On Hiatus

Though I haven't actually left for Ontario yet, I'm realizing that the various posts I had started in the last few days will not be posted before I go. If I get a chance to post while I'm visiting the family, I will. Otherwise, I wish you all a very Merry Christmas or holiday season and will be back in the second week of 2006!

Newsflash!!
Martin favours elected Senate

If I woke up from a coma and read that headline, I would know from that (and nothing else) that there's an election on. The only time Martin (or Chretien for that matter) bothers to speak up about Senate reform is in western Canada during an election. Strangely, however, Mr. Martin's support for an elected senate never seems to manifest into any action. But then I guess you can say that about about many/most of Mr. Martin's priorities...

"Working families need care. They need care that is regulated, safe and secure and that's what we're building here. Don't give people $25 a week to blow on beer and popcorn. Give them child-care spaces that work." Scott Reid, Communications advisor to Prime Minister Paul Martin. Source: Globe and Mail

Apparently, Stephen Harper is saddened by such comments while other Conservatives have expressed shock and outrage. May I suggest another approach? How about gratitude? If I was running the Conservative war-room (and admittedly there are many, many reasons why I should not be), I would have suggested the following response:

'We're very grateful to Mr. Reid and his contribution to the debate on child care in Canada. In a few short sentences, Mr. Reid has clearly outlined the Liberal party philosophy that big government works best and individual Canadians really can't be trusted to make intelligent decisions when it comes to raising their children. And there's no need to apologize for a rare flash of honesty, Mr. Reid. After all, you have brilliantly demonstrated the contempt a Liberal government feels for Canadian parents and why they feel child-care must be placed into a 'regulated, safe and secure' program run by government. We hope Canadian parents take you at your word and remember this contempt when they vote on January 23, 2006.'

After all, every once in a while, shouldn't we take the Liberals at their word? Just for the novelty, if nothing else…

Getting in Under the Wire...

Well I can't complain about lack of things to blog about:

Such as Bill Clinton, preaching to the converted in Montreal on the impact of Climate Change and the need to implement Kyoto. I'd be more impressed if, when he was President, he could have convinced even one Democrat senator to vote to ratify after he signed the accord (the US Senate voted 95-0 to against Kyoto when Clinton was President) but that's OK because we can still blame George W. Bush instead.
I love this recent photo of Bill Clinton...














And I also can't complain that Paul Martin wasn't doing his bit to fight global warming by continuing to cool Canadian-US relations with his earnest lecture to the Bush administration on the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Considering the Kyoto-hating Bush administration has actually done a better job of limiting GHG emissions than the Kyoto-loving Liberal government of Canada, I can't help but sympathize with the Bush administration's decision to call Canadian Ambassador, Frank McKenna, on the carpet. I'd almost feel sorry for him; except the Canadian Embassy insists that Mr. McKenna asked for the meeting and that it was 'cordial'.

And then there's the endorsement of the NDP (particularly Vancouver-Centre candidate Svend Robinson), by Marc Emery, head of the BC Marijuana Party, who's facing extradition to the U.S. for selling pot over the Internet to U.S. citizens. Normally, I'm not sure if that kind of endorsement would be welcome, but Vancouver-Centre is an interesting riding. After all, they gave us Kim Campbell in 1988 and replaced her a few years later with current Liberal incumbent Hedy Fry (who saw the KKK burning crosses in Prince George something that both the media and Prince Georgers failed to notice). Mark Steyn has brilliantly characterized this as a race between "the incendiary promoter of bogus Klan scares, and Svend Robinson, the light-fingered gay." What a choice...

But the Laugh of the Week came when I stumbled across Anne McLellan's campaign office a few days ago. Now, as I know from experience, finding good space for an office that's accessible, affordable and located in the riding can be a challenge. But I can't help but break out in a serious case of the giggles when noting Anne's new office is right next door to a gay bath-house, and shares the same block with a gay video store, 2 gay bars, and a little shop called 'B&D Emporium' (trust me, if you don't know what 'B&D' stands for, you're probably happier remaining in ignorance). Since the space was the former corporate office for McDonalds, I can’t help but wonder if there’s some kind of weird metaphor for the Liberal party in all of this, but whenever I start to formulate it, I begin laughing again (I also can’t help but imagine the reaction I would have faced in proposing this space to any of the candidates I ever worked for…)

The other reason for my silence…

A funny thing happened while I was making lunch on Monday. As I was rushing around doing three things at once, a pop-up box appeared on my computer to tell me that there were new updates available to be downloaded and installed. Now, normally when that happens, I sit down and read very carefully what Microsoft wants to do to me but I was ‘busy’ and in a moment of weakness (OK, insanity) I clicked the OK button… A few minutes after that, as I was passing my computer again, I saw that the updates had been downloaded and installed and my computer needed to be restarted. So, I restarted.

To make a painfully long story short, it turned out that Mr. Computer wouldn’t restart in anything but ‘safe mode’ and that anything I could do in ‘safe-mode’ (i.e. system restore, uninstalling recent programs/updates) wasn’t fixing the problem. So I eventually reinstalled Windows, found my drivers corrupted (which necessitated a lengthy search for a Mouse-port adapter for my USB mouse), re-established my connection to the internet, updated my software and video drivers, etc. etc. etc. This all took about 8 hours over two days (because late Monday afternoon, Mr. Migraine came a-calling) just to get me back to the same level I had been on Monday morning (when, BTW, I had run my weekly full-system virus scan and daily system Spyware scan).

I believe it was Nietzsche who said ‘that which does not kill us, makes us stronger’ which is a typically Teutonic way of admonishing one to learn from your mistakes. So, what did I learn?

• Downloading an update without thoroughly checking it first is not unwise (as I had previously thought), it’s bad, BAD, BAD!!
• While computers often save us time, increasing our productivity, they can also cost us time, leading us to spend many hours on something that’s completely unproductive.
• Working on a computer for many hours without being to pause to surf the internet, check e-mail, news, etc. is a burdensome experience. That’s ‘working’, not playing Civ, Duncan...
• Reinstalling my computer is a lengthy, frustrating process that can cause migraines.

So, is this a fancy long-winded excuse for not invoking the 'first' strike for not posting for three days? All, I can say is ‘Perhaps’. In other words, if strikes 2 and 3 come fairly quickly, then I probably will count this one too, if not, then I’ll probably forget about this one. Think of my 3 strike rule as part of the ‘Pirates’ Code’, they’re more like guidelines, anyway…

Why I've been so quiet...

It’s been a difficult past few days for me watching this election. My attraction to the Conservatives is waning. You see, there’s this guy, Stephen Harper, and he’s been opening his mouth and issuing a policy each day. Now I know the theory behind this strategy. It keeps your guy in the headlines, it shows you’re a party with ideas, and it may even enhance your image as a government-in-waiting.

But...

It’s also the strategy the Conservatives/Alliance/Reform have used in the 2004, 2001, 1997 and 1993 elections (with a consistent unfortunate outcome); and also maybe keeping your ‘guy’ in the headlines and on the TV isn’t such a good idea when polling has consistently shown that he is the least-liked aspect of your party. But most of all, I really hate this strategy because the ideas that Mr. Harper has put forward have mostly fallen into three categories:

• Completely irrelevant to me (e.g. Small Business and Child Care platforms);
• Poorly thought out and incomplete (e.g. the public officials prosecuting department); and
• Grossly opportunistic and stupid (the GST reduction).

Eventually, I will calm down enough to blog coherently on why I hate the GST thing so much but I’m afraid I’m still at the no, NO, NO, Arrgghhhhhhhh stage.

So it’s with great relief that today’s incredibly stupid policy release comes from the party I love to hate: “Martin says Liberals would ban handguns”

This is dumb on so many levels. After all, it’s not like handgun use isn’t already so restricted that it’s virtually impossible for a law-abiding citizen to acquire one legally. Moreover, it may have perhaps eluded the Liberals that the recent rash of street crimes being committed in Toronto and Vancouver are being done with guns that are already illegal. And I certainly don’t think the issue is that cops in Vancouver or Toronto are afraid to act when they see someone carrying a handgun because they think that person could produce a permit on demand…

No, this is purely a ‘let’s-enact-a-useless-law-that-will-make-us-feel-good’ response. It’s all about dealing perception rather than reality, a motherhood statement that will do nothing to deal with the real problem and might even attract some ‘law and order’ votes. In short, it’s the Liberals governing as usual.

The universe has rightened itself, the balance is restored, I can blog about the election again…

Quote of The Day
"Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter, that's what we're dealing with." Steven Guilbeault, the director of the Greenpeace movement for Quebec. Source: Globe and Mail How convenient when you can blame every conceivable manifestation of the weather on a single phenonmenon...

However, I guess I should be grateful to Steven as he has now cleared up something that has long troubled me. After all, one reason I have had a hard time believing in all the warnings of global warming is that when I went to school, my social studies textbooks contained many very earnest warnings of the new Ice Age that was on it's way, shown by the trend of global temperature records. In fact, I remember doing a week-long project on the implications a new Ice Age would have on Alberta. Since the last Ice Age covered most of the province under layers of glacial ice, I didn't see many implications other than humans would have to go someplace else.
But now that 'global warning can mean colder' I understand it all and can forgive those 1970s textbook writers for indoctrinating me with their stories of a new Ice Age when they should have been indoctrinating me with 'Global Warming' instead (though I'm sure they're making up for it now)! And the beautiful thing is that if in the next 20 years, global temperatures begin to slide downward, we can still blame 'global warming'!! Unlike all the other 'scares-theories' of the past where we were all going to starve to death, or procreate ourselves to death, or run out of aluminium or zinc, 'global warming' will always be with us as long as we have weather!

From the above, you're forgiven for considering me a Climate Change sceptic. Now, it's not that I dispute the phenomenon itself. After all geological records show that at various times that the location where I live has been at times buried under many metres of glacial ice and at other times has been a steaming swamp (and I trust geologists far more than I trust many of those who've involved themselves with the 'science' -- read industry, of climate change). The scepticism enters when I consider at the time of both of those climatic extremes, Alberta (and the world for that matter) was entirely unoccupied by humans.

You see, the problem I have is the arrogant assumption that human activity is causing the latest variations in the global climate. Ask any serious medieval historian about the 'mini-Ice Age' and you will hear how a drop in temperatures in Europe affected everything from agriculture to social mobility in feudal Europe. In other words, we were seeing profound climate change at a time when the ultimate achievements of human industrial activity were the forge and the mill. Climate change did not just begin after the industrial revolution...

Moreover, having made the arrogant assumption that humans are responsible for climate change, they take it even further by insisting that we do it again by restoring the world to some convenient equilibrium. To me, this is like a doctor, who having observed his patient suffering from a high temperature for a few seconds, immerses that patient in ice-water to counter the symptoms without trying to understand the cause...

Now, I confess, I didn't pay much attention to the climate change conference that's wrapping up in Montreal, because a brief scan of the headlines has told me they're singing the same old songs about scaling back greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, how Kyoto is only the first step and more cuts will be needed, about carbon taxes, international cooperation and emissions trading, and all the blah, blah, blah that's going nowhere. Instead, we should be focussing on humanity's greatest strength, our ability to adapt.

Because, sooner or later, we're going to encounter a climate change phenomenon that we didn't cause, and won't be able to 'stop' with some reduction in human-produced greenhouse gasses (if we aren’t encountering it already). Instead, let's take the varying 'scary predications' of a two-degree rise in global temperatures over a 20 or 50 or 100-year span and see how we can adapt to them. Surely some of the global computing and brain power currently dedicated to 'proving' a rise in temperatures and humanity's responsibility for said rise, could be used to provide realistic assessments about the impact of said rises and how we can mitigate them.

In other words, how will global warming change our agricultural practices (e.g. should we be looking at irrigation strategies, different crops?)? What actions can we take to preserve our water supply? What will be the impact of rising (or shrinking) sea levels on our coastal habitats (which includes Hudson’s Bay and Cape Breton Island as well as Halifax and Vancouver)? What are the implications for Climate Change on Hydro Power? Where can we adapt? What will we have to give up? And, even, where can we gain? There are thousands of such questions.

So, if government (at all levels) is serious about contingency planning, than I feel those are the climate change questions we need to address. Let’s face it, Canada’s emissions are small as a percentage of human activity and very minute as a fraction of all greenhouse gas emissions. Whether we commit economic suicide to meet arbitrary reduction targets isn’t going to make a damn bit difference, especially as the three largest emission producers (USA, China and India, who together account for over half of human GHG emissions) show no signs of ever getting their act together. And while it is emotionally satisfying for some march in protest and blame this (along with everything else) on George W. Bush, I prefer a more positive action.

Canada has an opportunity to become a Climate Change leader, not by jumping on the Kyoto bandwagon, but because we have the intellectual, financial, industrial, and technological capabilities to raise and answer the issues of climate change adaptation. By pioneering this subject and sharing our knowledge, Canada could make a far more useful contribution to the field of humanity and climate change than was asked of us by Kyoto…

Quote of the Day
"It's time to turn the page on the sponsorship issue. It's been put out there, it's been solved. The Liberal party has taken a beating, now it's time to move on." Marc Garneau, proving his astronomical achievements are matched by an astronomical arrogance. Source: CP

I'm sorry, but I'm now really (really) sick of the phrase, 'it's time to move on', so perhaps I'm overreacting a tad when I shout... WHAT THE *BLEEP* DO YOU MEAN, IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON??!!

Excuse me, BUT didn't Paul Martin plead with us on national TV last spring not to rush into any judgements until Justice Gomery had his say? Have we had an election since then? Has not former Prime Minister Chretien just now legally challenged Gomery's findings to date? And when did it get 'solved'? Are we not still, in fact, waiting for Gomery's recommendation on how to 'solve' the matter? And, in case you missed me asking it the first time, have Canadian voters had ANY opportunity to examine fully the charges and testimony in detail and pass their own judgement on Adscam in an election?

And now, we're supposed to 'move on' because the Liberal party (poor thing!) has 'taken a beating'? Well, with arrogance like that, Garneau is a natural as a Liberal, but I have to hope the good people of Vaudreuil-Soulanges decide that he should 'move on' outside the House of Commons. When I first saw my Duncan's prediction of 65 Bloc seats in Quebec, I thought he was considerably overestimating their chances (heck, I thought my own estimate of 60 to be on the very high side!). Now I'm not so sure...