exactly like an arrangement like Schengen, at least not until America solves its immigration problem and Mexico's wage levels rise to those comparable to Canada and the US. But there has to be a better way to protect the border than this so-called border "initiative." Even most Senators and Governors along the border states say it's a rotten idea -- and they're the ones who are the first line of defence. If they know what's best for protecting America, why won't DC listen to that? Especially when the real threats to terrorism aren't outside invaders but people who want to destroy our freedoms from within.
However, I sense that the new passport rules that came into effect today are going to be more than just a huge headache for the tourist trade -- they could break a long standing sense of neighbourliness between Canada and the United States; partners economically and militarily yet still keeping an arms length from each other.
That really is a bad thing. Going across the border to get foodstuffs or gasoline -- or depending on the jurisdiction, to legally gamble -- almost seems like a right of passage along the 49th. Not to mention all the family ties.
And there's that little thing called the Jay Treaty of 1794, which granted dual citizenship to North American Indians -- a right reaffirmed in US law in the 1950s. Natives have enjoyed umimpeded access across the frontier. What about now? You thought Oka or Douglas Creek was crazy, just wait till they try enforcing the passport rules at Akwesasne - St. Regis (the internationally recognized border cuts right through tribal territory).
No, I wouldn't exactly like an arrangement like Schengen, at least not until America solves its immigration problem and Mexico's wage levels rise to those comparable to Canada and the US. But there has to be a better way to protect the border than this so-called border "initiative." Even most Senators and Governors along the border states say it's a rotten idea -- and they're the ones who are the first line of defence. If they know what's best for protecting America, why won't DC listen to that? Especially when the real threats to terrorism aren't outside invaders but people who want to destroy our freedoms from within.
Monday, January 22, 2007
"Dessert is three kinds of dessert"
Kind of interesting week it's been, with the Conservative government unveiling its so-called Green Plan. Couple things stick out for me. First, the Harper team seems to be backing away from a Liberal tax shelter that proved to be a boon for the oil sands business -- allowing Big Oil to accelerate amortization over a very short period, just ten years. Now why on Earth would a party that bleeds oil want to cancel the very tax break that has allowed Alberta to completely eliminate its debt is astonishing. No more so than the sudden decision to begin the taxation of income trusts.
Second, the Cons revived the EnerGuide program -- sort of. People will now be able to get a rebate for retrofitting their homes, but only if they put up all the money first. This effectively means wealthier people will be able to heat their monster homes for way less than lower class people spend to warm their shacks -- going against the original intent to give everyone an incentive to upgrade and save money. When the oil runs out in Alberta and Newfoundland, the rich will be on wind power or geothermal whilst the rest of us buy it from Venezuela's dictator for life Hugo Chavez. (Blow a raspberry here.)
Third, they announce they're protecting a huge swath of the British Columbia coastline and Haida Gwaii -- the Queen Charlottes -- mostly with private money, though. The forest industry's.
For Team Harper, conservation and green values are a virtue, not a collective responsibility. For them, dessert is three kinds of dessert -- we can have our cake and eat it too, but not face the fact we face. What we need are real emission standards ... but we're going to have to wait another 6,917 days for that!
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Second, the Cons revived the EnerGuide program -- sort of. People will now be able to get a rebate for retrofitting their homes, but only if they put up all the money first. This effectively means wealthier people will be able to heat their monster homes for way less than lower class people spend to warm their shacks -- going against the original intent to give everyone an incentive to upgrade and save money. When the oil runs out in Alberta and Newfoundland, the rich will be on wind power or geothermal whilst the rest of us buy it from Venezuela's dictator for life Hugo Chavez. (Blow a raspberry here.)
Third, they announce they're protecting a huge swath of the British Columbia coastline and Haida Gwaii -- the Queen Charlottes -- mostly with private money, though. The forest industry's.
For Team Harper, conservation and green values are a virtue, not a collective responsibility. For them, dessert is three kinds of dessert -- we can have our cake and eat it too, but not face the fact we face. What we need are real emission standards ... but we're going to have to wait another 6,917 days for that!
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
The trouble with Hillary
There's been a lot of buzz about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton announcing they're forming "exploratory committees" -- the first legal step to running for President of the United States. Not much is known about Mr. Obama in general, and it's because he is such a relative newcomer to the Washington scene that makes him appealing to a lot of people. But that could be his Achilles heel also -- having spent much of his life in politics in Illinois and not at the national level could prove to be his undoing.
It's the candidacy of Mrs Clinton, however, that troubles me. It's not that she's a woman -- maybe the White House could use a woman to shake things up. After all, the conservative Margaret Thatcher once said that it takes a man to say something but a woman to do it.
Rather, it's that Clinton remains such a divisive figure in American politics. And she's managed to make a lot of enemies along the way. Big Health hates her because she supports universal health coverage. The religious right hates her both for her strong pro-choice position and her refusal to divorce Slick Willy when he cheated on her. Even people in her home state of New York are rather ambivalent about her if for no other reason than the state -- especially upstate -- is still in a period of economic decline as the rest of the country seems to surge in growth. In other words, she was re-elected back in November because she had no real competition.
From a progressive standpoint, she may be seen as a classic tax and spend liberal, when most progressives emphasize social moderation coupled with fiscal prudence. It's doubtful America could go back into balanced budgets if she tries to push through her agenda.
Another problem is that if she does manage to get the Democratic nomination next year, and that's a big if, the Democratic party will come out of the convention extremely divided. Further, if she goes on to win the big prize, that will mean that just four people from two families will have occupied the White House over the course of twenty-five years. Is that good for democracy? No, it isn't.
I expect an anyone but Hillary movement will crop up very quickly. I also expect it will come to a head come the Iowa caucuses in January and people in houses, churches and bars will take a look at the junior Senator from New York and decide that she's not The One -- just like four years ago, when party members defied media expectations and shunted Howard Dean for John Kerry. Hillary is definitely Cabinet material. She just doesn't have what it takes to be President.
So what other women are out there? Maria Shriver -- naw, she's a Kennedy, and besides she's married to Ahnold. Dianne Feinstein? I think she'd do a good job, but there are enough Americans to ensure a Jewish person never sits in the Oval Office. Nancy Pelosi? I think she's happy just to be Speaker. Jennifer Granholm? Canadian (and therefore ineligible). The only good women I can think of right now are all Republicans, albeit in the liberal wing of the party: Christine Wittman, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (and it's because they are liberals in a mostly conservative party that ends their candidacies before they begin).
Burning bridges, as well as being way too stubborn and unwilling to compromise. These are not exactly the way to win friends in politics. I might vote for Clinton if she came out as the ultimate nominee because she'd still be better than anyone the Republicans put forward next year. But as the actual nominee? Nope. She's not my style.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
It's the candidacy of Mrs Clinton, however, that troubles me. It's not that she's a woman -- maybe the White House could use a woman to shake things up. After all, the conservative Margaret Thatcher once said that it takes a man to say something but a woman to do it.
Rather, it's that Clinton remains such a divisive figure in American politics. And she's managed to make a lot of enemies along the way. Big Health hates her because she supports universal health coverage. The religious right hates her both for her strong pro-choice position and her refusal to divorce Slick Willy when he cheated on her. Even people in her home state of New York are rather ambivalent about her if for no other reason than the state -- especially upstate -- is still in a period of economic decline as the rest of the country seems to surge in growth. In other words, she was re-elected back in November because she had no real competition.
From a progressive standpoint, she may be seen as a classic tax and spend liberal, when most progressives emphasize social moderation coupled with fiscal prudence. It's doubtful America could go back into balanced budgets if she tries to push through her agenda.
Another problem is that if she does manage to get the Democratic nomination next year, and that's a big if, the Democratic party will come out of the convention extremely divided. Further, if she goes on to win the big prize, that will mean that just four people from two families will have occupied the White House over the course of twenty-five years. Is that good for democracy? No, it isn't.
I expect an anyone but Hillary movement will crop up very quickly. I also expect it will come to a head come the Iowa caucuses in January and people in houses, churches and bars will take a look at the junior Senator from New York and decide that she's not The One -- just like four years ago, when party members defied media expectations and shunted Howard Dean for John Kerry. Hillary is definitely Cabinet material. She just doesn't have what it takes to be President.
So what other women are out there? Maria Shriver -- naw, she's a Kennedy, and besides she's married to Ahnold. Dianne Feinstein? I think she'd do a good job, but there are enough Americans to ensure a Jewish person never sits in the Oval Office. Nancy Pelosi? I think she's happy just to be Speaker. Jennifer Granholm? Canadian (and therefore ineligible). The only good women I can think of right now are all Republicans, albeit in the liberal wing of the party: Christine Wittman, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (and it's because they are liberals in a mostly conservative party that ends their candidacies before they begin).
Burning bridges, as well as being way too stubborn and unwilling to compromise. These are not exactly the way to win friends in politics. I might vote for Clinton if she came out as the ultimate nominee because she'd still be better than anyone the Republicans put forward next year. But as the actual nominee? Nope. She's not my style.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Are singles members of the Church or aren't they?
I've decided to take a break from talking about politics and business the next few days to recharge my batteries, as it were. After a week of intensive training on my new job I can use it. However, I did want to talk a bit about something that nags at me.
As most of you know, I'm single and hating it. That may change in the future, but for the time being I anticipate remaining single for the short and medium term. It does not bother me so much that I am single -- after all, coming from a broken home, I have to extra careful about who I might choose as a life partner.
No, what makes me frustrated and has made me so in the last few years is that single people in general aren't made to feel as welcome in the Church as married people and those pursuing religious "vocations." There may be historical reasons for this, but in the Third Millennium it is almost as if we singles are people to be stigmatized. There's a sense among many, both within our respective families as well as in the gossip cliques, that because we choose to be single that somehow denotes that we're not "normal." Not normal, in the sense that "they" think we're gay or lesbian or have the potential to become pedophiles because we don't want to "settle down."
Which of course, is totally ridiculous. Some are homosexual or bisexual, but the vast majority are straight -- myself included. And those of us who know what it's liked to be abused, whether it's verbal or far worse, don't need any lessons on not passing on those habits to the next generation. Even when church leaders do try to encourage single social groups at a national or regional level, local parishes or church councils go out of their way not to inform singles within their congregations such groups exist.
I was a member of one such group (which eventually imploded over internal politics) and we had a hard time persuading parishes to print advertisements in church bulletins because we were considered to be an "outside group" (even though each parish had dozens of single people who might be interested in joining) until the local bishop ordered the priests in his diocese to comply on the grounds his predecessor had founded the group precisely to get singles to socialize.
Some see the single life itself as being a vocation and I totally agree with that sentiment. Some of us are single by choice, others by circumstance, but that's who we are.
Yes, there are still church dances and pot luck dinners and so forth. Who organizes them, however? Typically they are married people -- in the case of the Catholic Church I belong to, the Catholic Women's League or the Knights of Columbus. What do they know about what it's like to be single? They don't, not any more anyway. It's frustrating, and it's hard to make or keep those kinds of connections, and in this world where we're constantly moving or changing jobs we just can't rely on our family or even close friends to make connections. They have totally lost interest because they have families of their own -- and so the vicious circle continues, and we singles are further shoved to the side.
Just for once, I'd like to see a parish priest make us singles say we're as welcome as anyone else, and encourage married people to help us make those connections again so we can find Mr. or Miss Right. I'm not holding my breath, however ... they might anger those families who think we're gay, after all.
At the same time I'm not going to settle for second best either (as my parents did) just for the sake of satisfying the family majority. After all, divorce may no longer be considered a sin by Catholics but it still costs a pretty penny.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
As most of you know, I'm single and hating it. That may change in the future, but for the time being I anticipate remaining single for the short and medium term. It does not bother me so much that I am single -- after all, coming from a broken home, I have to extra careful about who I might choose as a life partner.
No, what makes me frustrated and has made me so in the last few years is that single people in general aren't made to feel as welcome in the Church as married people and those pursuing religious "vocations." There may be historical reasons for this, but in the Third Millennium it is almost as if we singles are people to be stigmatized. There's a sense among many, both within our respective families as well as in the gossip cliques, that because we choose to be single that somehow denotes that we're not "normal." Not normal, in the sense that "they" think we're gay or lesbian or have the potential to become pedophiles because we don't want to "settle down."
Which of course, is totally ridiculous. Some are homosexual or bisexual, but the vast majority are straight -- myself included. And those of us who know what it's liked to be abused, whether it's verbal or far worse, don't need any lessons on not passing on those habits to the next generation. Even when church leaders do try to encourage single social groups at a national or regional level, local parishes or church councils go out of their way not to inform singles within their congregations such groups exist.
I was a member of one such group (which eventually imploded over internal politics) and we had a hard time persuading parishes to print advertisements in church bulletins because we were considered to be an "outside group" (even though each parish had dozens of single people who might be interested in joining) until the local bishop ordered the priests in his diocese to comply on the grounds his predecessor had founded the group precisely to get singles to socialize.
Some see the single life itself as being a vocation and I totally agree with that sentiment. Some of us are single by choice, others by circumstance, but that's who we are.
Yes, there are still church dances and pot luck dinners and so forth. Who organizes them, however? Typically they are married people -- in the case of the Catholic Church I belong to, the Catholic Women's League or the Knights of Columbus. What do they know about what it's like to be single? They don't, not any more anyway. It's frustrating, and it's hard to make or keep those kinds of connections, and in this world where we're constantly moving or changing jobs we just can't rely on our family or even close friends to make connections. They have totally lost interest because they have families of their own -- and so the vicious circle continues, and we singles are further shoved to the side.
Just for once, I'd like to see a parish priest make us singles say we're as welcome as anyone else, and encourage married people to help us make those connections again so we can find Mr. or Miss Right. I'm not holding my breath, however ... they might anger those families who think we're gay, after all.
At the same time I'm not going to settle for second best either (as my parents did) just for the sake of satisfying the family majority. After all, divorce may no longer be considered a sin by Catholics but it still costs a pretty penny.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Customer, investment information compromised
Two stories about the security of financial information broke today that makes one really wonder how secure our personal data is anymore. First, TJX, which operates under such labels as TJ Maxx, Marshalls, Winners and Home Sense, said that someone hacked into the data system that handles hundreds of thousands of credit card transactions sometime last month during the Christmas rush. Second, CIBC said a backup drive, in transit from Montréal to Toronto, somehow went missing -- and on it is the data of nearly a half million customers of its Talvest investment banking division.
Both events were part of the water cooler talk at work today and we wondered if some of the clients we serve may have been affected as well. (Sorry, can't say which clients, I signed a confidentiality agreement when I got hired.) The general sense was, who's behind it all? In the worst case scenario for the first one, one only has to think of two words: Al Qaeda. At best, it may have been just plain mischief, but still very illegal.
The second one, however, just is plain crazy. If one was shipping that kind of data, doesn't one used a bonded courier under the strictest of security? Mutual funds may be boring but they're no laughing matter -- and among the funds managed are a number of Labour Sponsored Investment Funds, which as the name suggests are those sponsored by trade union groups and which receive preferential tax treatment in many provinces. What possible comfort can anyone get knowing the data may have fallen into the wrong hands. This makes faxing personal info to a lumber yard look like small potatoes.
No amount of security is ever going to be foolproof. I reckon it's bound to happen again. But what worries me is the time lag between when the breach happened and the news being released to the media. Four weeks is an extremely long time to inflict the kind of damage any untoward elements would like to make. Just a few minutes, in fact, is too long. This isn't a case of crying wolf. It makes one want to think twice about doing business with it or any of its affiliated or partner companies.
Sometimes, I wish companies would risk crying wolf if they even suspect something untoward happened. It might help protect a lot of consumers who would naturally want to take the appropriate action to prevent further identity theft.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Both events were part of the water cooler talk at work today and we wondered if some of the clients we serve may have been affected as well. (Sorry, can't say which clients, I signed a confidentiality agreement when I got hired.) The general sense was, who's behind it all? In the worst case scenario for the first one, one only has to think of two words: Al Qaeda. At best, it may have been just plain mischief, but still very illegal.
The second one, however, just is plain crazy. If one was shipping that kind of data, doesn't one used a bonded courier under the strictest of security? Mutual funds may be boring but they're no laughing matter -- and among the funds managed are a number of Labour Sponsored Investment Funds, which as the name suggests are those sponsored by trade union groups and which receive preferential tax treatment in many provinces. What possible comfort can anyone get knowing the data may have fallen into the wrong hands. This makes faxing personal info to a lumber yard look like small potatoes.
No amount of security is ever going to be foolproof. I reckon it's bound to happen again. But what worries me is the time lag between when the breach happened and the news being released to the media. Four weeks is an extremely long time to inflict the kind of damage any untoward elements would like to make. Just a few minutes, in fact, is too long. This isn't a case of crying wolf. It makes one want to think twice about doing business with it or any of its affiliated or partner companies.
Sometimes, I wish companies would risk crying wolf if they even suspect something untoward happened. It might help protect a lot of consumers who would naturally want to take the appropriate action to prevent further identity theft.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Next time, send the tax receipt by e-mail
I just have a bit of a beef. I finally received my receipt for my 2006 donation to the Liberal Party of Canada. Finally, because it took them over a month after I made it over the phone.
Haven't they heard of PDF files? And, compared to the price of a postage stamp, isn't e-mail less expensive anyway?
Most charities have far faster turnaround times -- so much so that a number now ask their donors if they'd rather have just one at the end of the year to save paper. Further, several charities I donate to no longer generate, at my request, paper receipts. Instead, they e-mail them to me and I just print off the donation slip on my printer (in case the feds ask me to submit them at a later date). It's valid because it is on hard copy. Furthermore, I netfile my return and print off my own copy in Adobe format again -- saving the government paper and processing time and the cost of a stamp.
The party has my name and e-mail address on file. Couldn't they just have sent me the receipt over their share of bandwidth? That goes for my party membership as well. I rejoined last summer and I still haven't obtained my card.
I know of several bloggers with similar experiences. Any others?
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Haven't they heard of PDF files? And, compared to the price of a postage stamp, isn't e-mail less expensive anyway?
Most charities have far faster turnaround times -- so much so that a number now ask their donors if they'd rather have just one at the end of the year to save paper. Further, several charities I donate to no longer generate, at my request, paper receipts. Instead, they e-mail them to me and I just print off the donation slip on my printer (in case the feds ask me to submit them at a later date). It's valid because it is on hard copy. Furthermore, I netfile my return and print off my own copy in Adobe format again -- saving the government paper and processing time and the cost of a stamp.
The party has my name and e-mail address on file. Couldn't they just have sent me the receipt over their share of bandwidth? That goes for my party membership as well. I rejoined last summer and I still haven't obtained my card.
I know of several bloggers with similar experiences. Any others?
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Yucca Mountain, meet Uranium City
Reports this morning on Radio One (no link) are that "Steve" Harper is considering fast-tracking a decision about the storage of nuclear waste. The so-called preferred option, preferred by the industry that is, is deep mine storage which is already used in Sweden and Finland. One only has to think of Yucca Mountain near Las Vegas, Nevada -- or in Canada's case, the proposed site would be the abadoned uranium mines of Uranium City, Saskatchewan. It's also a big issue in both France and Germany -- and with a "borderless" continent (at least in the Eurozone and a handful of other states) it becomes almost impossible to stop dumping if one country decides to make its problem another's.
I concede the waste has to go somewhere ... it just can't be kept "on site" forever because that causes problems of its own. But this is a terrorists' dream. At the rate of three trucks a day, it'll take thirty years to store all the spent fuel rods and fuel. Any commandeering of one of them could set off a crisis that could bring the country and possibly the world to its knees. What concessions would have to be offered to "liberate" depleted uranium, plutonium etc. is something very difficult to fathom.
And the time frame for storage is nuts. Even the US industry has set a deadline of ten thousand years for the rods to cool down enough to make a site inhabitable again. Canada's saying it will be one million.
A million?
Oh, and isn't it interesting how hot-button industry groups always manage to get the very politicians who made their lives a misery during their time in government? The nuclear industry is currently represented by Murray Elston, once a powerful member of David Peterson's team when the Liberals ran Ontario from 1985 to 1990. Big Pharma for a long time was also cheerleaded by (surprise) Mr. Elston and prior to that Judy Erola, a member of the Trudeau administration which was very reticent on the drug patent file.
They can hire anyone they want, of course. Maybe it's me, but using an insider to make one's point only helps to make it even less credible.
Nuclear power and research is a necessery evil but it's still a troublesome thing. Stéphan Dion may have found another election issue -- but he has to offer an answer of what he'd do with it. After all, fuel can only be reprocessed so many times and most of what's in question here is way beyond any use for medical isotopes.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
I concede the waste has to go somewhere ... it just can't be kept "on site" forever because that causes problems of its own. But this is a terrorists' dream. At the rate of three trucks a day, it'll take thirty years to store all the spent fuel rods and fuel. Any commandeering of one of them could set off a crisis that could bring the country and possibly the world to its knees. What concessions would have to be offered to "liberate" depleted uranium, plutonium etc. is something very difficult to fathom.
And the time frame for storage is nuts. Even the US industry has set a deadline of ten thousand years for the rods to cool down enough to make a site inhabitable again. Canada's saying it will be one million.
A million?
Oh, and isn't it interesting how hot-button industry groups always manage to get the very politicians who made their lives a misery during their time in government? The nuclear industry is currently represented by Murray Elston, once a powerful member of David Peterson's team when the Liberals ran Ontario from 1985 to 1990. Big Pharma for a long time was also cheerleaded by (surprise) Mr. Elston and prior to that Judy Erola, a member of the Trudeau administration which was very reticent on the drug patent file.
They can hire anyone they want, of course. Maybe it's me, but using an insider to make one's point only helps to make it even less credible.
Nuclear power and research is a necessery evil but it's still a troublesome thing. Stéphan Dion may have found another election issue -- but he has to offer an answer of what he'd do with it. After all, fuel can only be reprocessed so many times and most of what's in question here is way beyond any use for medical isotopes.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Harper's plan for the "fiscal imbalance"
So Stephen Harper, it seems, wants to get rid of what's called the "fiscal imbalance" between Ottawa and the provincial capitals. The idea he has, according to at least one report, is to get out of the fields of education, health and welfare all together and just give the provinces a lump sum payment.
Sounds good on the surface -- giving provinces an incentive to innovate -- but the problem is there is no enforcement mechanism from a federal perspective if the spending power is abandoned. If one province does come with a way to get rid of waiting lists in certain areas, for instance, there is no ability to put even mild pressure on the other provinces to adapt similiar "best practices;" they can continue wasting money in the proverbial sinkhole if they so wish.
The upshot? He's going to make the proposal in the next budget, and a no-confidence vote is scheduled for March 20th. In fact, anticipating he's going to lose, he's told his campaign strategists to prepare for a call as early as March 18. Maybe he's worried about Stéphane Dion after all. Worried Dion could actually win by turning the tables and insisting a green economy could make Canada an economic superpower and a cash cow, making talk about the "imbalance" a non sequitur.
But what do I know? I'm not one of the white men in suits.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Sounds good on the surface -- giving provinces an incentive to innovate -- but the problem is there is no enforcement mechanism from a federal perspective if the spending power is abandoned. If one province does come with a way to get rid of waiting lists in certain areas, for instance, there is no ability to put even mild pressure on the other provinces to adapt similiar "best practices;" they can continue wasting money in the proverbial sinkhole if they so wish.
The upshot? He's going to make the proposal in the next budget, and a no-confidence vote is scheduled for March 20th. In fact, anticipating he's going to lose, he's told his campaign strategists to prepare for a call as early as March 18. Maybe he's worried about Stéphane Dion after all. Worried Dion could actually win by turning the tables and insisting a green economy could make Canada an economic superpower and a cash cow, making talk about the "imbalance" a non sequitur.
But what do I know? I'm not one of the white men in suits.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)