For some Omar Khadr's life will be condensed to only 4 days. The day on a battlefield in Afghanistan where he was captured and charged with murder, attempted murder and working with al Qaeda. The second day when he plead guilty to all five charges in as part of a prearranged plea agreement. The third when he is sentenced to anywhere between 8 years and life in prison. The last day will be when he gets out if ever that occurs.
Reducing Khadr’s life to those four days makes his story easier to tell. Captured terrorist, pleads guilty, finally convicted, goes to jail forever. The story could write itself, only it doesn’t, there are many hands doing the work. Filling out the very dry accounting of events with a diatribe, emotion, accusation and slur.
Let me add to the story.
On Day 1 was that Khadr was captured and charge with crimes that earned him a trip to the Guantanamo detention centre. Omar was not born on the battlefield as it may often appear. Born in Canada to a family with passive and active ties to extremist groups. Raised in an environment that virtually ensured his participation in the terrorism. He was a child soldier, as much as the right hates to admit this. Perhaps not with the same brutality of the Congo or other armed struggles, but with the same essential quality, he was a child denied a path away from violence, denied the protection from violence that all our children deserve. It is inevitable that his life would lead to death or capture at the hands of some opposing force. Please do not read this as an excuse, it’s not, it’s an explanation. Khadr arrived at that battlefield because of choices made for him, by others who should have cared more for the boy, than the cause, and he was a boy 15 years old and that matters too. Omar Khadr’s did not have a lot of choice, for that matter it is unlikely that he even noticed the poverty of his options. If you don’t realize you can say “no” then as a choice it doesn’t exist. What does it matter when we say a person chooses freely, if we don’t acknowledge the scarcity of paths in the first place.
On Day 2 he pleads guilty to murder and terrorism. The conservative press gleefully shouts “we told you so , see he’s guilty and you tried to help him, how do you feel now”. I feel bad, but not for what you think. It was unlikely that Khadr was innocent. I never thought they ought to just let him go. I feel bad that it took nearly 3000 days to get to this point. Omar Khadr arrived at Guantanamo October 30, 2002 and entered his plea October 25, 2010. During those almost 3000 days his legal and human rights were striped from him the ones remaining were abused in a fashion that is an anathema to our way of life. Yes he was tortured, pretend all you want that it didn’t happen but that’s all your doing, pretending. In 2006 3 men died at Guantanamo, ruled suicides, but there are credible accounts that death occurred as a result of torture.
Military tribunals instead of civilian criminal courts because guilty verdicts are easier to secure. Denied coverage under Geneva convention and so denied the protections that convention offers. Denied due process, denied speedy trial. Denied those Canadian Chartre rights 7 to 14 and the American Constitutional equivalents that we all enjoy. Omar Khadr was denied justice. Maybe you don’t think terrorists deserve justice, on that point you would be wrong. A bedrock principle like justice can not be selectively applied.
Again we come to paucity of Choice Omar Khadr can continue in his prison, face a tribunal where a guilty verdict is all but assured or plead out so the endgame can begin. Again a paucity of choice.
On Day 3 he will receive his sentence. For some, forever would be too short a time. But whatever the sentence many on the right will complain, hurl their slurs at “liberal terrorist sympathizers” , because that is what their readers expect. When you take a life, you have to pay, that is part of what justice demands. The ideal is that you pay with both time in jail and afterwards if you are deemed fit to return to society, by contributing positively to that society for the remainder of your life.
On Day 4 if he gets out we will be treated to rehash of what went before. Curiously in some quartres the story will remain as shrill and accusatory filled with fear and loathing as the day ink first went to paper.
Khadr’s story is a small part of a larger tale. Systematic rights abuses, violent extremism, the triumph of the war monger over the peace maker.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Would i Still Question the F-35 if the Liberals were in Charge?
Why do I question the purchase of the F-35 jet fighter? If it were a Liberal government would I still feel the same way? It’s a good question, as there are times when politics can degrade reason. So lets review my reasoning, for bias.
The order is for 65 advanced jets, the procurement is sole sourced.
For me the question revolves around need. It is clear that our F-18s are nearing their operational life and will need replacement. The liberal government under Chrétien entered into a agreement with other nations to develop a 5th generation fighter. The deal gave then say in development, though that say is limited in comparison to the United states and other big spenders like Britain. It also ensured a share of the contracts for manufacturing this jet.
A good deal all around, influence, jobs and jets. Thirteen years later and what we have is an order for 65 jets at 16 billion dollars all coinciding with a near economic collapse we haven’t quite pulled out of. I can’t blame either the Liberal government for getting in on the deal or the Conservatives that continuing it. Like I said its jobs and jets, both are needed.
There is no evidence that if we don’t sign the contract the jobs are gone. Our companies at least for now are in the supply chain , though future opportunities for work might be reduced. Nor will cancelling the contract result in large payouts like the ill fated helicopter deal cancelled by the newly elected Liberal government. It also doesn’t mean that our Air Force need make do with old planes, we can buy new versions of exiting fighters.
The question of what kind of jets do we need? It’s a practical question, the kind you ask when buying any piece of equipment. What do we need our jets to do? Our jets provide first response in defence of our airspace. Just days ago they were required to intercept a civilian air liner suspected of having bombs aboard. At that would not have been done better by F-35s. The Russians have been doing fly bys lately and we need aircraft that can counter them. Again do we need the top of the line to do that? Though to be clear interceptions are just a formality we could not stop a serious incursion from the dominant militaries. Our jets also aid in SAR which require capable air craft but hardly the cutting edge.
Can we continue to contribute to our local, NORAD and international NATO, commitments without the F-35? I have yet to see an argument advanced that suggests we cannot. Yes, it can be more complicated to organise missions with different aircraft, supply issues come to mind, but its hardly a critical issue. The Unite States operates over 2 dozen different aircraft types.
At present we can expect to fight combat missions against groups without aircraft and countries with inferior forces. Something we can do with the present generation of aircraft.
It appears we can meet our present obligations with newer versions of jets aircraft already in existence , that come with proven records and supply chains already in existence.
What of future needs? Should we worry that we will be overtaken by technologically superior designs?
A good question. The only response I can come up with is “who do you think we might be fighting”. The F-35 is being bought by our allies. China and Russia are working on their own 5th generation fighters. I don’t foresee us fighting the first group or sadly being able to beat either of the latter if they chose to start a war with us.
What this feels like is a political process upending a practical one. The reasonable course would be a review first of what our air force needs, I’m not sure this was done.
If our experts declare that we need this advanced fighter I can live with the result.
Canada is not a Warrior Nation, oh how I hate that term, we are instead a Dutiful Nation. A willingness to fight not a desire to, is our hallmark. We fight as needed for our own defence and the defence of our neighbours. We need the right tools to do it, not the most expensive. Diplomacy first and foremost is the friend of a small nation.
The order is for 65 advanced jets, the procurement is sole sourced.
For me the question revolves around need. It is clear that our F-18s are nearing their operational life and will need replacement. The liberal government under Chrétien entered into a agreement with other nations to develop a 5th generation fighter. The deal gave then say in development, though that say is limited in comparison to the United states and other big spenders like Britain. It also ensured a share of the contracts for manufacturing this jet.
A good deal all around, influence, jobs and jets. Thirteen years later and what we have is an order for 65 jets at 16 billion dollars all coinciding with a near economic collapse we haven’t quite pulled out of. I can’t blame either the Liberal government for getting in on the deal or the Conservatives that continuing it. Like I said its jobs and jets, both are needed.
There is no evidence that if we don’t sign the contract the jobs are gone. Our companies at least for now are in the supply chain , though future opportunities for work might be reduced. Nor will cancelling the contract result in large payouts like the ill fated helicopter deal cancelled by the newly elected Liberal government. It also doesn’t mean that our Air Force need make do with old planes, we can buy new versions of exiting fighters.
The question of what kind of jets do we need? It’s a practical question, the kind you ask when buying any piece of equipment. What do we need our jets to do? Our jets provide first response in defence of our airspace. Just days ago they were required to intercept a civilian air liner suspected of having bombs aboard. At that would not have been done better by F-35s. The Russians have been doing fly bys lately and we need aircraft that can counter them. Again do we need the top of the line to do that? Though to be clear interceptions are just a formality we could not stop a serious incursion from the dominant militaries. Our jets also aid in SAR which require capable air craft but hardly the cutting edge.
Can we continue to contribute to our local, NORAD and international NATO, commitments without the F-35? I have yet to see an argument advanced that suggests we cannot. Yes, it can be more complicated to organise missions with different aircraft, supply issues come to mind, but its hardly a critical issue. The Unite States operates over 2 dozen different aircraft types.
At present we can expect to fight combat missions against groups without aircraft and countries with inferior forces. Something we can do with the present generation of aircraft.
It appears we can meet our present obligations with newer versions of jets aircraft already in existence , that come with proven records and supply chains already in existence.
What of future needs? Should we worry that we will be overtaken by technologically superior designs?
A good question. The only response I can come up with is “who do you think we might be fighting”. The F-35 is being bought by our allies. China and Russia are working on their own 5th generation fighters. I don’t foresee us fighting the first group or sadly being able to beat either of the latter if they chose to start a war with us.
What this feels like is a political process upending a practical one. The reasonable course would be a review first of what our air force needs, I’m not sure this was done.
If our experts declare that we need this advanced fighter I can live with the result.
Canada is not a Warrior Nation, oh how I hate that term, we are instead a Dutiful Nation. A willingness to fight not a desire to, is our hallmark. We fight as needed for our own defence and the defence of our neighbours. We need the right tools to do it, not the most expensive. Diplomacy first and foremost is the friend of a small nation.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Short Note on Taxation and Why I Am OK With It
If you accept that people are born into different situations, good and bad.That those citizen affected by adverse circumstance need help to achieve their potential. If you accept that it is in the interest of a nation to mitigate what inequalities they can. Programs to address these needs must be created and paid for through taxation. Progressive taxation is a ideal way to pay for programs as it taxes those most able to bear the extra burden. If you don't accept that premise in whole or in part then progressive taxation seems wrong and a flat tax seems fair.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Flaherty Wants to Raise your Taxes Good on Him.
Here is news you don't expect to hear, Mike Flaherty of the Conservative Part of Canada Flaherty's wants to raise your taxes. Follow the link and be surprised. The Conservatives looked at Canadian Pension Plan and said we need so reform here. At that point you might think privatization of CPP, along the lines of what the American conservatives tries under Bush. You would be wrong. Flaherty acknowledged that CPP is an extremely well run Government program, that is solvent, going forward 75 years. It is also an important service that provides some peace of mind for the majority of Canadians that will retire with no other pension and the minority that have been unable or yes unwilling to save for their own retirement.
Raising the employer/employee premiums have the usual suspects screaming job losses business closures. I am waiting for the Tax Payers Federation to come out against the increase, that is my indication that it is a decent idea.
I understand it is an ugly issue, nobody wants to pay, even as they benefit from programs provided through taxation. Some don't want to pay because they are well off enough never to need it, or they just don't like any government programs. To these people i can't write anything that will change your minds.
I Credit Flaherty with understanding that CPP is a very useful tool. It is a low cost way to offset poverty among the elderly, the disabled and other disadvantage groups. The Government administers the CPP and we contribute, how simple a plan is that.
I would also challenge Mr. Flaherty to come up with more ways to get Canadians to save. We are all better off when we take part in providing for our futures. The TSFA program was stroke of genius and the old RRSP though both, have the draw back of depending on free markets and our own competence, the results can be mixed. These methods of retirement planning also assume that an individual has income that they can set aside for investment. While some people are profligate spenders, most want to save but don't have the excess cash.
What the government needs to do is create a program that will incentivize businesses big and small to create their own mini-pensions, administered by government and transferable from job to job. This plan can be mandated for those under a certain income level. It will not be paid for out of the payroll because we already have CPP, this one is paid for through tax rebates to the business. If the Tories are hell bent on cutting taxes on big and small business make it work for everyone. Company A contributes 1% of weekly pay towards a pension they receive a 1.5% tax break. I will let the experts work out the details, but the, idea is to let Tax cuts work for Canadians and Canadian businesses.
I also hear that Flaherty wants to hike EI contributions. Again I congratulate the Tories on understanding that in tough times when EI fund gets drawn down you need to fill it back up. I expect that we the economy gets back on a solid footing we can see the EI rate adjusted down again.
Institutions are routinely in need of tweaking and sometimes of a total reset. It is nice to see the Tories addressing the needs of Canadians through Ideas and not Ideology.
Raising the employer/employee premiums have the usual suspects screaming job losses business closures. I am waiting for the Tax Payers Federation to come out against the increase, that is my indication that it is a decent idea.
I understand it is an ugly issue, nobody wants to pay, even as they benefit from programs provided through taxation. Some don't want to pay because they are well off enough never to need it, or they just don't like any government programs. To these people i can't write anything that will change your minds.
I Credit Flaherty with understanding that CPP is a very useful tool. It is a low cost way to offset poverty among the elderly, the disabled and other disadvantage groups. The Government administers the CPP and we contribute, how simple a plan is that.
I would also challenge Mr. Flaherty to come up with more ways to get Canadians to save. We are all better off when we take part in providing for our futures. The TSFA program was stroke of genius and the old RRSP though both, have the draw back of depending on free markets and our own competence, the results can be mixed. These methods of retirement planning also assume that an individual has income that they can set aside for investment. While some people are profligate spenders, most want to save but don't have the excess cash.
What the government needs to do is create a program that will incentivize businesses big and small to create their own mini-pensions, administered by government and transferable from job to job. This plan can be mandated for those under a certain income level. It will not be paid for out of the payroll because we already have CPP, this one is paid for through tax rebates to the business. If the Tories are hell bent on cutting taxes on big and small business make it work for everyone. Company A contributes 1% of weekly pay towards a pension they receive a 1.5% tax break. I will let the experts work out the details, but the, idea is to let Tax cuts work for Canadians and Canadian businesses.
I also hear that Flaherty wants to hike EI contributions. Again I congratulate the Tories on understanding that in tough times when EI fund gets drawn down you need to fill it back up. I expect that we the economy gets back on a solid footing we can see the EI rate adjusted down again.
Institutions are routinely in need of tweaking and sometimes of a total reset. It is nice to see the Tories addressing the needs of Canadians through Ideas and not Ideology.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Hemingway in Toronto
I don't know why I think I should have known that Ernest Hemingway wrote for Toronto dailies in the 1920's, but i do. The book I'm reading is called By-Line: Ernest Hemingway. It is a compilation of his newspaper work from the 1920's to the 1950's.
I am just a short way in and I'm enjoying the read.
Perhaps it was the style of the day, a gateway to the world found cheaply in the local daily newspaper, but the articles read like short stories. It is all first person. Hemingway both telling the story and taking part in it, an art sharing program in Toronto, lugeing in Switzerland or a meeting of heads of state in Italy.
Yet it is not fiction, Hemingway coverd real events and became part of history as a result.
I have read collected essays from authors like Rushdie, Eco, Hitchens, and Orwell. A small selection from a large pool. These are great writers, authors and newspapermen, and they tell great stories. But what I found in Hemingway is the fullness of a story in breif amount of space. It is not that Hemingway gives you a truncated tale, cut to fit, unfinished. He does away with the superfluous. It is akin to a movie, where only what the director wants on screen appears there. Hemingway gives the reader the scene without disraction, a single plot line seen through, from start to finish.
I don't know if Hemingway was paid by the word or the story, but i'm not sure he would care. I get the feeling that the story was the point, writing was the reason, money was the means to keep writing.
I expect that the book will continue to hold my interest. The spanish civil war is fast approaching and after that is WWII. I find myself wondering how Hemingway's Spanish Civil war will compare to George Orweel's. I can't wait to find out.
I am just a short way in and I'm enjoying the read.
Perhaps it was the style of the day, a gateway to the world found cheaply in the local daily newspaper, but the articles read like short stories. It is all first person. Hemingway both telling the story and taking part in it, an art sharing program in Toronto, lugeing in Switzerland or a meeting of heads of state in Italy.
Yet it is not fiction, Hemingway coverd real events and became part of history as a result.
I have read collected essays from authors like Rushdie, Eco, Hitchens, and Orwell. A small selection from a large pool. These are great writers, authors and newspapermen, and they tell great stories. But what I found in Hemingway is the fullness of a story in breif amount of space. It is not that Hemingway gives you a truncated tale, cut to fit, unfinished. He does away with the superfluous. It is akin to a movie, where only what the director wants on screen appears there. Hemingway gives the reader the scene without disraction, a single plot line seen through, from start to finish.
I don't know if Hemingway was paid by the word or the story, but i'm not sure he would care. I get the feeling that the story was the point, writing was the reason, money was the means to keep writing.
I expect that the book will continue to hold my interest. The spanish civil war is fast approaching and after that is WWII. I find myself wondering how Hemingway's Spanish Civil war will compare to George Orweel's. I can't wait to find out.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
How Likely is a Fox North?
It's in the news, Canada might be getting a Fox like news/opinion cable channel .A former aid to the Prime Minister Harper, Kory Tenecyke has been tasked to see whether a "conservative view" news channel would fly here in Canada and to set one up if it's feasible. Ezra Levant, another well known conservative, might be tagged for the anchor job.
Is it possible to find an audience in this country for a news channel dedicated to providing a conservative view point? You bet their is. All you need to do is convert the audience already reading conservative newspapers and listening Talk Radio.
The great many who claim the CBC is a Liberal run media outlet, will clamor for the opportunity to pay for a news outlet that is run by conservatives. If that seems strange, you are not alone in your confusion. Conservatives say they dislike the CBC for a whole bunch of reasons, bias, poor programming, or because government shouldn't be running a television network. The real problem is paying for something that provides them no benefit. If the CBC shifted to a decidedly pro-conservative stance like the National Post or the Toronto Sun, all but the conservative purists would learn to say nice things about the CBC.
The next question is how successful can they be? Can you just transfer a successful format from the United States to Canada? I don't think you can. It is not that were more sophisticated than Americans, sorry were not, Canadian Idol anyone. Fox news is 4 hours of sort of news and 20 hours of opinion. I don't think we have enough news or opinion for that matter to fill the air waves. America has 50 different states for fox to pick news from, plus overseas. The united States has commitments all over the world that can be drawn into the debate. It also help that America has a distinct dividing line, between republican and democrat, well the claim is made, though I'm sure their is considerable overlap.
In Canada the line is there but with less hostility. Over the years attempts have been made by right wing think tanks and institutions to create strong lines of difference but it has yet to take. Just compare Canadian Talk radio to that of the American version. The vitriolic hate filled screeds so evident on American air waves just isn't found here. Radio hosts like Charles Adler and Jerry Agar are card carrying conservatives, after that they bear no resemblance to their American counterparts. I don't know if it's a conscious decision on the part of the radio outlets or broadcast rules.
We have a multiparty system, a multi ethnic population, two officail languages, a smaller social and reilgious divede. There are a whole lot of topics that the preceeding sentence renders difficult to expliot by a conservative news outlet. How do attack language, immigration, minority and ethnic rights in the same fashion that opinion makers on Fox do and not aleinate portions of your potential audience.
How do you attack only Liberals or New Democrats leaving Conservatives alone and retain credibiltiy. There will always be a core audience that wants that type of news and to see the enemy always skewered, but in Canada i don't think that audience is large enough to pay the bills.
I think that when this Channel hits the air waves, it will end up looking a lot like CTV or the CBC. We are no less partisan than Americams but the Canadain public isn't ready for a Fox North. We haven't been conditioned to accept the echo chamber quite yet.
Is it possible to find an audience in this country for a news channel dedicated to providing a conservative view point? You bet their is. All you need to do is convert the audience already reading conservative newspapers and listening Talk Radio.
The great many who claim the CBC is a Liberal run media outlet, will clamor for the opportunity to pay for a news outlet that is run by conservatives. If that seems strange, you are not alone in your confusion. Conservatives say they dislike the CBC for a whole bunch of reasons, bias, poor programming, or because government shouldn't be running a television network. The real problem is paying for something that provides them no benefit. If the CBC shifted to a decidedly pro-conservative stance like the National Post or the Toronto Sun, all but the conservative purists would learn to say nice things about the CBC.
The next question is how successful can they be? Can you just transfer a successful format from the United States to Canada? I don't think you can. It is not that were more sophisticated than Americans, sorry were not, Canadian Idol anyone. Fox news is 4 hours of sort of news and 20 hours of opinion. I don't think we have enough news or opinion for that matter to fill the air waves. America has 50 different states for fox to pick news from, plus overseas. The united States has commitments all over the world that can be drawn into the debate. It also help that America has a distinct dividing line, between republican and democrat, well the claim is made, though I'm sure their is considerable overlap.
In Canada the line is there but with less hostility. Over the years attempts have been made by right wing think tanks and institutions to create strong lines of difference but it has yet to take. Just compare Canadian Talk radio to that of the American version. The vitriolic hate filled screeds so evident on American air waves just isn't found here. Radio hosts like Charles Adler and Jerry Agar are card carrying conservatives, after that they bear no resemblance to their American counterparts. I don't know if it's a conscious decision on the part of the radio outlets or broadcast rules.
We have a multiparty system, a multi ethnic population, two officail languages, a smaller social and reilgious divede. There are a whole lot of topics that the preceeding sentence renders difficult to expliot by a conservative news outlet. How do attack language, immigration, minority and ethnic rights in the same fashion that opinion makers on Fox do and not aleinate portions of your potential audience.
How do you attack only Liberals or New Democrats leaving Conservatives alone and retain credibiltiy. There will always be a core audience that wants that type of news and to see the enemy always skewered, but in Canada i don't think that audience is large enough to pay the bills.
I think that when this Channel hits the air waves, it will end up looking a lot like CTV or the CBC. We are no less partisan than Americams but the Canadain public isn't ready for a Fox North. We haven't been conditioned to accept the echo chamber quite yet.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
E-Volve Cultures Screensaver
I was on twitter the other day and chanced upon @ebertchicago . He has a great deal to say and does it well. Mr. Ebert also links to interesing stuff. Something he twittered was a screensaver. It is called E-Volved Cultures from LUMC Reseach labs.
It is quite something and is hard to describe. It is like watching a painting being created before your eyes, but all abstract. The picture is always transforming, being painted over, layer after layer is added. The site gives you an explanation of whats going on, but honestly i don't get it. I don't mind that because not being an artist i don't understand how a person can pull a flower out of a blank page with only a piece of charcol. Yet i can still enjoy the result.
If they are able to make this into a product that you could hang on your wall I would buy one.
It is not a substitute for art. It is an example of technology as art. Like elephants and apes that paint. I think it is cool that these animals can do it and the pictures they paint are interesting, but they represent nothing of the artist. That is what seperates the human artist from his animal or computer compatriot. Art preforms two tasks, to exist and to represent the perception and interaction of the Artist with the world. For the second action you need inteeligence on an order sofar found only in humans.
I do recomend you give it a try, of course take the usual precautions when downloading any material from the net. I have installed the program and have encountered no neagtive effects. Enjoy.
It is quite something and is hard to describe. It is like watching a painting being created before your eyes, but all abstract. The picture is always transforming, being painted over, layer after layer is added. The site gives you an explanation of whats going on, but honestly i don't get it. I don't mind that because not being an artist i don't understand how a person can pull a flower out of a blank page with only a piece of charcol. Yet i can still enjoy the result.
If they are able to make this into a product that you could hang on your wall I would buy one.
It is not a substitute for art. It is an example of technology as art. Like elephants and apes that paint. I think it is cool that these animals can do it and the pictures they paint are interesting, but they represent nothing of the artist. That is what seperates the human artist from his animal or computer compatriot. Art preforms two tasks, to exist and to represent the perception and interaction of the Artist with the world. For the second action you need inteeligence on an order sofar found only in humans.
I do recomend you give it a try, of course take the usual precautions when downloading any material from the net. I have installed the program and have encountered no neagtive effects. Enjoy.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
The Internet -Paradise Mispalced?
The Internet quickly became a paradise lost. That is if you thought that the web would usher in a golden age of learning and enlightenment. With information at your fingertips, borders no longer barriers to people and ideas, finally, a flowering of the human race. What a world we could build. Well we got all that plus porn, shopping and bullshit. I don’t have a tally but those three categories must run 75% of the net. I don’t have a real problem with it either, sex, lies, and shopping are as human as apple pie.
Where is the problem? You might even ask if there even is one. There is. The information at available to any one human being as of Saturday the 5th of June 2010 at 10:00 am, is more than has been accessible to any one in the history of our species. That is a good thing. The problem lies with us and the nature of this new library.
In the past we added to the knowledge base by investigating the world around us writing books about what we thought or found . These books found their ways into libraries and classrooms of schools and universities. In the case of hard science, many hurdles had to be jumped before information was thought suitable vetted to print, the social sciences had a softer go but a standard had to be met here too before you were published. It didn’t mean everything published was correct. It meant that there were gatekeepers. These men were the academic and educated elite and they exercised power over the published world. It was a self appointed and know doubt arrogant elite, doing a necessary job. University presses and other publishers provided us with up to date and accurate information on the world.
I will note to forestall complaint that such a system works only when the state is relatively free. Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany exercised a control via state apparatus over large segments of the information industry in order to bring about ideological ends that were largely or completely at odds with the facts. Some western nation states on very specific issues like race, engaged in the same campaign of misinformation. This though this was a product of social prejudice and civil rights not fully realized, passive rather than active government suppression of the truth, the result were the same, the public was given false information and so could only come to an inaccurate conclusion.
So what a public needs in order to stay informed is freedom, you can find the full list of necessary freedoms in the constitutions of most Western states. Canadian constitution is a nice one. A pool independent gatekeepers makes up the other half of the equation. Scientific societies, museums, and universities just to mention an important few are tasked with maintaining the standard.
Then along came the Internet. This wild west of the information age where we have a hundreds of standards which effect to leave us with none. We still have the good measures, they migrated to the net intact. The Royal Ontario Museum didn’t change, neither did scientific journals, like the Lancet they still provide the same service to the facts they always have. What happened is that they have been joined by the rest and out numbered.
There are sites that talk about evolution, where you can get accurate information. In that same search page find sites promoting creationism, alien seeding , or any number of opposing ideas. All you have to do is pick a site that conforms best to what you want to believe. I am biased towards Darwin and consider the other ideas to be fantasy. My choice mine is not based on desired outcome, Evolution is correct, the others are incomplete to outright wrong. You get no indication of veracity from the search window, Google’s job is not to decide what ideas are true, just deliver you the items you requested.
What have on the Internet is freedom but no gatekeeper, to be more precise we are now our own keepers. And I have to admit that I don’t have the required knowledge to judge the truth of everything I read on the net. I rely on the experts for help. Only we can’t always know who to trust, or worse we pick someone that has not our interests at heart but their own.
A man Glenn Beck. He is conservative personality. A large part of his show deals with bringing history to his audience. But his interpretation of the past is often at odds with what the standard says. He is in effect for his audience at least rewriting parts of the past. He and other conservatives a certain type are telling people this- National socialist(Nazi’s) are in fact socialist - so they are leftists or communists- as leftists they are akin to liberals - so in effect Nazi’s are Liberals. An absurd ideas that the right likes to promote. If you are inclined to believe Glenn Beck are you ever going to visit a web site that calls that into question?
There are the half truths. Where we get edited information. Edited to provide an opposite account to what actually happened. Again Beck is the example he hosted a gentleman that claims the congress of the United States order bibles printed for schools. This is part of an ongoing attempt to remedy the idea of the separation of church and state in a favourable manner for the church. The full rebuttal can be found at Talk To Action. In effect they use of selected exerts edited to provide support for a position that the original documents in no way support. How likely is it that anyone that listens the Glenn Beck is going to find this information? Your guess is as good as mine, but I’m pessimistic.
I don’t know what kind of solution is available. Maybe we could set an age limit on the Internet. Just kidding. It is clear to me that the better educated you are the more tools you have to shift through the bullshit. There is no guarantee that you will, but if you want to you can.
The Internet must remain free, despite the short comings inherent with a mostly anything goes policy. I will put my hope in education and the increasing sophistication of the Internet user. But I think that the war on facts will be a long one and closer than it should be. In the end we win.
Where is the problem? You might even ask if there even is one. There is. The information at available to any one human being as of Saturday the 5th of June 2010 at 10:00 am, is more than has been accessible to any one in the history of our species. That is a good thing. The problem lies with us and the nature of this new library.
In the past we added to the knowledge base by investigating the world around us writing books about what we thought or found . These books found their ways into libraries and classrooms of schools and universities. In the case of hard science, many hurdles had to be jumped before information was thought suitable vetted to print, the social sciences had a softer go but a standard had to be met here too before you were published. It didn’t mean everything published was correct. It meant that there were gatekeepers. These men were the academic and educated elite and they exercised power over the published world. It was a self appointed and know doubt arrogant elite, doing a necessary job. University presses and other publishers provided us with up to date and accurate information on the world.
I will note to forestall complaint that such a system works only when the state is relatively free. Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany exercised a control via state apparatus over large segments of the information industry in order to bring about ideological ends that were largely or completely at odds with the facts. Some western nation states on very specific issues like race, engaged in the same campaign of misinformation. This though this was a product of social prejudice and civil rights not fully realized, passive rather than active government suppression of the truth, the result were the same, the public was given false information and so could only come to an inaccurate conclusion.
So what a public needs in order to stay informed is freedom, you can find the full list of necessary freedoms in the constitutions of most Western states. Canadian constitution is a nice one. A pool independent gatekeepers makes up the other half of the equation. Scientific societies, museums, and universities just to mention an important few are tasked with maintaining the standard.
Then along came the Internet. This wild west of the information age where we have a hundreds of standards which effect to leave us with none. We still have the good measures, they migrated to the net intact. The Royal Ontario Museum didn’t change, neither did scientific journals, like the Lancet they still provide the same service to the facts they always have. What happened is that they have been joined by the rest and out numbered.
There are sites that talk about evolution, where you can get accurate information. In that same search page find sites promoting creationism, alien seeding , or any number of opposing ideas. All you have to do is pick a site that conforms best to what you want to believe. I am biased towards Darwin and consider the other ideas to be fantasy. My choice mine is not based on desired outcome, Evolution is correct, the others are incomplete to outright wrong. You get no indication of veracity from the search window, Google’s job is not to decide what ideas are true, just deliver you the items you requested.
What have on the Internet is freedom but no gatekeeper, to be more precise we are now our own keepers. And I have to admit that I don’t have the required knowledge to judge the truth of everything I read on the net. I rely on the experts for help. Only we can’t always know who to trust, or worse we pick someone that has not our interests at heart but their own.
A man Glenn Beck. He is conservative personality. A large part of his show deals with bringing history to his audience. But his interpretation of the past is often at odds with what the standard says. He is in effect for his audience at least rewriting parts of the past. He and other conservatives a certain type are telling people this- National socialist(Nazi’s) are in fact socialist - so they are leftists or communists- as leftists they are akin to liberals - so in effect Nazi’s are Liberals. An absurd ideas that the right likes to promote. If you are inclined to believe Glenn Beck are you ever going to visit a web site that calls that into question?
There are the half truths. Where we get edited information. Edited to provide an opposite account to what actually happened. Again Beck is the example he hosted a gentleman that claims the congress of the United States order bibles printed for schools. This is part of an ongoing attempt to remedy the idea of the separation of church and state in a favourable manner for the church. The full rebuttal can be found at Talk To Action. In effect they use of selected exerts edited to provide support for a position that the original documents in no way support. How likely is it that anyone that listens the Glenn Beck is going to find this information? Your guess is as good as mine, but I’m pessimistic.
I don’t know what kind of solution is available. Maybe we could set an age limit on the Internet. Just kidding. It is clear to me that the better educated you are the more tools you have to shift through the bullshit. There is no guarantee that you will, but if you want to you can.
The Internet must remain free, despite the short comings inherent with a mostly anything goes policy. I will put my hope in education and the increasing sophistication of the Internet user. But I think that the war on facts will be a long one and closer than it should be. In the end we win.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Only a Difference in Details?
Do you ever wonder why politics is so partisan if everyone has our best interests in mind? It has everything to do with how you arrive at a given point. All ideologies even extreme ones like Fascism or Communism and maybe Libertarianism promise a better existence. The worst require a complete reset what can be considered normal moral and ethical values or a return to some unworkable or idealized past. Conservatism, Liberalism and Democratic Socialism occupy the main stream and make the offer of a better life without a massive overhaul of our present system.
I will place liberals in the centre, the conservatives to the right and socialists to the left. In their modern form there is a moderate amount of overlap. We really don't have much of a difference in political and social values. The mainstream political ideologies all support the major rights like free speech, freedom of the press, freedom from discrimination and universal suffrage. Sure as you get to the fringes the voices are more shrill but recent history suggest that parties play to this base but will not legislate for them. It is fair to say that we have settled the big questions concerning the rights of citizens that had been in play for the past two centuries. Liberals and conservatives of the eighteenth and nineteenth century would barely resemble those of today. The only traits that have carried forward are evident in their names. Conservative seek to restrain change to a manageable amount and preserve the social order. Liberals are more inclined to work with and encourage change. Socialism is a new comer to the scene and shares with Liberalism the ideas of social reform but differ on issues of economics.
This brings us to the point of divergence. The point of how we get from there to here.
If conservatives have grudgingly given way on rights issues, they remain steadfast in terms of economic liberty,(where rights effect economic liberty conservative will take the side of commerce). Conservatives champion the intersts of business as a means of creating a better Canada. It is a fair position to take, more money represents more oppurtunity. It is also fair to say, as conservatives do, that economies are so complex that governments tend to cause problems when they over manage. Competition is the theme. Competition creates better everything. The flip side of this that it creates winners and losers. This matters less when applied to companies and much, much more when applied to citizens. When people lose it means a hard life, less oppurtunity for themselves and their children. In the free market you need three things to win talent, determination and luck. One your born with, one you can learn and the last is out of your hands. Would Bill Gates have become a billionaire if he was born in a first world slum or a third world country? I have no idea and neither do you. The problem isn't that the free market doesn't work. The problem is that it's not as "free" as conservatives would have you believe. Where you ended up has a lot to do with where you start, talent aside. The better fed you are, a stable and secure your homelife, the better education you recieve all tilt the table in favour of success. These are just some of the factors that determine achievement but they all have an economic component. Now conservatives either don't realize that money plays a role in success or they don't want to talk about it.
This is one of the reasons conservatism does not appeal to me. How can I support an ideology that knows money matters yet pretends that it doesn't.
I will place liberals in the centre, the conservatives to the right and socialists to the left. In their modern form there is a moderate amount of overlap. We really don't have much of a difference in political and social values. The mainstream political ideologies all support the major rights like free speech, freedom of the press, freedom from discrimination and universal suffrage. Sure as you get to the fringes the voices are more shrill but recent history suggest that parties play to this base but will not legislate for them. It is fair to say that we have settled the big questions concerning the rights of citizens that had been in play for the past two centuries. Liberals and conservatives of the eighteenth and nineteenth century would barely resemble those of today. The only traits that have carried forward are evident in their names. Conservative seek to restrain change to a manageable amount and preserve the social order. Liberals are more inclined to work with and encourage change. Socialism is a new comer to the scene and shares with Liberalism the ideas of social reform but differ on issues of economics.
This brings us to the point of divergence. The point of how we get from there to here.
If conservatives have grudgingly given way on rights issues, they remain steadfast in terms of economic liberty,(where rights effect economic liberty conservative will take the side of commerce). Conservatives champion the intersts of business as a means of creating a better Canada. It is a fair position to take, more money represents more oppurtunity. It is also fair to say, as conservatives do, that economies are so complex that governments tend to cause problems when they over manage. Competition is the theme. Competition creates better everything. The flip side of this that it creates winners and losers. This matters less when applied to companies and much, much more when applied to citizens. When people lose it means a hard life, less oppurtunity for themselves and their children. In the free market you need three things to win talent, determination and luck. One your born with, one you can learn and the last is out of your hands. Would Bill Gates have become a billionaire if he was born in a first world slum or a third world country? I have no idea and neither do you. The problem isn't that the free market doesn't work. The problem is that it's not as "free" as conservatives would have you believe. Where you ended up has a lot to do with where you start, talent aside. The better fed you are, a stable and secure your homelife, the better education you recieve all tilt the table in favour of success. These are just some of the factors that determine achievement but they all have an economic component. Now conservatives either don't realize that money plays a role in success or they don't want to talk about it.
This is one of the reasons conservatism does not appeal to me. How can I support an ideology that knows money matters yet pretends that it doesn't.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
The Blockade
Israel intercepted a group of ships headed to Gaza with relief aid and lives were lost. That is enough to set everyone with an interest either direct or peripheral to their blogs, twitter accounts and streets. I'm a lagging behind but will give my opinion on the issue. The first thing i wanted to know was whether the blockade is legal. The United Nations Charter section section 7 deals with acts of aggression and threats to peace. Article 42 of that section recognizes that blockades may be imposed on offending members. When I read this section the implication was that any action must be approved by the security council, the Israeli action is not sanctioned by the U.N.. I found story in Reuters that answered the question a little better. I will not assume that this piece is part of an agenda aimed at legitimizing Israel's action in the Eastern Mediterranean, but i will leave open the possibility that all the questions needed to be asked in order to assess the legality may not have been posed. The questions that were asked an answered in this article do address the legality of the blockade in terms of international law and treaty (excluding the U.N.).
It is reasonable that when a state of war exists between two nations that blockades maybe imposed. It may be undeclared but a state of war does exist between Israel and Hamas(Gaza). Hamas attacks Israel with rockets on a routine basis. These attacks damage property and rarely take lives, but they are attacks by one state on another, however ineffectual. This provides Israel with the choice of whether to act and how. Mostly Israel will reply in kind. Last year they replied with disproportional force resulting in 1300 Palestinian deaths. Hamas takes this chance every time they fire a home made rocket. Hamas can goad Israel into action but once initiated it's out of their hands.
In an effort to control the influx of material used to make weapons Israel initiated a full blockade of Gaza. It is not quite complete. The border with Egypt is more or less porous depending on the mood of the Egyptians. The upshot is that everything that goes into Gaza must go through Israel. This puts Israel in complete control of Gaza, and responsible for the conditions found therein. Yes Hamas is the architect of this situation, but like the rockets, after helping to create this circumstance they immediately lost control of process. Since Israel is in control of Gaza they are responsible for the conditions found inside Gaza. This may be unfair to Israel, since their stated aim was to reduce to zero the rocket attacks, not the occupation of Gaza. Unfair or not Israel is running the show deny it all you want.
Having a legal right to engaged in the blockade does not confer on you the right to do as you please, proportionality matters to the legitimacy of any given action. Though they live under almost complete control of a foreign power in most ways that matter, Gaza isn't starving, even if life is very hard.
It is reasonable that when a state of war exists between two nations that blockades maybe imposed. It may be undeclared but a state of war does exist between Israel and Hamas(Gaza). Hamas attacks Israel with rockets on a routine basis. These attacks damage property and rarely take lives, but they are attacks by one state on another, however ineffectual. This provides Israel with the choice of whether to act and how. Mostly Israel will reply in kind. Last year they replied with disproportional force resulting in 1300 Palestinian deaths. Hamas takes this chance every time they fire a home made rocket. Hamas can goad Israel into action but once initiated it's out of their hands.
In an effort to control the influx of material used to make weapons Israel initiated a full blockade of Gaza. It is not quite complete. The border with Egypt is more or less porous depending on the mood of the Egyptians. The upshot is that everything that goes into Gaza must go through Israel. This puts Israel in complete control of Gaza, and responsible for the conditions found therein. Yes Hamas is the architect of this situation, but like the rockets, after helping to create this circumstance they immediately lost control of process. Since Israel is in control of Gaza they are responsible for the conditions found inside Gaza. This may be unfair to Israel, since their stated aim was to reduce to zero the rocket attacks, not the occupation of Gaza. Unfair or not Israel is running the show deny it all you want.
Having a legal right to engaged in the blockade does not confer on you the right to do as you please, proportionality matters to the legitimacy of any given action. Though they live under almost complete control of a foreign power in most ways that matter, Gaza isn't starving, even if life is very hard.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Israel and Palestine
Today Israel attacked a convoy of peace activists headed to Gaza. These ships were carrying the usual array of peace protesters including a Nobel laureate and a Holocaust survivor.
Israel has blockaded the ports of Gaza for some years now. All aid must pass through their hands before it heads to the Palestinians. A reasonable procedure if you don’t want the people you are fighting with to restock their weapons supply. Also a good strategy if you are trying to bring a reluctant party to the table. A table where presumably you want to come to some lasting terms on a lasting peace. It occurs that this method comes with draw backs. The people you are trying to bring to the negotiating table are usually unaffected by privation and so undeterred. The general population which has less real power to effect a change of mind among their leadership suffers the most. Incidentally they are often left with the option of supporting either the people who have precipitated the blockade or those running it. Bad choices all around but predictable. What get is a stalemate, one that seems to help both sides. Israel gets a intractable opponent that will never seek peace so Israel never has to make a peace it doesn’t like and certain Palestinian parties get a perpetual threat that helps them maintain power without ever having to deliver anything resembling a future to their people.
So what we get is an Israeli attack in international waters on unarmed vessels carrying relief supplies to Gaza. Reports have 4 injured Israeli’s and 10 to 16 dead activists. The usual accusations are made Israel killed unarmed protesters or Israeli soldiers were protecting themselves from violent attack by the blockade runners. I image that both sides will lie about what happened. I expect that the side that did the most damage is inclined to lie the most.
What I see the most clearly is that the interests of Israel and that of my country Canada have parted ways in most places. Keep in mind that when I speak of “interests” I am confined to my on view on this. I can assure any one reading this post that Canada is divided on this the Israel/Palestine issue. Divided along all the usual fault lines political , social ethnic ,religious. It is an issue that has too many hangers on.
It is in Canada’s interest to be pursuing in everyway possible an equitable peace between the warring sides. That is what good countries do, promote peace. Before anyone says but it’s complicated I’ll stipulate that peace between Israel and Palestine is and will be a complicated process and more blood will be split before a concluding chapter is written.
I see the grindstone strategy being employed by both sides continuing for sometime. I believe that each side thinks the other will break. Is that how you begin set upon the road to peace , by first breaking your enemy? Not if you want it to last.
It is clear that the aggrieved parties have other interests at stake than just peace. If people want to stop fighting they find away, just like they find excuses to keep the violence going.
That is the why I write of diverging interests. Canada should not care who has Jerusalem other than that it’s allocation be equitable. Canada should not care about settlements other than the rule of law be applied. Canada should care only that civil and human rights are enshrined in any deal signed and that the parties keep their word. When Canada speaks on the issue of Palestinians it must be a voice for reason. It can not ignore the reality but in acknowledging situation must be prepared to help move that reality in another direction. It is not in Canada’s interest to support without equivocation either Palestine or Israel. We are not directly affected by the rockets and bombs that are routinely traded by these warring parties. But we are affected by terrorists that draw power from this conflict. By ending the violence in creating an equitable peace, Canada’s interests are being served. By allowing the fighting to continue we are placing others countries interests ahead of our own. I can assure you that neither the Palestinians nor Israelis spend much time thinking how to promote our interests.
As long as these two so similar peoples refuse to look past their on noses for a solution, we have to help them. The way we help them is by refusing to take sides, refusing to accept that one party is more aggrieved than the other. I know that this can’t be easy but it’s the only way I see that a bridge towards peace can be built. Let everyone acknowledge that harm has been done and let everyone understand that it should not be a barrier to peace.
Israel has blockaded the ports of Gaza for some years now. All aid must pass through their hands before it heads to the Palestinians. A reasonable procedure if you don’t want the people you are fighting with to restock their weapons supply. Also a good strategy if you are trying to bring a reluctant party to the table. A table where presumably you want to come to some lasting terms on a lasting peace. It occurs that this method comes with draw backs. The people you are trying to bring to the negotiating table are usually unaffected by privation and so undeterred. The general population which has less real power to effect a change of mind among their leadership suffers the most. Incidentally they are often left with the option of supporting either the people who have precipitated the blockade or those running it. Bad choices all around but predictable. What get is a stalemate, one that seems to help both sides. Israel gets a intractable opponent that will never seek peace so Israel never has to make a peace it doesn’t like and certain Palestinian parties get a perpetual threat that helps them maintain power without ever having to deliver anything resembling a future to their people.
So what we get is an Israeli attack in international waters on unarmed vessels carrying relief supplies to Gaza. Reports have 4 injured Israeli’s and 10 to 16 dead activists. The usual accusations are made Israel killed unarmed protesters or Israeli soldiers were protecting themselves from violent attack by the blockade runners. I image that both sides will lie about what happened. I expect that the side that did the most damage is inclined to lie the most.
What I see the most clearly is that the interests of Israel and that of my country Canada have parted ways in most places. Keep in mind that when I speak of “interests” I am confined to my on view on this. I can assure any one reading this post that Canada is divided on this the Israel/Palestine issue. Divided along all the usual fault lines political , social ethnic ,religious. It is an issue that has too many hangers on.
It is in Canada’s interest to be pursuing in everyway possible an equitable peace between the warring sides. That is what good countries do, promote peace. Before anyone says but it’s complicated I’ll stipulate that peace between Israel and Palestine is and will be a complicated process and more blood will be split before a concluding chapter is written.
I see the grindstone strategy being employed by both sides continuing for sometime. I believe that each side thinks the other will break. Is that how you begin set upon the road to peace , by first breaking your enemy? Not if you want it to last.
It is clear that the aggrieved parties have other interests at stake than just peace. If people want to stop fighting they find away, just like they find excuses to keep the violence going.
That is the why I write of diverging interests. Canada should not care who has Jerusalem other than that it’s allocation be equitable. Canada should not care about settlements other than the rule of law be applied. Canada should care only that civil and human rights are enshrined in any deal signed and that the parties keep their word. When Canada speaks on the issue of Palestinians it must be a voice for reason. It can not ignore the reality but in acknowledging situation must be prepared to help move that reality in another direction. It is not in Canada’s interest to support without equivocation either Palestine or Israel. We are not directly affected by the rockets and bombs that are routinely traded by these warring parties. But we are affected by terrorists that draw power from this conflict. By ending the violence in creating an equitable peace, Canada’s interests are being served. By allowing the fighting to continue we are placing others countries interests ahead of our own. I can assure you that neither the Palestinians nor Israelis spend much time thinking how to promote our interests.
As long as these two so similar peoples refuse to look past their on noses for a solution, we have to help them. The way we help them is by refusing to take sides, refusing to accept that one party is more aggrieved than the other. I know that this can’t be easy but it’s the only way I see that a bridge towards peace can be built. Let everyone acknowledge that harm has been done and let everyone understand that it should not be a barrier to peace.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
What you Think you are getting.
Once in a while you encounter people that want to limit government. They invoke times when we were more self reliant, when the government “didn’t wipe our asses for us “. I think few people are interested in that kind of intrusion. When government engages in activities that restrict unreasonably the rights of the individual citizen, to the point of harm with no recognizable good in return, then we can act to limit such overreach.
For many, harm is discerned in terms of personal benefit/loss and often with an economic component. I pay CPP. That is my contribution to the pensions of Canadians who have reached the age of retirement. Before I get to draw a dime of pension I will have worked 47 years. The CPP helps to support the people that built the Canada I now enjoy. Can I use the money myself? Sure could. But I do understand that old people living in poverty is an ugly thing. CPP doesn’t provide a huge sum, people should still try to save for their old age, but it helps. Everyone giving a little to support those in need, hardly government overreach.
If you ever get to meet a small government conservative/libertarian ask them what services they don’t want? The list is long: food and drug safety, labour regulations, product safety, environmental regulation, building codes, judicial system road building and maintenance water quality. There are thousands of things the government runs outright or regulates on our behalf that we could not afford to do or have to power to do by our selves. A libertarian/conservative response might be to privatize it. “Business does everything better than government” this is the unquestioned mantra of this group. Add to this notion the belief that people can and should take care of them selves leaves protection of property as the only role for Government to play. Again I state that citizens should do as much for themselves that they can. Life is better when you work and contribute, but all things are not equal and sometimes you need help.
So I think we come to the point where liberals diverge from small government crowd. It is clear that this group doesn’t need the services provided by Liberal Democratic governments or they don’t think they do. If I am a person of means, I pay a substantial amount of taxes, unless I have worked the tax code to reduce that amount. In terms of direct contribution to government and expected return through programs the wealthy are a net loss. They don’t require big programs like CPP, EI and income substitute programs, subsidized education and medical services. They have the means to acquire the same services better tailored to meet their needs. So if a person of wealth doesn’t like supporting big government and the higher taxes that result I can understand if disagreeing strongly. It would take a separate post to describe the indirect benefits that accrue to persons of means just by living in a modern liberal democracy.
What I find myself less able to understand is how citizens of limited means can decry taxation and declare the evils big government. On purely economic grounds the person of moderate means gets more directly from government then they pay out in contribution. It is like insurance. Many people contribute keeping costs low and you always have fewer claiming benefits than paying in. The risk is spread out so everyone can gain access. This especially true of income replacement or supplement programs.
I think that citizens of limited means oppose government not on economic grounds but because of some other factor(s), issues of a religious, cultural and social nature. They support the positions that harm them economically in return for the promise of government legislation favouring their particular positions. It is a jumble of things. If you support a ban on abortion that is more government intrusion not less, same with those against gay marriage. Anti gun control involves less government and decreased public safety, a bad trade. In Canada social conservative voters have failed to achieve meaningful legislative success while their fiscal conservative brothers have done much better.
What we need from government is an easy to read accounting of how our money is spent. People need to see the ledger and see the benefits that are provided by Government and show the costs to us in the absence of such programs. Information like that will take away much of the force of the small government argument.
For many, harm is discerned in terms of personal benefit/loss and often with an economic component. I pay CPP. That is my contribution to the pensions of Canadians who have reached the age of retirement. Before I get to draw a dime of pension I will have worked 47 years. The CPP helps to support the people that built the Canada I now enjoy. Can I use the money myself? Sure could. But I do understand that old people living in poverty is an ugly thing. CPP doesn’t provide a huge sum, people should still try to save for their old age, but it helps. Everyone giving a little to support those in need, hardly government overreach.
If you ever get to meet a small government conservative/libertarian ask them what services they don’t want? The list is long: food and drug safety, labour regulations, product safety, environmental regulation, building codes, judicial system road building and maintenance water quality. There are thousands of things the government runs outright or regulates on our behalf that we could not afford to do or have to power to do by our selves. A libertarian/conservative response might be to privatize it. “Business does everything better than government” this is the unquestioned mantra of this group. Add to this notion the belief that people can and should take care of them selves leaves protection of property as the only role for Government to play. Again I state that citizens should do as much for themselves that they can. Life is better when you work and contribute, but all things are not equal and sometimes you need help.
So I think we come to the point where liberals diverge from small government crowd. It is clear that this group doesn’t need the services provided by Liberal Democratic governments or they don’t think they do. If I am a person of means, I pay a substantial amount of taxes, unless I have worked the tax code to reduce that amount. In terms of direct contribution to government and expected return through programs the wealthy are a net loss. They don’t require big programs like CPP, EI and income substitute programs, subsidized education and medical services. They have the means to acquire the same services better tailored to meet their needs. So if a person of wealth doesn’t like supporting big government and the higher taxes that result I can understand if disagreeing strongly. It would take a separate post to describe the indirect benefits that accrue to persons of means just by living in a modern liberal democracy.
What I find myself less able to understand is how citizens of limited means can decry taxation and declare the evils big government. On purely economic grounds the person of moderate means gets more directly from government then they pay out in contribution. It is like insurance. Many people contribute keeping costs low and you always have fewer claiming benefits than paying in. The risk is spread out so everyone can gain access. This especially true of income replacement or supplement programs.
I think that citizens of limited means oppose government not on economic grounds but because of some other factor(s), issues of a religious, cultural and social nature. They support the positions that harm them economically in return for the promise of government legislation favouring their particular positions. It is a jumble of things. If you support a ban on abortion that is more government intrusion not less, same with those against gay marriage. Anti gun control involves less government and decreased public safety, a bad trade. In Canada social conservative voters have failed to achieve meaningful legislative success while their fiscal conservative brothers have done much better.
What we need from government is an easy to read accounting of how our money is spent. People need to see the ledger and see the benefits that are provided by Government and show the costs to us in the absence of such programs. Information like that will take away much of the force of the small government argument.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Principles and Dead Weight
Principles and Dead Principles and Dead Weight. Recently Rand Paul has made headlines with statements concerning the 1964 civil rights act. The united states passed sweeping rights legislation in 1964, including a right to public accommodation. This meant that private businesses could not refuse service based on factors like race. Me. Paul is a republican/libertarian. Libertarians have a dim view of government and prefer it to be as small as possible. They oppose government interference in the private affairs of the citizen, that includes how you run your own business. So quite in keeping with his well known support of libertarian ideals opposes the accommodations section of the civil rights act. He hates racism but supports the individuals right to be racist in their business practices.
This is an example of when theory fails in practise. It fails only because our society has chosen to value equality above certain forms of liberty. It fails because in the real world, economic factors that libertarians believe would cause an eventual end this form of discrimination, do not in fact work. Cultural and social conventions created over time inform people on how to act. If they tell you that race or religion matter and it is OK to discriminate then racism becomes a collective act. Where oddly enough the pressure exerted is against the liberty of persons to not discriminate. The idea that racism is bad for business so will be it's own downfall is misleading. If you operate a business in a town where discrimination is accepted your operations would suffer if you didn't discriminate. Economic penalties would arise only if the individual acts against the social and cultural norm.
This preoccupation that conservatives and especially libertarians have that our world is largely self regulating and if left alone would become the best of possible worlds is bankrupt. Worse still is the belief that free market economics can lead the way. People act in accordance with social and cultural norms. These norms are supported by political institutions. It is only by removing political support for dicsrimination through legislation that change can occur.
Sometimes ideology fails in practise. Though failure largely depends on what kind of outcome you favour.
This is an example of when theory fails in practise. It fails only because our society has chosen to value equality above certain forms of liberty. It fails because in the real world, economic factors that libertarians believe would cause an eventual end this form of discrimination, do not in fact work. Cultural and social conventions created over time inform people on how to act. If they tell you that race or religion matter and it is OK to discriminate then racism becomes a collective act. Where oddly enough the pressure exerted is against the liberty of persons to not discriminate. The idea that racism is bad for business so will be it's own downfall is misleading. If you operate a business in a town where discrimination is accepted your operations would suffer if you didn't discriminate. Economic penalties would arise only if the individual acts against the social and cultural norm.
This preoccupation that conservatives and especially libertarians have that our world is largely self regulating and if left alone would become the best of possible worlds is bankrupt. Worse still is the belief that free market economics can lead the way. People act in accordance with social and cultural norms. These norms are supported by political institutions. It is only by removing political support for dicsrimination through legislation that change can occur.
Sometimes ideology fails in practise. Though failure largely depends on what kind of outcome you favour.
Friday, May 21, 2010
The Quality of Choice
Conservatives like to talk about Choice and Personal Responsibility. It is invoked as an argument against Government intervention in our lives. Intervention is the word conservatives use in describing what governments do, word choice is important because it helps frame the idea. Liberals will employ neutral words like regulation or oversight. These words imply something more akin to guardianship as opposed to oppression.
People make decisions everyday and should not be protected from bad choices or prevented from profiting from good ones. Any government policy or program that limits risks is one that enfeebles the citizen. Why save money if you employment insurance is available. EI benefits discourage job seeking, why work if the government sends you a check for doing nothing. Welfare falls into the same category as does old age pension, government provided medical care. This can, if you are of a libertarian mind extend to regulation of the labour, corporations, the environment, in effect, any interaction between citizens. By removing risk for either the citizen or corporate body we discourage choice and personal responsibility creating disadvantage in our society rather than alleviating it.
You may have noticed the theme being played out here, money. It is all about the money. Who has it who needs it. We pay taxes to support income replacement programs, regulatory bodies and public insurance. The people that pay the most in taxes are also the same people that rely the least on such programs. It is reasonable then for these citizens, in the view of self interest, to be against this kind of government spending. It is also fair to say that the more money you have the better protected you are from the repercussions of bad choices and the easier it is to assume personal responsibility. Though i think if a survey were taken it would conclude that the rich and poor seek to avoid responsibility in equal measure.
This goes towards the notion of quality of choice. The conservative does not acknowledge the difference in choice available to each citizen or does not think the difference is their job to ameliorate. A person born rich has greater opportunity for success than someone born poor, that is life. Life is the filter that separates the worthy from the unworthy, everyone rises or sinks to the level ordained by nature or God, depending on your weltansicht. This is a core conservative value, everyone has the freedom and liberty to make a life for themselves. Again we must acknowledge two things, such a system will ensure that those in authority will remain there and only the very best, define that as economically successful, will gain traction and rise in station.
This had been circumstances governing most societies throughout history. Though from a historical perspective, military prowess and economic success were integrated in a way that exist now in nations without functional democracies.. War was the way a person won or maintained authority. You gained wealth through governing and maintained authority by the application of riches and force. The advent of Representative government saw less internal violence, war was prosecuted for mostly political gain rather than plunder. Again I must point out that while governments did not actually engaged in direct plunder, they did secure regions in order that their citizens might exploit the resources therein for economic benefits. The difference is their but how different is debatable.
A fair person who is also conservative most admit that the theme of Choice and personal responsibility serves a limited few. While the idea is hard to argue against, people should make good choices and man up when they make mistakes, it is an argument that ignores reality and they know it. Until we can guarantee approximate quality of choice by reducing unnecessary impediments to success, the concept of personal responsibility and choice will trap citizens rather than setting them free to rise or fall on their own merits
People make decisions everyday and should not be protected from bad choices or prevented from profiting from good ones. Any government policy or program that limits risks is one that enfeebles the citizen. Why save money if you employment insurance is available. EI benefits discourage job seeking, why work if the government sends you a check for doing nothing. Welfare falls into the same category as does old age pension, government provided medical care. This can, if you are of a libertarian mind extend to regulation of the labour, corporations, the environment, in effect, any interaction between citizens. By removing risk for either the citizen or corporate body we discourage choice and personal responsibility creating disadvantage in our society rather than alleviating it.
You may have noticed the theme being played out here, money. It is all about the money. Who has it who needs it. We pay taxes to support income replacement programs, regulatory bodies and public insurance. The people that pay the most in taxes are also the same people that rely the least on such programs. It is reasonable then for these citizens, in the view of self interest, to be against this kind of government spending. It is also fair to say that the more money you have the better protected you are from the repercussions of bad choices and the easier it is to assume personal responsibility. Though i think if a survey were taken it would conclude that the rich and poor seek to avoid responsibility in equal measure.
This goes towards the notion of quality of choice. The conservative does not acknowledge the difference in choice available to each citizen or does not think the difference is their job to ameliorate. A person born rich has greater opportunity for success than someone born poor, that is life. Life is the filter that separates the worthy from the unworthy, everyone rises or sinks to the level ordained by nature or God, depending on your weltansicht. This is a core conservative value, everyone has the freedom and liberty to make a life for themselves. Again we must acknowledge two things, such a system will ensure that those in authority will remain there and only the very best, define that as economically successful, will gain traction and rise in station.
This had been circumstances governing most societies throughout history. Though from a historical perspective, military prowess and economic success were integrated in a way that exist now in nations without functional democracies.. War was the way a person won or maintained authority. You gained wealth through governing and maintained authority by the application of riches and force. The advent of Representative government saw less internal violence, war was prosecuted for mostly political gain rather than plunder. Again I must point out that while governments did not actually engaged in direct plunder, they did secure regions in order that their citizens might exploit the resources therein for economic benefits. The difference is their but how different is debatable.
A fair person who is also conservative most admit that the theme of Choice and personal responsibility serves a limited few. While the idea is hard to argue against, people should make good choices and man up when they make mistakes, it is an argument that ignores reality and they know it. Until we can guarantee approximate quality of choice by reducing unnecessary impediments to success, the concept of personal responsibility and choice will trap citizens rather than setting them free to rise or fall on their own merits
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Right vs Wrong
In nature what happens is often what is right. Larger bodies draw smaller masses to themselves, water freezes at zero Celsius and becomes ice and energy in a given system declines order turns towards chaos. You will never get a panel with mathematicians arguing both sides of the 1+1=2 equation because there is only one answer. Scientists will debate outcomes of experiments and conclusions, but not the physics and math which describes the natural world. Facts are facts. Nature exists as a single system with a set of given and immutable laws. You may not like it but if you disagree with what is known and can't prove otherwise with legitimate experiment then too bad you are wrong. That is the world of math and science.
So our world is governed by natural laws that are unalterable, but our society by man made laws which can't claim such distinction. In short, men make mistakes and so such laws as men make are subject to error. In the past they worked around this problem. The Laws that were promulgated and enforced by kings/priests were seen as divine. They were either directly handed to man from God(s) or inspired by Him/Them. The perfect or in some cases just vastly superior God(s) gave us law that were to be considered on par with natural laws or at least better than man could come up with and so should not be questioned. In joining the Law to the superior we avoid any notion of error that the involvement of man may suggest.
Let us add to the confusion, every human society creates its' own laws or adopts them from the outside to meet their needs. This creates multiple systems with both unique and generic laws adapted to need. These perfect Laws would come into conflict throughout our history. Successful nations passed their cultures forward to the present laws included. What is a better mark of perfection than success.
The science of evolution indicates that species success is dependent on it's ability out compete other within a given environment. The better adapted to your niche the greater your chances of survival. That is science again. An outcome derived from natural law.
As God(s)declined as the guarantor of law, we turned to science as an explanation for what is right and what was wrong. We applied scientific method as an arbiter of right and wrong and that was a mistake. Science requires a single system with universal laws. In the face of multiple systems what we ended up with were not laws that were best, just the laws that happen to attached to the most successful society. It is fair to say that good laws lead to more successful nations, but we can argue what it means to succeed. Is superiority measured in economics,war perhaps justice?
This brings us to into the realm of ideology. Our society is a melange of competing thought systems. Each system has unique and overlapping "natural laws" governing their processes. While traits are shared by those systems closest to each other, ideologies are still closed off. Each thought system has to obey the basic rules that govern them. It is why a Conservative will oppose big government but accept a large military. These two ideas are not inconsistent, a conservative accepts that you need a large military in order to protect property, in the form of the nation, which is a legitimate responsibility of Government. A liberal typically supports larger government. A liberal supports affirmative action but is opposed to racial discrimination, seemingly opposite positions. This support is predicated on the principle that government has a duty to aid its' citizen by ensuring access to opportunity. The conservative and liberal come from different places though it is accepted that they aim towards the same end, a better nation and more prosperous citizens. They just don't agree on the same route. They both have a claim to "right" and are, within their respective thought systems.
It should be noted that social/economic standing , race/ethnicity and general experience will dictate your ideological leaning. A person of wealth can't be faulted for supporting a position that secures their fortune anymore that an immigrant might be decried for looking to a party that supports their interests.
Right and wrong breaks down into individual interests, not usually on the big questions of theft or killing, though some cultures have different approaches. You won't find a conservative and a liberal differing on the issue of whether murder is ok or not. They will differ however in the response. That is often how ideology works. It is how we address issues of the day that set us apart.
It is then impossible to assign a right and a wrong because we are dealing with different systems with unique rules and perspective. Anyone proclaiming the "rightness" of their position should be required to do so in an expansive way, because it is not enough to assert a position without showing your the work. If you are trying to show higher lower taxes are the root to prosperity you have to prove it. So when comparing between two exclusive systems you do need a ruler. I use the notion of general good when deciding whether to support a position or not. Again we will face a problem of what yardstick is used to measure fitness. In the end we are stuck with the only reliable measure of judgement, voting. Reliable because we get a decision though of course not necessarily the right one.
So our world is governed by natural laws that are unalterable, but our society by man made laws which can't claim such distinction. In short, men make mistakes and so such laws as men make are subject to error. In the past they worked around this problem. The Laws that were promulgated and enforced by kings/priests were seen as divine. They were either directly handed to man from God(s) or inspired by Him/Them. The perfect or in some cases just vastly superior God(s) gave us law that were to be considered on par with natural laws or at least better than man could come up with and so should not be questioned. In joining the Law to the superior we avoid any notion of error that the involvement of man may suggest.
Let us add to the confusion, every human society creates its' own laws or adopts them from the outside to meet their needs. This creates multiple systems with both unique and generic laws adapted to need. These perfect Laws would come into conflict throughout our history. Successful nations passed their cultures forward to the present laws included. What is a better mark of perfection than success.
The science of evolution indicates that species success is dependent on it's ability out compete other within a given environment. The better adapted to your niche the greater your chances of survival. That is science again. An outcome derived from natural law.
As God(s)declined as the guarantor of law, we turned to science as an explanation for what is right and what was wrong. We applied scientific method as an arbiter of right and wrong and that was a mistake. Science requires a single system with universal laws. In the face of multiple systems what we ended up with were not laws that were best, just the laws that happen to attached to the most successful society. It is fair to say that good laws lead to more successful nations, but we can argue what it means to succeed. Is superiority measured in economics,war perhaps justice?
This brings us to into the realm of ideology. Our society is a melange of competing thought systems. Each system has unique and overlapping "natural laws" governing their processes. While traits are shared by those systems closest to each other, ideologies are still closed off. Each thought system has to obey the basic rules that govern them. It is why a Conservative will oppose big government but accept a large military. These two ideas are not inconsistent, a conservative accepts that you need a large military in order to protect property, in the form of the nation, which is a legitimate responsibility of Government. A liberal typically supports larger government. A liberal supports affirmative action but is opposed to racial discrimination, seemingly opposite positions. This support is predicated on the principle that government has a duty to aid its' citizen by ensuring access to opportunity. The conservative and liberal come from different places though it is accepted that they aim towards the same end, a better nation and more prosperous citizens. They just don't agree on the same route. They both have a claim to "right" and are, within their respective thought systems.
It should be noted that social/economic standing , race/ethnicity and general experience will dictate your ideological leaning. A person of wealth can't be faulted for supporting a position that secures their fortune anymore that an immigrant might be decried for looking to a party that supports their interests.
Right and wrong breaks down into individual interests, not usually on the big questions of theft or killing, though some cultures have different approaches. You won't find a conservative and a liberal differing on the issue of whether murder is ok or not. They will differ however in the response. That is often how ideology works. It is how we address issues of the day that set us apart.
It is then impossible to assign a right and a wrong because we are dealing with different systems with unique rules and perspective. Anyone proclaiming the "rightness" of their position should be required to do so in an expansive way, because it is not enough to assert a position without showing your the work. If you are trying to show higher lower taxes are the root to prosperity you have to prove it. So when comparing between two exclusive systems you do need a ruler. I use the notion of general good when deciding whether to support a position or not. Again we will face a problem of what yardstick is used to measure fitness. In the end we are stuck with the only reliable measure of judgement, voting. Reliable because we get a decision though of course not necessarily the right one.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Religious Right and the PMO
Recently we have received warning of a rise in the influence of the religious right over the PMO. The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada by journalist Marci McDonald details a growing association bewtween social and religous conservatives and the Prime minister. An article in the Toronto Star provides an overview of this new controversy. What we appear to have is a growth in numbes and influence of the religious right. I won't argue that we don't have more groups advacating against the freedomn of women to choose, the advancement of gay rights, subtle attempts to restrict freedom of expression through tax credits, unquestioned support for Israel and quite a few other issue that seem to draw the ire of the social conservatives. They are here and represent a constituency. They are vocal and and engaged. What i don't see is the enevitable take over by these groups. I see a ceiling on their influence and it is rather low. Two thirds of Canadians vote centre left. This is not proof against influence, political parties on the centre left will have religious membership, but it appears to be of a different variety than one finds in the religious right. The religion has figured differently history in Canada and we have a decidedly low tolerance for mixing of the religious and politcal.
It has been suggested that the PM is onboard with this new Canadian religious right. I have seen nothing in Mr. Harpers history that leads to this conclusion. He is more publically religious than past Prime Ministers but a far cry from his conterparts in America. The PM sees the religious right a voting block to exploit but as many articles have highlighted he has done little to adavance the causes of the soacial conservatives. Many point out that The conservatives have been prevented from implementing his full adgenda because of minority governments. Maybe, but we can't judge a man on what he has done yet and still be fair. I believe the PM will move us to right on fiscally conservative issues. I just find it difficult to accept that he will follow that shift on social issues as well. I am not nieve. But whether conservatives like to admit it or not Canada is a liberal nation. I can't concieve of what chain of events would be required to drag us towards social consevatism. It doesn't mean it can't happen but in the doing, would render my Canada unrecognizable.
As citizens we need to be vigilant. Our right were hard earned over many centuries but can be lost quickly. Our job is not to stop the voices of those we oppose but to argue with them in the public space. People must be allowed thier version of the truth but not their version of the facts. We don't need to fear free expression, we need to fear secrecy. So let these groups do in public space all the activism they want, if you disagree oppose them in that same venue.
It has been suggested that the PM is onboard with this new Canadian religious right. I have seen nothing in Mr. Harpers history that leads to this conclusion. He is more publically religious than past Prime Ministers but a far cry from his conterparts in America. The PM sees the religious right a voting block to exploit but as many articles have highlighted he has done little to adavance the causes of the soacial conservatives. Many point out that The conservatives have been prevented from implementing his full adgenda because of minority governments. Maybe, but we can't judge a man on what he has done yet and still be fair. I believe the PM will move us to right on fiscally conservative issues. I just find it difficult to accept that he will follow that shift on social issues as well. I am not nieve. But whether conservatives like to admit it or not Canada is a liberal nation. I can't concieve of what chain of events would be required to drag us towards social consevatism. It doesn't mean it can't happen but in the doing, would render my Canada unrecognizable.
As citizens we need to be vigilant. Our right were hard earned over many centuries but can be lost quickly. Our job is not to stop the voices of those we oppose but to argue with them in the public space. People must be allowed thier version of the truth but not their version of the facts. We don't need to fear free expression, we need to fear secrecy. So let these groups do in public space all the activism they want, if you disagree oppose them in that same venue.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Calling for Wind and Rain Saturday
Yes rain and a chill wind today, a little April in May. Last night at around 8:30 pm the power went out. It was a good thing I had settle in for a night of baseball by radio. I have cheap cable, that means no Toronto Blue Jays. It is fine as I would rather listen to the game on radio any way. The radio just seems built for it, same goes for hockey too.
So with no power I lit a candle to push back the dark took out my portable radio and enjoyed a slowed down Friday evening. The game was a good one Jays won in the 12 inning on a three run home run, my team might not go all the way this year but at times I feel I'm looking at a future winner.
It is amazing when the power goes out. Take a looked around the house at all the stuff that stops working. Our society is centred around power it is hard to imagine what life would be like if your under 80 and never lived in rural Canada. I am not going to wax nostalgic about how better life was back before electricity, because it wasn't, for most people anyway. But it is scary how unprepared most of us would be if power was lost for any length of time. We have built a civilization that is so dependent on thousands of things going right all the time with fewer backup systems in place, for the just in case scenario, than we probably should have.
It is too bad that we can't manage a way to integrate the best parts of the "slow world" into our "fast world". Yet. I do think we can solve the worst of our problems. I'm just not sure about how long that will take.
So with no power I lit a candle to push back the dark took out my portable radio and enjoyed a slowed down Friday evening. The game was a good one Jays won in the 12 inning on a three run home run, my team might not go all the way this year but at times I feel I'm looking at a future winner.
It is amazing when the power goes out. Take a looked around the house at all the stuff that stops working. Our society is centred around power it is hard to imagine what life would be like if your under 80 and never lived in rural Canada. I am not going to wax nostalgic about how better life was back before electricity, because it wasn't, for most people anyway. But it is scary how unprepared most of us would be if power was lost for any length of time. We have built a civilization that is so dependent on thousands of things going right all the time with fewer backup systems in place, for the just in case scenario, than we probably should have.
It is too bad that we can't manage a way to integrate the best parts of the "slow world" into our "fast world". Yet. I do think we can solve the worst of our problems. I'm just not sure about how long that will take.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
The Future of the Written Word
The St.Catharines Library is now offering Audio and E-Books. You just log in browse the selection and grab your books. I am going to give it a try today. The starting selection of audio books is small. I expect that the number will increase handily as more people find out about the service and have the required equipment to utilize this new service.
I am picking the book on King Tut’s death. You need to DL the software before you can check the book out for your PC/MAC or mobile. The set up , is computer assisted so installation is easy. The Ipod/Phone app is probably the quickest since these apps run themselves. If you do DL the book onto your PC like I did the transfer to a mobile device does take a little while. I am using an IPOD touch, so I can’t speak to the experience of other devices.
The book is checked out in the same manner as hard copies. The lending period is 7/14 days and at the end of the loan the book self deletes. I am waiting to see that happen. I can expect that for E-Books the time consumed by DL or Transfer to mobile is shorter. The IPAD will be well suited for this new era in book borrowing. The size of the screen on a hand held does not lend itself to easy or enjoyable reading.
That is the nuts and bolts of the setup now comes the grumpiness. I recognize the convenience of being able to carry a dozen books on one device or of listening to books as opposed to reading. Most of the cultures that ever existed have being oral. Even after the invention of the moveable type printing press people still gathered to listen because literacy and affordable mass production of books were still far into the future. I just can’t help feeling that rather than E-Books being just an option they will end up supplanting the art of reading.
Reading is more that it seems. Reading is not a passive act. It engages your mind, forces you to think about the subject being discussed whether it is non-fiction or fantasy. In fact a person can’t help interacting with a book much the same way you might with a professor in a lecture hall, learning and at the same time questioning.
The other draw backs fall into between the benign and the potentially disastrous. A book never runs out of power. The audio/eBook revolution depends on the proximity of power and a high tech infrastructure. I certainly will be happy when they have solar powered version of a reader but that won’t solve the problem fully. Well made books can and have lasted centuries, data storage devices are not as hardy, data corruption is going to happen. This is not a problem as long as we have a Tech society. No I’m not about to launch into end of the world scenarios, but any disruption or change of tech represents a potential loss of information. Will for instance anybody bother to repeat the Herculean task of transfer books from out of date media to newer forms? The Gutenberg Project is now engaged in transferring the books from paper to electronic media. Will some one do a similar feat in the next century?
I guess my chief reason for hesitation is both a comfort and a vanity. I read to relax as well as to learn. On the couch with music in the back ground. The feel of the book. The way a page looks as opposed to a screen. These I imagine I can get used too. The vanity of a well stocked book case. This perhaps is a bit snobbish but a book case is an accomplishment, a life’s work and I don’t know how an audio/eBook can replace that guilty joy.
I am picking the book on King Tut’s death. You need to DL the software before you can check the book out for your PC/MAC or mobile. The set up , is computer assisted so installation is easy. The Ipod/Phone app is probably the quickest since these apps run themselves. If you do DL the book onto your PC like I did the transfer to a mobile device does take a little while. I am using an IPOD touch, so I can’t speak to the experience of other devices.
The book is checked out in the same manner as hard copies. The lending period is 7/14 days and at the end of the loan the book self deletes. I am waiting to see that happen. I can expect that for E-Books the time consumed by DL or Transfer to mobile is shorter. The IPAD will be well suited for this new era in book borrowing. The size of the screen on a hand held does not lend itself to easy or enjoyable reading.
That is the nuts and bolts of the setup now comes the grumpiness. I recognize the convenience of being able to carry a dozen books on one device or of listening to books as opposed to reading. Most of the cultures that ever existed have being oral. Even after the invention of the moveable type printing press people still gathered to listen because literacy and affordable mass production of books were still far into the future. I just can’t help feeling that rather than E-Books being just an option they will end up supplanting the art of reading.
Reading is more that it seems. Reading is not a passive act. It engages your mind, forces you to think about the subject being discussed whether it is non-fiction or fantasy. In fact a person can’t help interacting with a book much the same way you might with a professor in a lecture hall, learning and at the same time questioning.
The other draw backs fall into between the benign and the potentially disastrous. A book never runs out of power. The audio/eBook revolution depends on the proximity of power and a high tech infrastructure. I certainly will be happy when they have solar powered version of a reader but that won’t solve the problem fully. Well made books can and have lasted centuries, data storage devices are not as hardy, data corruption is going to happen. This is not a problem as long as we have a Tech society. No I’m not about to launch into end of the world scenarios, but any disruption or change of tech represents a potential loss of information. Will for instance anybody bother to repeat the Herculean task of transfer books from out of date media to newer forms? The Gutenberg Project is now engaged in transferring the books from paper to electronic media. Will some one do a similar feat in the next century?
I guess my chief reason for hesitation is both a comfort and a vanity. I read to relax as well as to learn. On the couch with music in the back ground. The feel of the book. The way a page looks as opposed to a screen. These I imagine I can get used too. The vanity of a well stocked book case. This perhaps is a bit snobbish but a book case is an accomplishment, a life’s work and I don’t know how an audio/eBook can replace that guilty joy.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Inalienable Rights?
On Saturday in New York city a bomb was discovered in Time Square. By good fortune, the bomb did not go off. It has been describes as a poorly made device, of propane tanks fire works and fertilizer. An amazing 52 hours later the man the police suspect to be the bomber was in custody. His name is Faisal Shahzad he is an American citizen originally from Pakistan. When he was arrested he was given his Miranda warnings. The conservatives were angered by this. The theme of the complaint ran like this “if you read him his rights you can’t interrogate him properly”. By “interrogate properly” we can surmise they mean abusive and coercive treatment. This same call to withhold Miranda was made in the case of the underpants bomber, for the same reason. If he isn’t read his rights you can do stuff to him that is normally forbidden.
The difference here is a big one, Shahzad is an American citizen while Abdulmutallab was from Nigeria. The constitution does not contain a Miranda provision , but supreme court up held its constitutionality, so it’s the law. The Constitution provides that citizen and non-citizen face the same standard of treatment with regards to criminal procedure. This is a good thing. The power of the State after all doesn’t diminish just because you are from somewhere else.
The fact that conservatives are asking that rights be withheld for a little while, just long enough to extract the necessary information, tells me they most not understand the what rights are. The Miranda warning is the legal expression of a moral/ethical position. What the Miranda warning is shielding the suspect from abuse of power. The man in custody is facing the full weight and power of the State. It is acknowledged that in circumstances like this abuse is likely and in a nation of Laws protection from this potential abuse is necessary in the interests of justice. The notion of justice is important.
Those angling for temporarily withholding Miranda are telling us that this notion of justice is not impaired as long as the abuse comes before the legal protection. This is a fiction cemented in the belief that the Law is only procedure and underpinned by nothing. You can’t violate a right until it is possessed. This argument defies logic. Miranda like most rights are the distilled product of need. Rights are the answer to the question of how do we ensure Justice, equality and guarantee freedom. Rights delineated in constitutions the world over do not exist because someone recorded them in writing and declared them Law. The right to free speech, association , freedom of religion…. , existed before, some as conventions deeply embedded in our society. Constitutions were the formal written expression of something that already existed, but now had legal force. No longer could the agents of the state apply or deny rights as they wished.
The conservatives in their fear, in their zeal want to do just that. They seem to want to return to those days when whim dictated justice. No state should ever be asked to destroy itself in order to remain pure of principle. Until that time approaches we must remain dedicated not only to the process but of the moral and ethical underpinnings of the Law.
The difference here is a big one, Shahzad is an American citizen while Abdulmutallab was from Nigeria. The constitution does not contain a Miranda provision , but supreme court up held its constitutionality, so it’s the law. The Constitution provides that citizen and non-citizen face the same standard of treatment with regards to criminal procedure. This is a good thing. The power of the State after all doesn’t diminish just because you are from somewhere else.
The fact that conservatives are asking that rights be withheld for a little while, just long enough to extract the necessary information, tells me they most not understand the what rights are. The Miranda warning is the legal expression of a moral/ethical position. What the Miranda warning is shielding the suspect from abuse of power. The man in custody is facing the full weight and power of the State. It is acknowledged that in circumstances like this abuse is likely and in a nation of Laws protection from this potential abuse is necessary in the interests of justice. The notion of justice is important.
Those angling for temporarily withholding Miranda are telling us that this notion of justice is not impaired as long as the abuse comes before the legal protection. This is a fiction cemented in the belief that the Law is only procedure and underpinned by nothing. You can’t violate a right until it is possessed. This argument defies logic. Miranda like most rights are the distilled product of need. Rights are the answer to the question of how do we ensure Justice, equality and guarantee freedom. Rights delineated in constitutions the world over do not exist because someone recorded them in writing and declared them Law. The right to free speech, association , freedom of religion…. , existed before, some as conventions deeply embedded in our society. Constitutions were the formal written expression of something that already existed, but now had legal force. No longer could the agents of the state apply or deny rights as they wished.
The conservatives in their fear, in their zeal want to do just that. They seem to want to return to those days when whim dictated justice. No state should ever be asked to destroy itself in order to remain pure of principle. Until that time approaches we must remain dedicated not only to the process but of the moral and ethical underpinnings of the Law.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Small Things
Family, friends and health are commonly cited as being important to a good life and I can’t disagree. After acknowledging those great and necessary things, what of the small pleasures that put smiles on our faces. When you get up in the morning and step into the shower this is undeniably a small pleasure. I do not know who invented the shower but he/she have my thanks. The utility of this device astounds, it provides pain relief. You can have a warm shower on a cold day, a cold shower after a long run. Following the morning theme we come to shaving, in two parts the act and the tools. I can say that shaving is worth the five minutes it takes to accomplish. What you get in return for the effort is a smooth clean look. It is not by accident that on male makeover segments that the first thing they do is shave the face hair. I have a sneaking suspicion that the exfoliation resulting from this exercise keeps a man looking younger. It is to the razor that I direct my praise. Specifically the first shave with the new blade. That first stroke with a fresh blade is close to perfect. The new blade slides over the features of your face without hesitation. You suffer no pulling, cutting or any of the ills effects of a dull blade. As you know each successive use dulls imperceptibly the edge of the razor, making each shave less a pleasure and more a burden.
There is a fresh cup of coffee in the morning taken on the porch. Like wise a beer late in the day from the same vantages point. A relaxing moment before the start of the day and at its end.
The list of small pleasures and tiny victories is long from the ending of a good book or a bad day. Getting to the top of a hill ,a victory and taking in the view ,a small pleasure.
Our lives are made up of these seemingly trivial but altogether indispensable acts and actions. Between the large events that mark the moments of change are the small things that link the whole together. Could you imagine a life where every decision you made or action you took were of material importance. We are far luckier than our ancestors. Lucky that our every move does not mean life or death. Lucky that we have space in our existence for things that but a smile on our faces
There is a fresh cup of coffee in the morning taken on the porch. Like wise a beer late in the day from the same vantages point. A relaxing moment before the start of the day and at its end.
The list of small pleasures and tiny victories is long from the ending of a good book or a bad day. Getting to the top of a hill ,a victory and taking in the view ,a small pleasure.
Our lives are made up of these seemingly trivial but altogether indispensable acts and actions. Between the large events that mark the moments of change are the small things that link the whole together. Could you imagine a life where every decision you made or action you took were of material importance. We are far luckier than our ancestors. Lucky that our every move does not mean life or death. Lucky that we have space in our existence for things that but a smile on our faces
Monday, May 3, 2010
What is in Your Interest?
What do you get if everything is framed in the context of self interest? You get a world framed by the individual. What is good for me is best. Adam smith required that any transaction must be motivated by self interest. You don’t engage in a trade either a goods or service unless you have two willing participants. Further to that, the system is self regulating. A cheat would soon lose his trade, while an honourable dealer would have more business than he could handle. This is the foundation of the free market. The willingness to engage another for the benefit of both. That is self interest. There is no implied moral quality to this transaction. What matters is that the seller and the buyer get what they want, the drug user and the drug supplier or the car salesman and the car buyer. These are both examples of self interests and a satisfactory transaction, what opprobrium we may level against the drug transaction is of a moral quality separate from the economic value. This point is necessary to understand because the self interest of the economic transaction has found its way into everyday speech.
The rallying cry of the conservative adopted by the liberals of late and still resisted in part by the socialist, “ tax cuts for everyone”. Taxes are the heart of the Liberal Democratic state. I refrain from the use of the word “welfare state” because of the pejorative nature that word has taken on in the last 30 years. The welfare state or the fare you well state is not about handing money to the lazy poor (or lazy rich, trust me it happens too and costs more) it is/was about removing obstacles that arise from economic disparity, social position or prejudice. Through effective taxation we transfer wealth from those who have it to those who have less. Yes I admit it money is taken from the Rich, I am not interested in pretending otherwise. It is not however primarily a money transaction, the poor do not line up for cash “office of money handouts”. Taxes turn into programs that help to mitigate permanent or temporary disadvantages.
Those people that have through talent, luck and effort ,found financial freedom pay more because they have more. It is not a penalty on the successful or as some characterise it “theft”. It is the bill you pay for living in a country, Canada, where it is possible to acquire such wealth and live without fear of any manner of calamity. Taxes help to keep Canada a great place to be rich and livable if your poor, thrown in is the opportunity to find success.
Tim Hudak the leader of the Progressive Conservatives in Ontario is a tax cutter. He wants to be Premier and he pursues this idea of over taxation. Now the liberal government has thrown money away on such things a E health, a good idea, but a simple failure in oversight resulted in 100’s of millions of dollars wasted. Your tax dollars. Mr. Hudak wants us to believe that because of some waste, government just can’t be trusted with your tax dollars. Rolled into this is the idea that we need more business not more government . The conservative are talking self interest here. Money is better in your pocket than in the governments coffers. Tax cuts quite honestly favour the wealthy over the poor. The wealthy pay more in tax than the poor do and will get more back. The wealthy benefit from far fewer services than the poor do, so once again they “lose”. This profit and loss equation never considers the benefits of living in a stable property rights respecting democracy the cost of which is priceless. You can be rich in a dictator ship of course, but I doubt anyone sleeps soundly.
In terms of interest, the conservative says a little money in your pocket is worth more to you than the services you get but never think of as coming out of your taxes. The truth is that we don’t pay too much in tax, we are however, unsure of what are taxes buy for us. We do need more oversight and better more effective taxation and spending. The tax well is not bottomless. I favour much greater scrutiny of government spending. Mr. Hudak has suggested a web site that would publish some types of government spending, citizens will be able to look at how the money is spent. This idea has many drawbacks. This is not a check on spending . The information is several months behind, what you get to see is how money is spent . How do citizens determine whether the money spent was worth it? I doubt there will be room for context. I am sure it will turn out like the “Sunshine Law” that published the names of public servants who made over 100 thousand dollars. This site has become a source of yearly outrage directed at public servants who make lots of money an exception is usually made for police and fireman who earn it. I think that creating an independent budget office answerable to Ontario legislature would be a better choice. I do not mean an auditor because that is after the fact. What I am thinking is an office that costs out program an over sees real-time spending. It would be a very powerful entity and would need to be non-partisan and be independent of government. I do not know how or even if it is possible to create such an office but it would be a solution to many problems.
So in terms of interests an individual must discern between immediate self gratification, the “money in your pocket now “ and longer term self interests stable funding for programs that benefit your future success. Think before you Vote, but by all means Vote.
The rallying cry of the conservative adopted by the liberals of late and still resisted in part by the socialist, “ tax cuts for everyone”. Taxes are the heart of the Liberal Democratic state. I refrain from the use of the word “welfare state” because of the pejorative nature that word has taken on in the last 30 years. The welfare state or the fare you well state is not about handing money to the lazy poor (or lazy rich, trust me it happens too and costs more) it is/was about removing obstacles that arise from economic disparity, social position or prejudice. Through effective taxation we transfer wealth from those who have it to those who have less. Yes I admit it money is taken from the Rich, I am not interested in pretending otherwise. It is not however primarily a money transaction, the poor do not line up for cash “office of money handouts”. Taxes turn into programs that help to mitigate permanent or temporary disadvantages.
Those people that have through talent, luck and effort ,found financial freedom pay more because they have more. It is not a penalty on the successful or as some characterise it “theft”. It is the bill you pay for living in a country, Canada, where it is possible to acquire such wealth and live without fear of any manner of calamity. Taxes help to keep Canada a great place to be rich and livable if your poor, thrown in is the opportunity to find success.
Tim Hudak the leader of the Progressive Conservatives in Ontario is a tax cutter. He wants to be Premier and he pursues this idea of over taxation. Now the liberal government has thrown money away on such things a E health, a good idea, but a simple failure in oversight resulted in 100’s of millions of dollars wasted. Your tax dollars. Mr. Hudak wants us to believe that because of some waste, government just can’t be trusted with your tax dollars. Rolled into this is the idea that we need more business not more government . The conservative are talking self interest here. Money is better in your pocket than in the governments coffers. Tax cuts quite honestly favour the wealthy over the poor. The wealthy pay more in tax than the poor do and will get more back. The wealthy benefit from far fewer services than the poor do, so once again they “lose”. This profit and loss equation never considers the benefits of living in a stable property rights respecting democracy the cost of which is priceless. You can be rich in a dictator ship of course, but I doubt anyone sleeps soundly.
In terms of interest, the conservative says a little money in your pocket is worth more to you than the services you get but never think of as coming out of your taxes. The truth is that we don’t pay too much in tax, we are however, unsure of what are taxes buy for us. We do need more oversight and better more effective taxation and spending. The tax well is not bottomless. I favour much greater scrutiny of government spending. Mr. Hudak has suggested a web site that would publish some types of government spending, citizens will be able to look at how the money is spent. This idea has many drawbacks. This is not a check on spending . The information is several months behind, what you get to see is how money is spent . How do citizens determine whether the money spent was worth it? I doubt there will be room for context. I am sure it will turn out like the “Sunshine Law” that published the names of public servants who made over 100 thousand dollars. This site has become a source of yearly outrage directed at public servants who make lots of money an exception is usually made for police and fireman who earn it. I think that creating an independent budget office answerable to Ontario legislature would be a better choice. I do not mean an auditor because that is after the fact. What I am thinking is an office that costs out program an over sees real-time spending. It would be a very powerful entity and would need to be non-partisan and be independent of government. I do not know how or even if it is possible to create such an office but it would be a solution to many problems.
So in terms of interests an individual must discern between immediate self gratification, the “money in your pocket now “ and longer term self interests stable funding for programs that benefit your future success. Think before you Vote, but by all means Vote.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Always Read Before Signing
A short post a sort of addendum on the government or business post. If you follow this Globe and Mail link it takes you to an article dealing with that soon to be, if not all ready, ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. In short BP was accepting applications from citizens in town of Venice for possible work. The work offered was not disclosed but accompanying the applications were waivers that if signed would relinquish the right to sue BP for damages that may be incurred due to the spill.
I think that any fair minded person would have to consider that to be shoddy move. To those in the business of proactive risk management I'm guessing that you might think otherwise? Management is required to put their corporations interests ahead of yours. It is not personal it's just business. That is why we have governments. Their job is to look after the interests of society as a whole.
I think that any fair minded person would have to consider that to be shoddy move. To those in the business of proactive risk management I'm guessing that you might think otherwise? Management is required to put their corporations interests ahead of yours. It is not personal it's just business. That is why we have governments. Their job is to look after the interests of society as a whole.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Left Wing Media Bias is a Right Wing Media Bias!
Every so often the conservatives in the country called Canada start screaming that the CBC is left wing. The most recent case involved a Ekos President Frank Graves. This is a polling company that does polling for the show Power & Politics. It was disclosed by panel mate Kory Teneycke, himself a self confessed conservative, that Graves gave money to Liberal candidates in far greater amounts that to Conservatives running for office. The key being he said nothing about it pretended to be neutral but wasn't! Since Graves had know formal ties with the Liberal Party ,membership or contractual arrangement, the accusation hinged on Frank not being able to separate business and private life. In other words you either accept that he is an honest broker or you don’t. The Tory’s didn't.
That is where it starts. The CBC uses undisclosed liberals and it is unfair. The doors is now open for al the usual accusations. Did you know that everyone that works for the CBC is a liberal and that’s not fair! This doesn't mean that our conservative friends want more conservatives on the payroll, they wouldn’t mind, they just want to de-fund the CBC. The CBC, I will admit is geared to a liberal audience, no doubt owning to the fact that most Canadians are liberal or left. Yes conservative friend add up the poll numbers less than 40% of Canadians vote conservative and I'm giving you some of the Bloc who are probably at least economically conservative. Non news programming trends might be not be described as Liberal or Conservative. Sure David Suzuki is liberal but his show is the Nature of Things I don’t know how to construe that as liberal, conservatives I’ll need your help their. Little Mosque on the Prairie, I don’t watch often it’s not a bad show , their hearts in the right place. Yes I’ll call that show liberal, a program about how to get along with people that are different, or for my conservative friends might describe ”it how to give away our culture a bit at a time”.
The news is just the news if you can detect a slant from the National then your looking way to hard. The opinion shows are the usual three people on a panel a Liberal, Conservative and a New Democrat. It is the same whether they are pundits or members of parliament or journalists. That does bug me a bit because usually one of the three is defending a point or action that is not defensible and they look like hacks rather than the educated experienced people they normally are.
The final point I wish to drag kicking into the argument is that Conservatives do not believe in Public Broadcasting. It is essentially government in competition with private interests, violating the sanctity of the free market. The CBC is a Big Government waste of taxes and by the way does not represent my voice either so I pay for something I don’t like or use. Even if the voice of the CBC became all Husky ,Strong and Conservative they would still hate it, though I imagine make great use of it.
I didn't really prove that there is no bias have I? Sometimes bias is nothing more than not wanting to see or hear something you don't like or agree with. It is easier to claim that the media is biased than to confront the possibility that your position is in error. That goes for Left Liberal and Right.
That is where it starts. The CBC uses undisclosed liberals and it is unfair. The doors is now open for al the usual accusations. Did you know that everyone that works for the CBC is a liberal and that’s not fair! This doesn't mean that our conservative friends want more conservatives on the payroll, they wouldn’t mind, they just want to de-fund the CBC. The CBC, I will admit is geared to a liberal audience, no doubt owning to the fact that most Canadians are liberal or left. Yes conservative friend add up the poll numbers less than 40% of Canadians vote conservative and I'm giving you some of the Bloc who are probably at least economically conservative. Non news programming trends might be not be described as Liberal or Conservative. Sure David Suzuki is liberal but his show is the Nature of Things I don’t know how to construe that as liberal, conservatives I’ll need your help their. Little Mosque on the Prairie, I don’t watch often it’s not a bad show , their hearts in the right place. Yes I’ll call that show liberal, a program about how to get along with people that are different, or for my conservative friends might describe ”it how to give away our culture a bit at a time”.
The news is just the news if you can detect a slant from the National then your looking way to hard. The opinion shows are the usual three people on a panel a Liberal, Conservative and a New Democrat. It is the same whether they are pundits or members of parliament or journalists. That does bug me a bit because usually one of the three is defending a point or action that is not defensible and they look like hacks rather than the educated experienced people they normally are.
The final point I wish to drag kicking into the argument is that Conservatives do not believe in Public Broadcasting. It is essentially government in competition with private interests, violating the sanctity of the free market. The CBC is a Big Government waste of taxes and by the way does not represent my voice either so I pay for something I don’t like or use. Even if the voice of the CBC became all Husky ,Strong and Conservative they would still hate it, though I imagine make great use of it.
I didn't really prove that there is no bias have I? Sometimes bias is nothing more than not wanting to see or hear something you don't like or agree with. It is easier to claim that the media is biased than to confront the possibility that your position is in error. That goes for Left Liberal and Right.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Big Government or Big Business do we have to choose?
Is the choice really between government or business? One of the core values represented by conservatives is that government should be small. So they represent the choice as being between Big Government or small government The role assigned to government should be confined to preserving order within the state and protecting it from external threat. Economic participation limited to regulation of trade. The American constitution sets out the powers of government quite clearly and conservatives have adopted this document to illustrate how good government should work. I might note that Conservatism as it is articulated today has a decidedly economic taste to it. The modern conservative will intertwine economic activity with most any issue.
I won’t sit here and try to convince anyone that government should be building cars or making couches or telling you what colour to paint your house. This is activity best left to Business, most economic pursuits are best handle by the private sector. The question we have to answer is where to put the dividing line, is overlap bad or necessary? Conservatives have answered this already saying that less is better. Liberals proposed that government intervention is necessary, or to put it less militantly, regulation while not a panacea for all economic and societal ills it makes life better. Your legislature should not be picking your paint colours, but it should be ensuring the safety of the product you use. That is the liberal position. The government tries guarantee the safety and quality of products used by the citizen because no individual can. The conservative trends to the idea that everyone is responsible for themselves if the product is bad people won’t use it anymore, the company in question will go out of business and be replaced by a better one that does a better job. I am not saying that conservatives want no regulation but they see the market largely as a responsive self correcting entity that regulation interferes with.
I am not economist but from observation markets don’t always acting according to plan. The Great Recession that we are pulling out of now certainly points to people acting so much in their own interests that they collapsed the system they operated in. Liberals don’t believe in entirely self-regulating economic systems, where there are people there will be self interest, and it is that self interest that needs over sight.
So we can see why conservatives want small government as a way of protecting business. But how does small government protect the citizen? Without being overly dramatic, I can not recall a single incidence of an economic interest protecting rights and freedoms of anyone not part of its’ structure. There are not tails of freed slaves, the down trodden being uplifted, the wrongly accused being championed by a multi national corporation. In the interest of fairness if you google Google you will see how they pulled out of China, they refused to act as an agent of the state police. Well done Google. If you follow this link http://www.business-humanrights.org/ you will find yourself at Business & Human Rights home page. This site offers you a look at the way business operates around the world.
A more specific example of how business is not like government, is a Wal-Mart incident involving the “can I see your receipt please” request. This is the link is from the individual involved weigh its’ value much the same as you would any information, http://cybercoment.com/reviews/walmart/ . The affair consists of a consumer who bought a product the alarm went off as he left store, he was stopped and asked to see his receipt and the man refused. He was detained by store security in his words poorly treated, the police were called. The man confirms that the officer was professional and polite in contrast to the Wal-Mart staff. The police confirmed that the product was purchased and not stolen, the man was however barred for life from all stores. Should the man have offered up the receipt? Maybe, it certainly would have made things easier, but the point to be made here is he had no choice in the matter. The store rules trumped his right to decline. By contrast his interaction with the police is very different. The officer does not demand compliance, but asks the man if he may search him. The implication is that the man has the right to refuse, though refusal also comes with consequences. there is nothing about the Wal-Mart policy that implies the right to say no, compliance is demanded and expected refusal is met with eternal banishment.
The key point here is not the surliness of the shopper but the nature of Wal-Mart, it is acting solely in and for its’ own benefit. While the officer is acting in the interests of both citizen and store. I don’t hate business for being self interested it is what they are designed to be. I don’t expect dogs to sing or cats to fiddle so why would I expect corporation to champion human and civil rights if it is not in their interest to do so. I think that is unethical and immoral but certainly in keeping with the mission to turn a profit.
It is however the purpose of government to guarantee rights and extend those rights to those who are lacking them. It is how I interpret the role of protecting the state from internal dissension and external threat. A government without the resources or the will to properly regulate the economic and social forces at play in society will fail most of its’ citizens. Power within a society is finite and distributed among centres of authority. The less power government wields does not lessen the amount available in a given society it transfers it to some other body willing to use it. Power in the hands of people or institutions with no obligation to the citizen can not be described as a good thing, unless that person or entity is yours. I would rather have power centred in a government contained by law for the benefit of the many.
In the end corporations will and should welcome regulation because it help to ameliorate the exuberance of business.
I won’t sit here and try to convince anyone that government should be building cars or making couches or telling you what colour to paint your house. This is activity best left to Business, most economic pursuits are best handle by the private sector. The question we have to answer is where to put the dividing line, is overlap bad or necessary? Conservatives have answered this already saying that less is better. Liberals proposed that government intervention is necessary, or to put it less militantly, regulation while not a panacea for all economic and societal ills it makes life better. Your legislature should not be picking your paint colours, but it should be ensuring the safety of the product you use. That is the liberal position. The government tries guarantee the safety and quality of products used by the citizen because no individual can. The conservative trends to the idea that everyone is responsible for themselves if the product is bad people won’t use it anymore, the company in question will go out of business and be replaced by a better one that does a better job. I am not saying that conservatives want no regulation but they see the market largely as a responsive self correcting entity that regulation interferes with.
I am not economist but from observation markets don’t always acting according to plan. The Great Recession that we are pulling out of now certainly points to people acting so much in their own interests that they collapsed the system they operated in. Liberals don’t believe in entirely self-regulating economic systems, where there are people there will be self interest, and it is that self interest that needs over sight.
So we can see why conservatives want small government as a way of protecting business. But how does small government protect the citizen? Without being overly dramatic, I can not recall a single incidence of an economic interest protecting rights and freedoms of anyone not part of its’ structure. There are not tails of freed slaves, the down trodden being uplifted, the wrongly accused being championed by a multi national corporation. In the interest of fairness if you google Google you will see how they pulled out of China, they refused to act as an agent of the state police. Well done Google. If you follow this link http://www.business-humanrights.org/ you will find yourself at Business & Human Rights home page. This site offers you a look at the way business operates around the world.
A more specific example of how business is not like government, is a Wal-Mart incident involving the “can I see your receipt please” request. This is the link is from the individual involved weigh its’ value much the same as you would any information, http://cybercoment.com/reviews/walmart/ . The affair consists of a consumer who bought a product the alarm went off as he left store, he was stopped and asked to see his receipt and the man refused. He was detained by store security in his words poorly treated, the police were called. The man confirms that the officer was professional and polite in contrast to the Wal-Mart staff. The police confirmed that the product was purchased and not stolen, the man was however barred for life from all stores. Should the man have offered up the receipt? Maybe, it certainly would have made things easier, but the point to be made here is he had no choice in the matter. The store rules trumped his right to decline. By contrast his interaction with the police is very different. The officer does not demand compliance, but asks the man if he may search him. The implication is that the man has the right to refuse, though refusal also comes with consequences. there is nothing about the Wal-Mart policy that implies the right to say no, compliance is demanded and expected refusal is met with eternal banishment.
The key point here is not the surliness of the shopper but the nature of Wal-Mart, it is acting solely in and for its’ own benefit. While the officer is acting in the interests of both citizen and store. I don’t hate business for being self interested it is what they are designed to be. I don’t expect dogs to sing or cats to fiddle so why would I expect corporation to champion human and civil rights if it is not in their interest to do so. I think that is unethical and immoral but certainly in keeping with the mission to turn a profit.
It is however the purpose of government to guarantee rights and extend those rights to those who are lacking them. It is how I interpret the role of protecting the state from internal dissension and external threat. A government without the resources or the will to properly regulate the economic and social forces at play in society will fail most of its’ citizens. Power within a society is finite and distributed among centres of authority. The less power government wields does not lessen the amount available in a given society it transfers it to some other body willing to use it. Power in the hands of people or institutions with no obligation to the citizen can not be described as a good thing, unless that person or entity is yours. I would rather have power centred in a government contained by law for the benefit of the many.
In the end corporations will and should welcome regulation because it help to ameliorate the exuberance of business.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Tonight
Nothing to report on today. Everything unfolding as desired. Listening to the Blue Jays watching the hockey game, enjoying some tea. Not every day needs to be filled with political and social commentary so relax and enjoy tonight.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Historical
To day on April 27, 2010 the speaker of the House of Commons of the Parliament of Canada certified once more the supremacy of Parliament. This ruling stems from an order from parliament to the government requiring they hand over documents pertaining to Afghan dettainees. The government had stalled and then returned to the Afghan committee heavily redacted documents, effective ignoring the motion.
The speaker has given the government two weeks to fullfil the order.
This would never have occured if the government had a majority of seats. The motion to compel documents would have been voted down. We are in Canada expecting to have more minority governments for some time, voting blocks based on region seem to be the case for now, atleast. So what was established today and into the future is that government does not have an absolute right to decide on what parliament can have.
Here is the Macleans magazine post of the complete text of the speech by the speaker. http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/27/the-ruling/
The speaker has given the government two weeks to fullfil the order.
This would never have occured if the government had a majority of seats. The motion to compel documents would have been voted down. We are in Canada expecting to have more minority governments for some time, voting blocks based on region seem to be the case for now, atleast. So what was established today and into the future is that government does not have an absolute right to decide on what parliament can have.
Here is the Macleans magazine post of the complete text of the speech by the speaker. http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/27/the-ruling/
Monday, April 26, 2010
How Controversial...?
Last week on CBC’s Power and Politics one Kory Teneycke accused EKOS Research president, Frank Graves of being biased towards Liberals because of undisclosed donations to Liberal candidates of some eleven thousand dollars in the past decade. Added were accusations of offering advice to the liberal Party. What seems to have brought the issue into the open was this statement by Graves, he apparently told the Globe and Mail that the Liberals: “should invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy. If the cranky old men in Alberta don’t like it, too bad. Go south and vote for Palin.” It was not the just this statement that got the Conservatives huffing and puffing, but that Mr. Graves who they say passes himself off as a neutral party appears to be acting in an advisory capacity. He did apologize later for the remarks admitting that they may have been offensive.
Now the Tories I imagine have no problem with partisanship, Graves accuser, Kory Teneycke is a open and vocal conservative, he is paid by CBC to appear as a guest and deliver a conservative viewpoint. Mr. Teneycke’s problem was that CBC pays Graves for his polling, and commentary on the results of said polls. If Graves is a closet liberal operative then it must call into question Mr. Graves punditry. You can't be objective if you gain benefit from an association. The accusation was enough to set the conservative outrage machine into action. All the usual suspects including Ezra Levant and just about all Conservative leaning blogs slammed Graves and of course the CBC for this apparent conflict of interest, ( a two for one, as most conservatives can’t pass up an attack on the CBC.
We have the charge of bias but is it supported by facts. Graves does give money to Liberals in a greater degree that he does to Conservative. So I guess he is a liberal but is he a “Liberal“. Graves is not however a member of the Liberal party. He offered political advice to the Liberal Party in a newspaper interview. I think Ezra Levant would have to agree that Freedom of Speech laws do protect the right of Mr. Graves to talk on many and diverse subjects, though not to be from rebuttal . He is not a paid consultant of the Liberal Party. His company is not retained to do political polling on behalf of any party.
Now we come to the point where we look at some of the facts in our possession and deliver a verdict. What happened here was that Graves has liberal ties, just like the rest of us have connections to various political parties. I am a card carrying Liberal, just so you know and if you disagree with this post you now have a reason why. What caught out graves is the appearance of bias, Teneycke was skillful in his presentation and Graves unprepared to rebut the claim. Having connections does not necessarily lead to bias, keep in mind that it depends on the strength and depth of said association.
We live in a world where people make vast sums of money cheer leading one political side or another. Charles Adler makes money being a conservative talk show host. Kory Teneycke makes money by being a conservative spokesman. It also happens that they are also deeply committed conservatives, interest lines up nicely with proclivity. For others it is not that neat. A doctor might be pro life but will still offer services to those in medical need. A judge may be conservative but still up hold a law they may not like.
For those whose occupations seem to come in conflict with their politics, must be given the benefit of the doubt. We have to say that accusation is not enough, real tangible evidence of malfeasance must be in evident before they can be called to account.
Now the Tories I imagine have no problem with partisanship, Graves accuser, Kory Teneycke is a open and vocal conservative, he is paid by CBC to appear as a guest and deliver a conservative viewpoint. Mr. Teneycke’s problem was that CBC pays Graves for his polling, and commentary on the results of said polls. If Graves is a closet liberal operative then it must call into question Mr. Graves punditry. You can't be objective if you gain benefit from an association. The accusation was enough to set the conservative outrage machine into action. All the usual suspects including Ezra Levant and just about all Conservative leaning blogs slammed Graves and of course the CBC for this apparent conflict of interest, ( a two for one, as most conservatives can’t pass up an attack on the CBC.
We have the charge of bias but is it supported by facts. Graves does give money to Liberals in a greater degree that he does to Conservative. So I guess he is a liberal but is he a “Liberal“. Graves is not however a member of the Liberal party. He offered political advice to the Liberal Party in a newspaper interview. I think Ezra Levant would have to agree that Freedom of Speech laws do protect the right of Mr. Graves to talk on many and diverse subjects, though not to be from rebuttal . He is not a paid consultant of the Liberal Party. His company is not retained to do political polling on behalf of any party.
Now we come to the point where we look at some of the facts in our possession and deliver a verdict. What happened here was that Graves has liberal ties, just like the rest of us have connections to various political parties. I am a card carrying Liberal, just so you know and if you disagree with this post you now have a reason why. What caught out graves is the appearance of bias, Teneycke was skillful in his presentation and Graves unprepared to rebut the claim. Having connections does not necessarily lead to bias, keep in mind that it depends on the strength and depth of said association.
We live in a world where people make vast sums of money cheer leading one political side or another. Charles Adler makes money being a conservative talk show host. Kory Teneycke makes money by being a conservative spokesman. It also happens that they are also deeply committed conservatives, interest lines up nicely with proclivity. For others it is not that neat. A doctor might be pro life but will still offer services to those in medical need. A judge may be conservative but still up hold a law they may not like.
For those whose occupations seem to come in conflict with their politics, must be given the benefit of the doubt. We have to say that accusation is not enough, real tangible evidence of malfeasance must be in evident before they can be called to account.
Reading
I just finished " The Tube has Spoken: Reality TV and History" edited by Julie Ann Taddeo and Ken Dvorak. It Is a collection of essays dealing with the history and meaning of reality TV. It does a good job of deconstructing the genre. Each essay takes a look at the content of a single show or a particular concept dealt with by different productions. After reading you won't be able to view reality TV the same way.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
To be Free and Secure
Yesterday I said that I would not trade my civil liberties in return for the promise of security. This was in answer to the question of how to deal with the radicalism found in small pockets of the immigrant community. I then faced the counter question, “ how were my civil liberties being abridged” . I was caught , my interlocutor asked the question that I must answer with “they aren’t but…” Well twitter is the world in 140 characters or less and no room for detail. So I figured I would make a longer reply on the blog nobody reads.
My civil liberties are not in direct danger. I live in Canada , a country founded on the rule of law, a population secure in their rights and knowledgeable in their defence. I am not saying it couldn’t happen, just that the road is a long one till you get to the cliff edge. I have always picture the loss of liberty as gradual, not the slippery slope, but a see saw. Where all is all one way till it isn’t anymore. The shift is not the ball rolling down hill in a continuous predictable way allowing most to become accustom to a new normal, but instead is the quick and sudden shift that changes everything.
To address the question first raised how to deal with increased threat of radicals in our midst? The answer is increased security, passive and active surveillance. Laws change by bits and pieces to enable better monitoring ,arrest and detainment of suspected radicals. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. But changes in one area of our society bleed over into other parts. Power created is power used. These are not platitudes or fear mongering. I never thought I would see the day when a President of the United States would shift the line between torture and interrogation, done for the security of the nation. Warrant less wire-tapping another shift to a new normal.
No the rights of average Americans, those with no contact with radicals are unaffected. But for how long? How will the nature of national security be interpreted a decade from now? What will define radical? We are a Liberal Democratic nation and it was a hard fought century long battle. Every right we now possess was taken from some authority that held it from us. Taken gradually, acknowledging that a time had come, or by force against a grasping power.
The point I failed to make then was that , the eroding of rights however justified at the time should not be lightly taken or be open ended. Lowering the standard on searches and surveillance. Restricting movement or access to information and public spaces. The reduction in free speech that many Conservatives and Liberals alike decry . Freedom of association or religious belief.
No I do not live in fear of a Jack Booted Police, bent on my enslavement. But I do know that such places have existed and exist now. For people to be free they need both security and liberty. If we tend to much to one or the other we risk losing the Canada we know and love.
My civil liberties are not in direct danger. I live in Canada , a country founded on the rule of law, a population secure in their rights and knowledgeable in their defence. I am not saying it couldn’t happen, just that the road is a long one till you get to the cliff edge. I have always picture the loss of liberty as gradual, not the slippery slope, but a see saw. Where all is all one way till it isn’t anymore. The shift is not the ball rolling down hill in a continuous predictable way allowing most to become accustom to a new normal, but instead is the quick and sudden shift that changes everything.
To address the question first raised how to deal with increased threat of radicals in our midst? The answer is increased security, passive and active surveillance. Laws change by bits and pieces to enable better monitoring ,arrest and detainment of suspected radicals. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. But changes in one area of our society bleed over into other parts. Power created is power used. These are not platitudes or fear mongering. I never thought I would see the day when a President of the United States would shift the line between torture and interrogation, done for the security of the nation. Warrant less wire-tapping another shift to a new normal.
No the rights of average Americans, those with no contact with radicals are unaffected. But for how long? How will the nature of national security be interpreted a decade from now? What will define radical? We are a Liberal Democratic nation and it was a hard fought century long battle. Every right we now possess was taken from some authority that held it from us. Taken gradually, acknowledging that a time had come, or by force against a grasping power.
The point I failed to make then was that , the eroding of rights however justified at the time should not be lightly taken or be open ended. Lowering the standard on searches and surveillance. Restricting movement or access to information and public spaces. The reduction in free speech that many Conservatives and Liberals alike decry . Freedom of association or religious belief.
No I do not live in fear of a Jack Booted Police, bent on my enslavement. But I do know that such places have existed and exist now. For people to be free they need both security and liberty. If we tend to much to one or the other we risk losing the Canada we know and love.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Twitter and Other Chat
I joined Twitter just about a month ago and i like it. It was easy learning how to navigate around in twitter space. Once you become familiar with hash tags, how to search out and follow people, you can have a bit of fun. I find myself following political figures, journalist, newspapers and other agencies that provide information. That is how I use Twitter not social networking though I do comment on the comments of others.
The content is the comment in 140 characters or less. There is enough room to express a feeling but seldom enough space to explain it. Users seem to divide among those that provide links to content like blogs, web sites or newspapers and the floaters that drift around inside social pools leaving thoughts in their wake.
A lot of the writings are banal, updates on where you are what you are feeling make up a large part of this sphere. Things get a bit more pointed when politics enter the fray. Popular pundits and political parties and figures are railed against, slurred or rallied for depending on your divide. Ignorant and uncivil behaviour was not invented with the chat room but it has found a fullness of expression here. In real life we are anonymous in public. We seldom know anything about the pepole we walk by or bump into on the subway in the malls. To make our way in this public world we are generaly civil. When we choose to associate with others for fun or profit we still try to be polite for the most part, pleae forgive these qualifiers, some small fringe have always been ignorant and abusive.
What I find disconcerting is the large number of people who choose to be ignorant and abusive in the "anonymous in public" framework of the chat space. If you frequent the opinion section of newspapers, blogs , Cable News sites or anything with a political flavour you find the descent into uncivil discourse is geatest.Now it is not that poeple haven't always argued politics, sports and religion, but in the past you did it in the same room with the other guy and this generally restrained both parties. Online comments sections or chat spaces require self restraint that many appear not to have.
What we end up having are partisan sites, where people of like mind congregate safe from opposing view points. Other people do show up and bait these groups with outrageous statements, these people commonly called "trolls", but these people are quickly ejected. The most important topics in our society can no longer be discussed in open and public forums without disruptions. People thanks to the internet can come from all over the world and seperate into groups along lines of belief and never have to hear an opposing thought which is kind of sad.
The content is the comment in 140 characters or less. There is enough room to express a feeling but seldom enough space to explain it. Users seem to divide among those that provide links to content like blogs, web sites or newspapers and the floaters that drift around inside social pools leaving thoughts in their wake.
A lot of the writings are banal, updates on where you are what you are feeling make up a large part of this sphere. Things get a bit more pointed when politics enter the fray. Popular pundits and political parties and figures are railed against, slurred or rallied for depending on your divide. Ignorant and uncivil behaviour was not invented with the chat room but it has found a fullness of expression here. In real life we are anonymous in public. We seldom know anything about the pepole we walk by or bump into on the subway in the malls. To make our way in this public world we are generaly civil. When we choose to associate with others for fun or profit we still try to be polite for the most part, pleae forgive these qualifiers, some small fringe have always been ignorant and abusive.
What I find disconcerting is the large number of people who choose to be ignorant and abusive in the "anonymous in public" framework of the chat space. If you frequent the opinion section of newspapers, blogs , Cable News sites or anything with a political flavour you find the descent into uncivil discourse is geatest.Now it is not that poeple haven't always argued politics, sports and religion, but in the past you did it in the same room with the other guy and this generally restrained both parties. Online comments sections or chat spaces require self restraint that many appear not to have.
What we end up having are partisan sites, where people of like mind congregate safe from opposing view points. Other people do show up and bait these groups with outrageous statements, these people commonly called "trolls", but these people are quickly ejected. The most important topics in our society can no longer be discussed in open and public forums without disruptions. People thanks to the internet can come from all over the world and seperate into groups along lines of belief and never have to hear an opposing thought which is kind of sad.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Climate
I accept the science of climate change. A simple statement. Climate change is not a religion for me nor is it a money making venture. I have no axes to grind against Exxon specifically or capitalism in general. I am not interested in controlling the lives of everyone on Earth by making them drive bikes, turn off their lights and where hemp.
I am not a scientist, so when i have a question I look to science for the answers. I understand the scientific method and accept that conclusion arrived at through peer review, provide us with accurate answers. http://www.realclimate.org/ is a site that gathers the threads together for easy access by the layman.
All I can offer from this point is my opinion. You can determine the value yourself. I know that the average temperature of earth is higher now than when I was born. I know that the amount of atmospheric CO2 is higher now than it was 50 years ago. The Arctic sea ice while fluctuating in area covers less ocean than it used to and it is thinner than ever before. The number and size of glaciers are both in decline. The CO2 content of our oceans is higher now than in the recent past.
These are facts. Many try to argue the data is corrupted so conclusions drawn from such sources are not valid. Science works through the continual accumulation of information, models and theories change as new data is integrated into the theory. If the weight of new information causes the theory to break down it is slowly discarded and a better explanation is sought out. You either except that science contains within it a self correcting method resistant to manipulation or you don't. If you are one of those people no amount of information will ever satisfy you. You will never be convinced to change your mind.
When scientists are accused of misleading people on climate change for personal gain it is disturbing. I believe in the self correcting nature of science, but it does not mean a speedy reversal. We don't always have the time to get back on track. Now I have to weigh the accusation of corrupt science. Is climate change science being corrupted to secure government research grants or by the money flowing from the Fossil Fuel Industry and Conservative foundations. This is a personal call. It is unlikely that any Company would fund research that had the potential to damage profits or reputation. Industry has a long track record of buying the support of science. Government on the other hand funds the research and gets stuck with whatever conclusions are arrived at. They may favour one branch of research over another in an attempt to select direction of inquiry, but they don't order the results to meet their needs. Again this is what I accept to be true ,if your the kind that is thinks badly of Government I can't convince you different.
The mounting evidence of climate change has forced a change in tack. We are now trending to the belief that we have climate change but it's natural. Humans have no affect. This position once again favours industry and the Conservative position. If true it means that economic activity can continue without change.
Even without man made climate change we can't continue to use resources and pollute the way we do now it is unsustainable. It is better to transition to more sustainable economic activity while we have the time. The longer we take the harder it gets and the more expensive it will be.
I am not a scientist, so when i have a question I look to science for the answers. I understand the scientific method and accept that conclusion arrived at through peer review, provide us with accurate answers. http://www.realclimate.org/ is a site that gathers the threads together for easy access by the layman.
All I can offer from this point is my opinion. You can determine the value yourself. I know that the average temperature of earth is higher now than when I was born. I know that the amount of atmospheric CO2 is higher now than it was 50 years ago. The Arctic sea ice while fluctuating in area covers less ocean than it used to and it is thinner than ever before. The number and size of glaciers are both in decline. The CO2 content of our oceans is higher now than in the recent past.
These are facts. Many try to argue the data is corrupted so conclusions drawn from such sources are not valid. Science works through the continual accumulation of information, models and theories change as new data is integrated into the theory. If the weight of new information causes the theory to break down it is slowly discarded and a better explanation is sought out. You either except that science contains within it a self correcting method resistant to manipulation or you don't. If you are one of those people no amount of information will ever satisfy you. You will never be convinced to change your mind.
When scientists are accused of misleading people on climate change for personal gain it is disturbing. I believe in the self correcting nature of science, but it does not mean a speedy reversal. We don't always have the time to get back on track. Now I have to weigh the accusation of corrupt science. Is climate change science being corrupted to secure government research grants or by the money flowing from the Fossil Fuel Industry and Conservative foundations. This is a personal call. It is unlikely that any Company would fund research that had the potential to damage profits or reputation. Industry has a long track record of buying the support of science. Government on the other hand funds the research and gets stuck with whatever conclusions are arrived at. They may favour one branch of research over another in an attempt to select direction of inquiry, but they don't order the results to meet their needs. Again this is what I accept to be true ,if your the kind that is thinks badly of Government I can't convince you different.
The mounting evidence of climate change has forced a change in tack. We are now trending to the belief that we have climate change but it's natural. Humans have no affect. This position once again favours industry and the Conservative position. If true it means that economic activity can continue without change.
Even without man made climate change we can't continue to use resources and pollute the way we do now it is unsustainable. It is better to transition to more sustainable economic activity while we have the time. The longer we take the harder it gets and the more expensive it will be.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Public Safety
I was watching the Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews on the CBC last night. He was talking about the governments intention to address crime in Canada. Now Stats Canada tells us that crime is on the decline, do in part to an aging population. That does not free us from dealing with the crime we do have. The conservative say that our justice system is not working and needs reform. I am in favour of reform. Institutions and policies need regular checkups to make sure are functioning as intended. There is a difference between a system needing reform because something isn't working and changing a policy because it works in a way that you don't like.
The conservatives want to change the rules regarding pardons. I can support changes that piratical and in the public interest. The purpose of the pardon is to allow someone who has turned their life around a fresh start. This site can answer questions you may have http://www.pardons.org/index.html .The idea is that someone should not pay for a life time for crimes they have committed and served their sentence on. There are an astonishing number of ways in which a conviction can hurt a persons at a fresh start. Certain crimes of a sexual or violent nature or certain individuals who by the very nature of their crimes or unrepentant behaviour should make up a separate category. But any changes need to satisfy the public interest not political interest. That interest being, the transition from criminal to productive citizen and the protection of the public. If changes are being made to firm up your brand with the crime and punishment crowd then you are not serving the public good.
The other thing that Mr. Toews said that struck me was the Conservative intention to spend more more to keep violent offenders in jail longer. He seemed to imply that they were going ahead with this regardless of opposition. I had to think hard on that one, but I couldn't think of any Political party that supports early release of violent offenders. People who are violent need to be kept separate but this leads to a problem, they eventually get out. Unless the Minister is going to change the rules and keep people in prison till they are harmless. What is the appropriate mix of punishment and reform? I don't know that, but i do know if it's all punishment they come out just as bad as they went in. Luckily the reason we elect people to government and employ competent public servants is to deal with these tough questions.
My last remark concerns the gun registry, for which the Minister has no money for. I like the gun registry. I am under no illusion that this registry prevents crime, but I think it is handy for the government to know who has weapons, how many they have and of what variety. Lets be frank on this as well, the Government has no plans to take away any ones legally owned and registered weapon. I will admit that this is a belief I am not actually a party too Government plans in this regard. I will also admit that members of my family have been gun owners and hunters for a long time, though i am not. I support gun ownership, a well regulated one. I think that police like it too even if the ones Toews talked with don't seem too, I know their bosses like it. I think changing punishment for noncompliance to a ticket from a criminal charge is correct. Legal gun owners need to register their weapons because it is required by law but should not suffer unduly if they don't. I think that the push for retiring the Gun Registry is just a sop to the base and if it is defeated in parliament the Tories can use it to run on. You know it will go like this Liberals hate guns and gun owners please vote for us.
The conservatives want to change the rules regarding pardons. I can support changes that piratical and in the public interest. The purpose of the pardon is to allow someone who has turned their life around a fresh start. This site can answer questions you may have http://www.pardons.org/index.html .The idea is that someone should not pay for a life time for crimes they have committed and served their sentence on. There are an astonishing number of ways in which a conviction can hurt a persons at a fresh start. Certain crimes of a sexual or violent nature or certain individuals who by the very nature of their crimes or unrepentant behaviour should make up a separate category. But any changes need to satisfy the public interest not political interest. That interest being, the transition from criminal to productive citizen and the protection of the public. If changes are being made to firm up your brand with the crime and punishment crowd then you are not serving the public good.
The other thing that Mr. Toews said that struck me was the Conservative intention to spend more more to keep violent offenders in jail longer. He seemed to imply that they were going ahead with this regardless of opposition. I had to think hard on that one, but I couldn't think of any Political party that supports early release of violent offenders. People who are violent need to be kept separate but this leads to a problem, they eventually get out. Unless the Minister is going to change the rules and keep people in prison till they are harmless. What is the appropriate mix of punishment and reform? I don't know that, but i do know if it's all punishment they come out just as bad as they went in. Luckily the reason we elect people to government and employ competent public servants is to deal with these tough questions.
My last remark concerns the gun registry, for which the Minister has no money for. I like the gun registry. I am under no illusion that this registry prevents crime, but I think it is handy for the government to know who has weapons, how many they have and of what variety. Lets be frank on this as well, the Government has no plans to take away any ones legally owned and registered weapon. I will admit that this is a belief I am not actually a party too Government plans in this regard. I will also admit that members of my family have been gun owners and hunters for a long time, though i am not. I support gun ownership, a well regulated one. I think that police like it too even if the ones Toews talked with don't seem too, I know their bosses like it. I think changing punishment for noncompliance to a ticket from a criminal charge is correct. Legal gun owners need to register their weapons because it is required by law but should not suffer unduly if they don't. I think that the push for retiring the Gun Registry is just a sop to the base and if it is defeated in parliament the Tories can use it to run on. You know it will go like this Liberals hate guns and gun owners please vote for us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)