No A, B, C, or D

Condolences...

2011-08-22T20:58:00.000-07:00

Condolences to the family and friends of Jack Layton, who passed away earlier today.

Layton fought for many good causes (such as his fights against homelessness and domestic violence, amongst many others) in his time as a Toronto city councilor and later as a Member of Parliament. I'll admit to having questioned some of his political strategy in the last few years, but there was no question about the fact that his heart has always been in the right place.

It was shocking, even saddening, to see Layton frail and rasping in that press conference soon after his (and the NDP's) election success, but I never actually thought that he would lose to cancer... if only because he was always a tenacious, persistent, and determined fighter in his public life.

Farewell to a good man, a family man, a politician who fought for just causes, a leader under which the NDP flourished, and a fellow Trekkie.

Guts

2011-06-04T11:41:00.000-07:00

Brigette DePape/Marcelle.

Wow.

Peace and long life.

Post-election quick thoughts

2011-05-05T09:38:00.000-07:00

It's been a few days now, and I've been able to collect some of my thoughts now:

1) The elephant in the room is the fact that the Conservatives have increased their vote share in each of the three consecutive elections since their 2004 debut (29.6% in 2004, 36.3% in 2006, 37.7% in 2008, and 39.6% in 2011). Regardless of finger-pointing and blame being tossed about between NDP and Liberal supporters, Conservative support has been growing steadily (at least the eligible voters who actually take the effort to vote).

2) The NDP has also increased its vote share in every election since at least 2004, with this election being the most spectacular increase (30.6% now, up from 18.2% in 2008). This, in conjunction with increasing Conservative support, seems to be a clear sign that Canadian politics is becoming more polarized, with the overall "average" slowly shifting rightward.

3) First-past-the-post sucks, and strategic voting was the last best way to prevent vote splitting between left-of-Conservative candidates, especially with the advent of social media and online projects dedicated to strategic voting. Obviously, it didn't work.

4) Can the Liberal vote be considered left-of-centre? Previous Liberal governments have taken up progressive causes if they became politically expedient, but in recent years the Liberals have been slightly right-of-centre. How about the Green party, which aside from environmentalism seems more centre-right than centre-left? The positive spin is that 60% of Canadians didn't want a Conservative government. The negative spin is that over 60% of Canadians voted for parties that were right of centre (with the Conservatives being much further to the right than the Liberals or Greens, of course).

Do I realize that I sound negative? Absolutely. My politics fall left-of-centre, and I am thoroughly disappointed in the election result. I realize that there needs to be a re-thinking of strategy and find a more effective way to connect with voters.

At the same time, I suspect the answer to all of the frustration and brain-racking is simple: at the moment more and more Canadians simply don't have same values as myself or other left-of-centre individuals (of which there are clearly many... just not enough). That's alright (people are free to have their own beliefs), but nevertheless, I still wish the election had turned out differently.

Of course, things can and do change, so the work continues.

Peace and long life.

Canadian Election 2011 result: Conservative majority

2011-05-02T22:40:00.000-07:00

I'm not entirely sure what to make of the overall result, but I have a few thoughts to jot down:

1) The total vote share of the Conservatives is 40% (giving them about 165 seats), which is up from last election, so this isn't just a matter of vote-splitting weirdness. For whatever reason that I don't really want to speculate about right now, more people voted for the Conservatives than before. Certainly, it's a disappointment to me that the Conservatives didn't lose any seats for their conduct but rather gained enough seats to form a majority government.

2) The NDP came in second, with a vote share of 31%, giving them about 105 seats. I had been hoping that the NDP could have lead a more effective opposition against a minority Conservative government, but it is all for naught. The opposition in a majority government situation is basically useless.

3) A key point to remember is that the NDP fed on other progressive incumbents for most of their seat gains.

Given that the shift in seats was mostly amongst opposition-held ridings (with many falling to the Conservatives), there needs to be a major re-think in political strategy and campaigning amongst all opposition parties (seeing that the Conservative majority government is unlikely to introduce proportional representation measures... just a guess).

I'm too tired to continue tonight... I'll continue later if I manage to think of anything.

Peace and long life.

T minus 2.5 days, or so...

2011-04-30T11:44:00.000-07:00

... the electorate's engagement in politics seems to have atrophied as a result of the generally high standard of living in Canada.
-Me, in my previous blog post

Well, I'll concede that I was wrong as the NDP continues to gain popular support according to polls. So while my foot is in my mouth, I have a few thoughts to note:

1) As I noted in my previous post, there is still an "indifference of the majority" at work here. Despite everything, it appears that the Conservatives will win the most seats because things continued smoothly over the last several years for a large number of people.

2) The NDP surge, even if the NDP comes in second, could be considered vindication for progressives everywhere in Canada. Progressives weren't just running around screaming that the sky was falling. For all the positive rhetoric by the Conservatives, a large number of Canadians are unhappy with the previous three years of government... to the point of increasing "polarization" (as if the modern NDP is anything other than a slightly-left-of-centre political party).

3) Assuming a second-place finish for the NDP, the likely Conservative minority government should not view a win as a mandate to do as they wish (but I suspect that they will). Many people were displeased with the previous government, and it's not a tyranny of the majority... it's a democracy.

4) With the demise of the federal Progressive Conservatives in the recent past, it was almost unfathomable to think that the federal Liberals (the oldest federally-registered party in Canada) could face the same fate in the near future... yet, it seems almost possible now.

5) Oddly, my toes taste differently from my fingers. Is that normal?

Peace and long life.

Just for the record about coalition governments

2011-03-26T16:41:00.000-07:00

In Canada, we live in a representative democracy. It's a bit messed up because of the first-past-the-post system, where seat distribution is not necessarily indicative of actual voting numbers, but that's not the point of today's post. For all its flaws, Canada is a representative democracy. In each constituency, constituents elect a Member of Parliament who is supposed to best represent their interests.

Why is there such fear about coalition governments? Today, Harper used the possibility of a coalition government for scaremongering. In response, Ignatieff vowed to never seek a coalition government to assuage potential (and, frankly, unfounded) fears amongst the electorate. Duceppe pointed out Harper's hypocrisy by waving a copy of a letter Harper wrote about a possible coalition during the waning days of Paul Martin's Liberal minority.

The likely outcome of the following election is the status quo: the Conservatives will likely win just under half of the seats in the House. In order for Parliament to function in this scenario, parties will have to work together regardless of circumstance. If there are some pressing issues that are shared amongst say the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois and potential legislation can be worked out between the three parties on those few issues (e.g. limiting carbon emissions), consideration should be given to a coalition government. If nothing can be worked out between the three parties (again, assuming no one gets a majority), then the Conservatives would form a minority government.

All Members of Parliament are supposed to serve their constituents, regardless of arrangement of Parliament (majority, minority, coalition, whatever). It's not a "power grab" when these groups of MP's can work together as a government. It's a nonsensical argument: the Liberals in a coalition government would be just as dependent on the NDP and Bloc in a coalition government as a potential Conservative minority would be on the other parties. The NDP and Bloc are not going to mindlessly vote in lockstep with either the Liberals/Conservatives in a coalition/minority government scenario if a bill is disagreeable. MP's have to compromise with each other. That's life in a Parliament without a majority.

The likely sticking point (aside from who gets to introduce bills as a government) is the makeup of the executive. The executive branch has become increasingly (and disproportionately) powerful over the decades, and it is undoubtedly a coveted position. As it stands currently, a Prime Minister is not a dictator. Parliament is ultimately supreme (as it should be, as it is the only branch of government that is elected by the populace).

A problem seems to be a misinterpretation of our electoral system that the Conservatives are willing to play on: the Conservatives want to make it a question of who Canadians want as their leader. A much bigger problem is the apparent implicit acceptance of this "question" as being valid by other politicians and electorate in general.

Canadians don't elect leaders. We elect representatives, who answer to us. Canadians are supposed to be their own leaders.

------------------------------------------

As an aside, the electorate's engagement in politics seems to have atrophied as a result of the generally high standard of living in Canada. It's not really a tyranny of the majority as much as an indifference of the majority right now (see the unchanging support for all political parties as the Conservatives had to deal with one scandal after another). Complacency has replaced any sense of urgency in dealing with still-existing issues (e.g. climate change, gender inequality, discrimination based upon sexual orientation, etc.) as the government and media keep harping on how good it is in Canada for most of us. As the electorate disconnects with politics, politicians become more disconnected from the electorate.

Ultimately, any wounds on our democracy will be self-inflicted if we don't re-engage with politics.

Peace and long life.

EDIT: To be fair, I should note that Ignatieff did refer to coalition governments as constitutionally legitimate despite his decision to not enter a coalition. Unfortunately, he didn't go into further detail as to why coalitions are legitimate, so right now in the public eye it stands as his word against Harper's...

The language of politics

2011-01-12T11:12:00.000-08:00

When I was much younger, I recall a librarian who mentioned that a careful selection of words can affect thought. The example he used was of referring to his significant other as his "love" rather than just his "wife" helped reinforce the actual feeling.

The rationale behind his explanation is somewhat vague, but the idea that thought is linked to language is not a new one. Words compartmentalize complex concepts and meanings, allowing even more complex ideas and thoughts to be generated from such words. The most well-known example of this concept is presented in George Orwell's classic fiction, Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which a totalitarian state's language is a greatly-reduced version of English known as "Newspeak". By destroying as many words as possible while allowing society to still function, the totalitarian Oceania had hoped to minimize independent thought and make it impossible to exchange new ideas that could be detrimental to the Party.

Extending the above concept, the use of different sets of words to discuss a particular topic can have an effect on the tone of the discussion. This is the case with politics, where the language used to discuss politics infiltrated by words that carry unsuitable connotations, both purposely and inadvertently.

Overtly violent rhetoric (particularly from the U.S. Tea Party's leadership) is under the microscope after the recent shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and 17 other people (leaving 5 dead) in Tuscon, Arizona. Although the shooter himself is likely non-partisan, he lived in a society inundated with violent imagery and terminology (not limited to just politics, either) and in a place where getting weaponry was easy.

Going beyond the violent rhetoric in the U.S. that (thankfully) has yet to become commonplace in Canada, one can still find plenty of problematic language used in politics. Politicians often launch attacks on each other with no regard for the degradation of political discourse. (Remember the accusation that an opposition MP was "in cahoots with the Taliban"? There is a reason why the opposition is formally known as "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition": having differing opinions should not be interpreted as "disloyalty".)

Language used by the media is often problematic. There are "battles" in elections, and ground is "gained", "held", or "lost" as though territory is being fought over. The media chooses these words to make their narratives sound more exciting, and in a technical sense these words do describe what is going on. However, these words are more strongly associated with warfare between belligerents, and the choice of these words may subtly influence viewers/readers into taking more hardened positions. This effect may be stronger in down times such as the current economic recession, since the public tends to become polarized in bad times anyway.

Partisanship, likely a symptom of the innate human desire to be part of a larger group, is certainly exploited by language as well. It becomes similar to loyalty toward a sports team. One day, your ~~team~~ party will win the ~~Stanley Cup~~ election! Of course, language used in sports also borrows heavily from warfare ("battles", "gaining ~~ground~~ the zone", etc.), which makes the usage of such terms in politics even more seemingly-innocuous and subtly damaging at the same time.

Even more commonplace language not necessarily handpicked by the media taints political discourse. For example, apparently we elect "leaders", not representatives. People are elected to "power". We are encouraged in ads to make a difference by voting, but why are we not encouraged to talk with or write to our elected representatives? It distorts the spirit of democracy: the people govern themselves by selecting representatives who will do the necessary work of governing on the people's behalf. Voting is just the first step in participation in a democracy, but the implicit (and probably unintended) message underlying political discourse is that "people should vote for their desired ruler for the next few years and that's okay".

It likely even affects the motivations of people who run for office. I would suspect that those who run for office to serve the public would differ from those who run for office for "power".

Beyond just better education and trying to get people more involved in politics, I submit that the health of our democracy could benefit from changing people's attitudes through something as simple (?) as being observant about even seemingly-innocuous language being used in political discourse.

Peace and long life.

Refuse to hate...

2010-08-28T16:51:00.000-07:00

... that's what Martin Luther King, Jr. would advocate.

Its corollary would probably be "there is nothing to fear but fear itself."

There is a lot of fuss in the media over the arrests of alleged terrorists in Canada, as explained by Dr. Dawg. Worse, the fuss is generally of the fear-mongering variety.

Plenty of people have malicious and murderous intent, and they're not limited to any easily-identifiable "group". Looking at Statistics Canada (while we still can... but that's another subject), the number of homicides in Canada ranged from a low of 594 (in 2007) to 663 (in 2005). In 2009, there were 610 homicides and 806 attempted murders.

There were also 443284 violent Criminal Code violations in total. As it turns out, a lot of people just happen to be malicious jerks (to put it in the mildest terms).

Terrorism is indeed frightening in its concept. Strangers killing other strangers en masse at random and isolated points in time gives terrorism an air of uncertainty, and people naturally fear the unknown. From a statistical standpoint, though, terrorism just isn't a threat that should be on normal people's minds. Major incidents such as the bombing of Air India Flight 182 or September 11, 2001 tend to be the result of series of unfortunate events (i.e. intelligence and law enforcement simultaneously messing up repeatedly) that just are highly unlikely.

The arrests of three alleged terrorists doesn't change anything. The death toll from terrorism on Canadian soil since 9/11 remains 0. Besides, the accused are innocent until proven guilty.

Premature finger-pointing and paranoia only fuels fear and, eventually, hatred. That's not the way to live, and it's not the future that the majority of us want to create.

--------------------------------------------

"The Drumhead" is a fourth-season "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode (original air date of April 29, 1991) that is probably brought up a lot in these overly-paranoid times for its prescience, and it really needs to be brought up again. It was probably written with McCarthyism in mind, which means it's not actually prescient. Its relevance is more likely an indication that our society has not learned from history and is now doomed to repeat it (to paraphrase George Santayana).

In summary, a Klingon spy working for the Romulans sends classified schematics of the Enterprise's warp core to the Romulan intelligence agency (the Tal Shiar). Shortly afterward, an explosion damages the warp core but luckily does not lead to the ship's destruction. After the spy is found not to be the cause of the explosion, an external investigator (a Star Trek cliché - a misguided Admiral) starts to suspect a larger Romulan conspiracy within Starfleet itself and begins interrogating a crew member with Romulan ancestry. It's got to be the Romulan crew member, right? (The answer should be obvious, but of course it's not.)

This episode really needs to be watched to be fully appreciated, in my humble opinion anyway.

Worf: Sir, the Federation does have enemies! We must seek them out!

Picard: Oh, yes. That's how it starts, but the road from legitimate suspicion to rampant paranoia is very much shorter than we think. Something is wrong here, Mr. Worf. I don't like what we have become!

Being an episodic series, what they've become is reverted to the norm at the end of the episode. In real life, though, repairing damage done is not easy. It's just best not to go down that path.

Peace and long life.

Insanity and absurdity in Toronto

2010-06-29T16:00:00.000-07:00

In a lot of ways, a protest is symbolic more than anything else. It is impossible for the general public to gather any specific details from a protest... only the the general issues that concern at least a segment of their fellow citizens. It is also impossible for policy change to be discussed between protesters and those with political power in such a setting.

That being said, the freedom of peaceful assembly is of great importance because it symbolizes the general health of a democracy, like a canary in a coal mine. It is only one of numerous rights and freedoms protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it also happens to be one that often provides logistical headaches. How a government handles citizens' rights and freedoms during the most trying of times (from a governmental standpoint) is indicative of how much it respects its own written laws. (As Captain Benjamin Sisko once observed, "it's easy to be a saint in paradise"... a true saint would hold to his or her convictions in difficult times.)

So what has the canary in the coal mine... err, Toronto... told us? The initial signs have caused the canary vomit in revulsion, which then caused it to choke on its own vomit and die. (That was also before the canary had a chance to learn of the 5-metre rule made up by police.)

Right now they are just allegations, but as they say, where there is smoke, there is fire... The idea of detention cages in downtown Toronto should have been of concern before any of this happened (not that there was much time to react to the security plans, though).

Canadians (not just Torontonians) should be incredibly angry and concerned. The next election cannot come soon enough.

------------------------------------------

A couple of other points:

1) In a democracy, government serves the people.

The Canadian government decides to hold the G20 summit in downtown Toronto; however, due to "security risks", over $1 billion is necessary to convert downtown Toronto into a fortress.

So what does the Canadian populace gain from this exercise? Nothing, except for a bigger deficit. The G20's decision making process is inaccessible to the public, nor is it influenced by the public. Holding the summit in Toronto doesn't really show off Toronto as a tourist destination to other national leaders when "Fortress Toronto" is only a husk of its usual busy and colorful self. The only "benefit" is the "prestige" of holding the G20 summit, i.e. nothing tangible.

You know what would have been easier than turning an open city into a fortress? How about holding a summit in a remote location that is easily defended, like somewhere in Canada's majestic mountains. That would be less expensive, the number of protesters and troublemakers would be reduced, there would be fewer bystanders, and there would be less property for vandals to damage.

The converse is true. By actively choosing downtown Toronto, it was more expensive for taxpayers, more accessible for protesters and troublemakers, more bystanders who may be injured if things were go get out of hand, and more property for vandals to damage. I don't exactly sense a desire to serve the people.

2) Police defend citizens and property from criminals.

So what did over $1 billion worth of security provide?

Ignoring theories of police officers pretending to be vandals to discredit protesters, what basically happened was that dozens of masked vandals decided to smash windows and burn unoccupied and isolated police cars, which was not stopped by the police for at least half an hour.

The protection of property wasn't exactly carried out to perfection, to say the least.

After the initial rash of vandalism, later protests were peaceful. Unfortunately, as a result of the vandals, the police were either on edge or embarrassed after their earlier failure, so they cracked down hard... on the peaceful protesters. The treatment of people in the detention cages, as indicated previously, was also extremely poor. (Also getting a badge of shame would be the mainstream media, which could focus only on the vandalism for a long while.)

Numerous reports of violations of citizens' rights and freedoms (and that's not counting the freedom of peaceful assembly) doesn't exactly scream "successful defense of citizens".

In conclusion, the government made a bad decision that they knew would increase the likelihood of confrontation between police and protesters for the sake of political "prestige". (And yes, they knew... hence, the billion dollars of security.) The debacle that resulted should not have surprised anyone.

Peace and long life.

Aid "flotilla" boarded

2010-06-01T11:08:00.000-07:00

A convoy of ships carrying aid to Gaza was boarded by Israeli commandos in international waters. There are conflicting reports about what exactly happened, but in the end, the ships came under Israeli control.

The Israeli government released videos showing resistance from people armed with knives and broken glass bottles (and other random stuff), but seriously, that would be expected from the crew since they thought that they were under attack.

As for the boarding itself, one must wonder about the foreign policy goals that the Israeli government is trying to achieve from this action. Clearly, they were concerned about the ships, the crew, or the cargo approaching their blockade. If they were worried about the cargo, they could have simply said that they would pass on the aid after inspection. It's doubtful that the crew could have been any real threat, even if "terrorists" were on board, especially since Israel would not have lifted the blockade. The ships would not have been any military threat either, with the exception of ramming being an extremely improbable military use of the civilian ships (they would not survive getting close to real warships).

One possibility is that the Israeli government was expecting a confrontation eventually and decided to have it further away from their shores (even if it meant boarding the ships in international waters). The other possibility is that the Israeli government wanted to flaunt its military power and make an "example" of the convoy to discourage future attempts at getting past their blockade.

Regardless of the exact reasoning that led to the boarding, the other issue is the extreme that the Israeli government is willing to go to in the name of national security. The Israeli government has real security concerns, but it has gone too far with regards to the Palestinians. It doesn't yield land for the Palestinians to create their own nation state, but it doesn't consider Palestinians as citizens, nor does it respect Palestinians' human rights as people living "within" Israel's effective borders. Palestinians are trapped in tiny areas, and they are now denied aid from others.

Israel probably has lingering fears from their numerous historical conflicts with its neighbouring states, but it is not an excuse for their actions against the Palestinians. People (in general, and not just referring to Israel and this incident) need to try harder rise above their baser instincts (such as acting on fear and paranoia) and do the "right thing"... after all, isn't that supposed to be one of the redeeming characteristics of humanity?

Peace and long life.

EDIT: Fixed grammar.

Destroying is easier than creating

2010-05-09T06:31:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I contemplated the difference between simple legislation that requires tolerance and government efforts to promote acceptance.

There are clues that the Conservative government finds certain progressive aspects of Canadian society displeasing to them; however, the Canadian public would not support an obvious attempt to legislate away people's existing rights. So how to circumvent the "obstacle" that is the Canadian electorate?

It's easy, actually. As I've noted before, there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Rights groups ultimately want acceptance of diversity, and they exist because not all of society is equitable (or even tolerant in the case of people with different sexual orientations). As such, the Conservatives are simply axing programs and cutting funding to reduce the effectiveness (or even eliminate) of rights groups. Unfortunately, money is necessary for anything to succeed in the long run.

Without effective rights groups, the elements of society that despise diversity will remain (and possibly grow in strength if they get funding). I suspect that the Conservatives hope that these elements would regress Canadian society slowly over time, benefiting their agenda (and themselves, due to more like-minded voters) in the long run.

The sick irony is the ability for the Conservatives to use the fact that Canada is reasonably progressive as a defense. Here is a hypothetical line of questioning and answering:

Status of Women? Cut the word "equality", and then axed. Why? Because with regards to gender equality, "mission accomplished".

The most staggering realization for the Canadian public (hopefully) is how much a government can accomplish if it really set its mind to achieving its goals outside the legislative branch. For the most part, not much damage has been done through legislative means (although Harper's multiple prorogation of Parliament and general defiance with regards to Afghan detainee documents have tested the limits of his executive power against the legislative branch). Much more damage has been done with money... how it has been spent, and how it has been denied.

Peace and long life.

Acceptance and tolerance: multiculturalism and beyond

2010-05-07T07:53:00.000-07:00

In the opinion section of a student newspaper years ago, I once read that there was a difference between acceptance and tolerance. It's true. There is a difference in legislating laws against hate crimes and discrimination, which "impose" tolerance, and an official government policy that promotes diversity a part of the nation's identity.

That official government policy that I refer to is, of course, multiculturalism. Multiculturalism was an ingenious nuance that encouraged differences in people's cultural heritages as strengths rather than something to be tolerated. Now, implementing multiculturalism would not have affected people with entrenched viewpoints (for or against cultural diversity), but it would have had an influence on youth growing up. Canada was no longer a country of various groups tolerating each other, but a country of diverse groups that was part of a bigger group. Furthermore, government funding was available for cultural groups to hold events to help preserve Canada's multicultural landscape.

(Of course for all the talk of multiculturalism, Canada hasn't helped its original cultures, the First Nations, enough... but that sordid tale is for another day.)

Now with rose-coloured glasses off, I doubt that everyone happily accepts this diversity (although I suspect that a growing number of people do thanks to the newer and younger generations). Furthermore, there are legitimate challenges in trying to preserve cultural diversity, especially for newer generations of immigrants. The U.S. already is a major cultural exporter, and despite multiculturalism, Canada does have its own "overall culture" as well. Regardless, multiculturalism is a well-intentioned government policy that has borne fruit.

-------------------------------------------

Cultural diversity is not the only kind of diversity in Canada. It can be expanded and encouraged.

For example, despite legislation protecting people of varying sexual orientation, I suspect that a fair number of Canadians tolerate the idea more than accept it (or sometimes, not even bother to tolerate, such in the cases where religion is a "reason"). Ontario's new sex education program that includes a discussion of homosexuality seems to be well-intentioned and a step in the right direction. It certainly won't happen with the Conservatives in power, but there may be a day where the federal government has a program that encourages acceptance of people with different sexual orientation.

It shouldn't end there either. Diversity of people, viewpoints, and ideas is what will keep Canada vibrant.

Peace and long life.

Fearmongering against vaccines

2010-05-05T11:03:00.000-07:00

It's worrying, but the anti-vaccination movement has had a significant impact on vaccination rates in the U.S. I don't believe that herd immunity has been compromised yet, but it must be getting dangerously close to that point. Herd immunity is probably a major reason why people can get away with not vaccinating their children (and then possibly heralded as evidence that vaccinations don't help). Once that's compromised, though...

The main problem is that the risks of something bad happening as a result of a vaccination is not compared to the risk of something bad happening with contracting a preventable disease. Vaccines are released for consumption only after they meet the requirement that only 1 in 100000 people will suffer adverse effects. For example, a batch of faulty H1N1 vaccine was recalled when 1 in 20000 people suffered severe allergic reactions. The H1N1 influenza had a death rate of 3 in 10000 people (0.03%), so even the faulty vaccine was safer than being infected by H1N1.

Frankly, a disease that is roughly as harmless as a vaccine wouldn't strike enough fear into the public for anyone to bother with making a vaccine in the first place (with regards to the "profit as a motive for pushing vaccines").

Still, the image of some horrible allergic reaction or autism (despite follow-up studies failing to find any statistical correlation) is enough to make people fear one of the greatest (in terms of benefiting the health of the species as a whole) medical achievements in human history.

The Speaker upholds Parliamentary supremacy

2010-04-27T15:28:00.000-07:00

Speaker Peter Milliken has ruled that the Conservative government has exceeded its privilege in withholding documents relating to the Afghan detainee transfer issue from Parliament. The government has two weeks to work out a compromise with the opposition to provide documents without compromising national security.

The good news is that this upholds the supremacy of Parliament, whose members are the representatives of the Canadian public.

The larger issue, though, is related to the "national security" statement. Will it give some room for the government to redact freely? With regards to the government's actions following this ruling, I think the correct phrase would be "hope for the best... expect the worst".

-------------------------------------------

On the general issue of "national security", it is used too often to stonewall investigations. I somehow doubt that the opposition would intentionally leak information that would threaten Canadian citizens overseas (including soldiers). To do so (even unintentionally) would leave a permanent black mark on any MP in the eyes of the electorate.

The implicit claim that opposition MPs are incapable of keeping sensitive information confidential unlike government MPs is, frankly, insulting. A person's competence doesn't magically increase because there are a larger number of people with the same political affiliation in Parliament. Done properly, there should be no need at all for any crucial information to be redacted when handed over to the opposition.

Ultimately, the public is interested in the procedure of transferring detainees and whether there are systematic problems. That shouldn't increase the danger to Canadians in Afghanistan. For the resistance/insurgents in Afghanistan, I'm sure that they already view NATO troops as their enemy... I doubt that revealing information about transfers will somehow anger the resistance/insurgents further or change their goal of forcing NATO out of Afghanistan.

Inherently, given that Canada is a democracy, the government is acting on behalf of all of us. Our representatives in Parliament should have a say with regards to foreign affairs and national security issues. That sometimes requires sensitive information to be given out by the government to Parliament when requested. Some people will argue that constitutes a potential weakness in military terms by increasing the number of people "in the know" (and increasing the possibility of a dangerous leak). However, the public should think hard about giving the government more power (potentially weakening our democracy) in order to deal with what should ultimately be a relatively short-term issue.

Peace and long life.

Information and misinformation glut: leading to a glut of problems

2010-04-09T09:08:00.001-07:00

Introduction

I've been wondering for about the problems with regards to public perception that science (especially climatology) have been suffering for the last little while. Here are my thoughts.

Information glut

A long time ago, I read about the concept of information glut in Neil Postman's book Technopoly. Basically, people are deluged with so much information that the information ceases to be useful due to: 1) the inability of most people to absorb such large quantities of information, 2) the oversimplification of concepts in order to increase the volume of information delivered, and 3) the less important (even irrelevant) information dug up in order to boost the aforementioned volume of information.

The end result is the retention of less information, as well as less understanding of what actually is retained.

Misinformation glut

The problem with having an information glut is that it becomes easier to add misinformation to the mix. With less understanding of actual information, it is more difficult to separate information from misinformation. For example, realistic-sounding technobabble (as opposed to the more obvious and ridiculous-sounding "Treknobabble") starts to sound like legitimate scientific terms to an untrained person.

Does "giant magnetoresistance" sound like something real? Is it real? (It actually is real, by the way.)

Some misinformation is unintentional or simple misunderstanding. Some misinformation is driven by those with ulterior motives. With regards to evolution, the Discovery Institute comes to mind. There are plenty of groups trying to discredit climate scientists and climate change.

Unintentional misinformation is unavoidable, but the intentional addition of misinformation to the information/misinformation glut is a major problem. A key reason is the fact that we live in democratic societies, where government decisions are influenced by the populace, which would ideally be informed rather than misinformed. (The unfounded claim of WMDs in Iraq is a particularly depressing political example of misinformation leading to horrific consequences.)

Misinformation about information

Science is twofold in its purpose: to gain a deep understanding of how the universe and its constituent components work, and to be able to make accurate predictions about the universe and its constituent components. (I say "constituent components" because, for example, biology is not a direct study of the universe but of something within the universe. Furthermore, it is currently impossible to study outside the known universe, although some scientists are trying to come up with experiments.)

The key strengths of science are its ability to make predictions based upon existing understanding and observation, and its self-correcting nature. Predictions based upon misinformation will not be accurate (barring occasional flukes, I suppose). Misinformation is also not self-correcting, aside from possibly trying to sound "scientific". In fact, deliberate misinformation is often very consistent because one of science's strengths is also yields weakness in fighting misinformation (at least in the eyes of the general public).

With regards to science, the fact that science is self-correcting is seen as a weakness. This is often argued to be "wavering" in position by those who intentionally spread misinformation. For example, with regards to evolution, biologists debating over finer details of evolutionary theory is often argued to be a "controversy" by creationists. (Some creationists go even further by claiming that the only reason why "evolutionists" stand by evolution despite the "controversy" is due to ideology.)

Another (indirect) strength of science can also be turned against science. People (rightfully) credit science for a great number of medical and technological successes, but human knowledge across different fields of science vary. Knowledge in some disciplines may be incomplete for the time being. In this sense, the successes from one field of science can be used against another field of science (as in, "is this field valid, given that another field of science is so much more complete?"). For example, with regards to cosmology, scientist are able to predict the expansion of the universe with dark energy using the "cosmological constant", but there is currently little (if any) understanding of dark energy itself. Some creationists use this incomplete knowledge to attack the credibility of cosmology in general (due to the acceptance of the Big Bang Theory).

Sometimes, imprecision is used to question accuracy, especially with regards to climatology. (Yes, there is a difference between precision and accuracy. A prediction can be accurate and imprecise if there is a large predicted range. A prediction can be accurate and precise if there is a small predicted range. Ideally, both accuracy and precision are desired, but that is not always possible given the lack of data for certain variables.)

With regards to climatology, weather is effectively only noise with regards to climate (and not even significant noise). Weather is difficult to predict partly due to the atmosphere's turbulent nature but mostly due to insufficient computing power (which requires simplified to be used models). The well-known method for reducing noise (from a mathematical standpoint) is to use larger time scales so that the noise "averages out"... which bodes well for climate studies. Despite this, the false argument that the inability to predict weather implies an inability to predict climate is often made (as in, "you can't even predict the weather beyond a few days... how can you predict the climate?"). Here, there is also conflation between meteorology and climatology, as well as oversimplification of a topic.

A final strategy often used to question science is what I call the "eternal whys". Ask "why" (or "how") enough times about anything (not just related to science), and even the most experienced of experts will end up flustered. This strategy also has related forms, e.g. for every two transitional fossils, creationists demand for yet another transitional fossil between the two fossils of interest.

Putting misinformation on equal footing to information

Notice a common theme yet? The first part of any intentional misinformation campaign is to attempt to discredit information by raising as many questions as possible.

The second part of an intentional misinformation campaign is to provide a false alternative to information: the misinformation itself. If crafted properly, it will sound as though there is legitimate debate about the topic at hand. The more complex the topic (such as climate), the easier it becomes to raise questions (legitimate or not) and craft a good-sounding "argument".

Of course, one may ask what differentiates legitimate and illegitimate debate. After all, if one asks a valid question, is it not the start of a valid debate? Well, the answer is two-fold. Firstly, a commonly-accepted theory is often the one that is the best predictor. Unless there is an actual alternative that improves the accuracy and/or precision of the predictions, the commonly-accepted theory will remain. Secondly, a scientist should already be aware of (and working to solve) the drawbacks in any existing theory. As such, raising questions is only raising questions. A real debate requires a real alternative to be offered.

(Additionally, I should note that there is a certain support for the "underdog" mentality that seems to stem from the individualism in our society. "Maverick scientists" are given too much credit due to the appeal of an individual making a difference. In reality, science develops reasonably slowly, and individuals' work are based upon the work of their predecessors. For example, Einstein's general theory of relativity has replaced Newton's law of gravity due to the more accurate predictions made by Einstein's theory, an actual example of one firmly-entrenched theory being replaced by another. Despite the amazing work accomplished by Einstein, one must ask whether Einstein would have developed his theories of relativity without Hendrik Lorentz's transformations or Riemannian geometry?)

The third part of an intentional misinformation campaign is to establish oneself as a "trusted" source of alternative "information" while discrediting the sources of actual information. While it may seem detrimental to resort to a logical fallacy such as an ad hominem, it actually works because much of our society is dependent upon appeals to authority (another logical fallacy, but due to necessity). For example, I have a degree from an accredited university, and I have been judged by professors who have degrees from other universities. When I apply for a job, I rely on my degree as evidence that I can perform the applicable work. I've basically appealed to the authorities of my university, my professors, and my professors' universities all in one go.

In society, the work of experts are supposed to be trusted. I can talk about four-stroke engines and camshafts, but if you want your car fixed, you should find an actual automotive technician. The same goes for any field of expertise, including science. By chipping away at that trust, the information provided by such experts becomes less certain to the public eye. It's a logical fallacy, but again, in a society where appeal to authority is required to work, attempting to discrediting experts also works. Most commonly, those spreading misinformation accuse scientists as being a group of close-minded ideologues unwilling to give a "fair opportunity" to other ideas.

One must remember that the goal of a number of misinformation campaigners (such as lobbies for the oil industry against effective climate change legislation) is simply to split public sentiment. It is unnecessary for a majority of people to believe in the misinformation. As long as there is a split public sentiment, there will be the corresponding indecisiveness and status quo in government.

Fighting misinformation: where we are at

Going back to the information glut, it is difficult to get across a message quickly and effectively to combat misinformation. News organizations often give equal time to both scientists and misinformation campaigners. Sound bites and short debates are often reduced to scientists confidently saying that the "science is sound", appealing to the authority of science while misinformation campaigners keep raising questions that can be asked quickly but cannot be answered quickly, trying to discredit that authority.

The necessary dirty work comes from raising questions about the credibility of those intentionally spreading misinformation, or else they may only grow in credibility. (That is to say, ignoring them and hoping that they'll go away is not enough.)

Unfortunately, the result of such exchanges only results in people believing who they feel is more credible, which may or may not turn out favourably. Rarely is there time to discuss the actual topic due to the topic being too complex to actually debate in a short time span.

Given the limited time, it has been suggested by some that the mainstream media deny time to the spreaders of misinformation in order to remove the "false balance" created by the apparent necessity for mainstream news to present two opposing viewpoints. The Internet, however, provides another avenue for other arguments and is becoming increasingly relied-upon as a source of information. Denying time on mainstream media for misinformation in the past has only lead to cries of being suppressed from misinformation spreaders, appealing to the public's sense of "fairness".

Another solution may be to sufficiently interest people into performing their own studying on various topics in order to educate themselves. This gives them time to absorb material as well as gain an understanding of the topics of interest. While this is the ideal case, there are also problems with this approach. There could possibly be mistakes made on the way (who has ever understood everything that they have tried to learn?). Furthermore, the Internet is sufficiently vast that it is conceivable that instead of presenting all arguments in detail, it allows those with preconceptions to find like-minded individuals without allowing time for learning about opposing arguments. Again, this goes back to the existence of a misinformation glut in conjunction with the information glut.

-----------------------------------------

The problems are significant, and there are no ideal solutions. Personally, I think that inspiring people to educate themselves, as well as epistemology (theory of knowledge) courses in schools, are the start of the correct path. It is especially important for more people to learn about epistemology, as they will gain an understanding of how knowledge is acquired, the first step to becoming a rational and critical thinker.

Peace and long life (and sorry for going on for this long...).

Allegations of intentional torture

2010-03-06T10:35:00.000-08:00

The end result is the same: Canadian soldiers are ordered to transfer their Afghan detainees over to Afghan officials, with whom the detainees are tortured.

The issue so far has been only about whether the government reacted properly to reports and allegations of torture (and about the specifics of the prisoner transfer agreement). If the investigation finds that the government knew about the torture but did nothing to rectify the situation, one could argue that the government would have just been as guilty as if they were transferring prisoners to be tortured on purpose.

Now, there are new allegations that the government actually was transferring prisoners to be tortured on purpose. According to the allegations, it was hoped that intelligence would be gathered from the tortured detainees (shades of the so-called "advanced interrogation techniques" employed by the U.S.?).

If these allegations are true, it casts a far worse light on the Conservatives' refusal to hand over the documents on the Afghan detainees to Parliament.

As I stated at the start, the end result is the same for the tortured detainees (which is why both situations would be considered war crimes). Somehow, though, if the intent was actually there, it just feels a lot worse.

We'll see how it goes from here...

Peace and long life.

Is being unable to connect emotionally with the general public a problem?

2010-02-27T20:24:00.000-08:00

In "Star Trek: Generations", Captain Kirk is killed while helping Captain Picard save 400 million lives in the Veridian system, and many Star Trek fans are still upset at how "pathetically" (for lack of a better generalization) Kirk died. The reason appears to be twofold: Kirk died in a somewhat awkward manner (he was crushed by a falling bridge); and viewers never got to see any of the 400 million aliens and supposedly could not build any emotional connection with the aliens...

Rationally speaking, it was a heroic sacrifice on Kirk's part to save 400 million other individuals... but somehow, it did not connect emotionally with viewers. It's true in other films as well, such as in "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope", where the destruction of Alderaan is an event in a sequence of events. The tragedy of the loss of an entire world and its people, civilization, places, and life is so beyond the experience of a normal person that Obi Wan Kenobi verbalizes the emotion in the film ("it was as if a million voices cried out and were suddenly silenced").

-----------------------------------------

What do movies have to do with real life? In one post, thwap wonders how much of an effect the anti-war movement has had on Canada's deployment in Afghanistan. It raises another interesting issue: how come certain issues rile up the public enough to affect government while other issues seem to get no attention?

Take the large anti-war protests in 2002 and 2003 prior to the invasion of Iraq. Much of the focus was on the lies about the supposed weapons of mass destruction or the supposed link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. People get angry when they are lied to. How much of the public sentiment was actually anti-war (as in against killing and destruction as a foreign policy tool except as a last resort)... as opposed to "anti-Gulf War II"?

Corruption and government misspending can bring down governments, such as Paul Martin's Liberals and the sponsorship scandal in the January 2006 election. People don't like feeling that their money is being wasted.

The current Conservative government has had its fair share of questionable behaviour, but its polling numbers had been fairly high prior to the Afghan detainee issue. It began to dip when the Afghan detainee issue flared up, probably due to the government's secretive behaviour (again, people hate being lied to). Polling numbers for the Conservatives have now really dropped due to Harper's prorogation of Parliament, as people are usually angered by an abuse of power. Again, it's something that many people can emotionally relate to (if they have ever had an overbearing boss or supervisor or parent, for example).

Other issues don't seem to have as much effect. For example, if one polled the public, the majority usually supports fighting climate change, yet when the government was obstructionist at Copenhagen, support for the government did not really drop. The only explanation, given public awareness, is that there is the lack of emotional connection that would give the issue the importance that it deserves. There is nothing in a person's existence that is similar enough for it to trigger an emotional response since change occurs so slowly and subtly. This is seen similarly with other environmental issues.

Now, if an alien armada suddenly entered orbit and began dumping mild toxins into the air and water while trying to melt the ice in Antarctica with the intent of destroying Earth's populous coastal regions with rising ocean levels within a century or so, would the response be different? Chances are that people would be more willing to fight the changes in this case... given the instinctive fight or flight response, with nowhere to run to. (And yes, I'm fully aware that it would be an odd way for an alien armada to attack, at least from a human perspective.)

This lack of emotional connection makes it easy for climate change deniers to fight using conspiracy theories. As mentioned before, people in general hate liars, but they also assume that other people will lie. Deniers make full use of this emotional appeal to people's inherent mistrust and suspicions.

I cannot think of a solution... in fact, this is just a random theory of mine that may have plenty of holes in it, making a solution irrelevant. "Framing" a message might help a little, but ultimately, promoting critical and rational thinking is probably of utmost importance.

Canada's sub-sphere of influence

2010-02-11T14:11:00.001-08:00

Given the growing number of allegations from beyond Canada's borders, one can possibly argue that Canada has a sub-sphere of influence in Latin America within the larger U.S. sphere. Those who are "in the way" have come to regard Canada in the same light as the U.S. with regards to exploitation of resources and disregard for people.

Human rights are enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One can only hope that everyone will remember that people who live outside of Canada's borders are humans with rights as well...

Peace and long life.

What's the point of banning political parties again?

2010-02-04T07:29:00.001-08:00

An Iraqi court has ruled that candidates running for the Baath party (previously affiliated with Saddam Hussein) should not be banned from running in elections. This has prompted the Iraqi government to denounce the ruling as "illegal and unconstitutional", and there will be an emergency government meeting on Sunday.

This is not uncommon when governments are being propped up by external forces. Another example is Haiti, where Famni Lavalas was denied the right to run in Haiti's next election.

The problem with rationalizations of banning parties is the fact that in the grand scheme of things, the will of the people should prevail. Ideas that are truly on the radical fringe will invariably be ignored (except in times of prolonged crisis when increasing political polarization may occur if things are not seen as getting better... see Germany in the early 1930's). For example, Canada also has a Communist Party, and invariably a small fraction of the population votes for it every election. I think most Canadians aren't worried about the Communists suddenly taking over...

In the event where truly differing political views of different parties cannot be reconciled, and both parties hold similar power, then politicians should have to work together. The worries about violence are mostly unfounded. Giving a political party (even one with a sordid history like Baath under Hussein) a voice in a democratic government gives them an avenue other than violence to exert political pressure. Denying that voice only drives the Baathists more toward the fringe, and more likely to conduct extreme acts.

Let Iraq's populace, and not those already in power, decide how much political influence Baath deserves. Same with Haiti with regards to Famni Lavalas. Real, full democracy: it's the best way.

Peace and long life.

U.S. stops evacuating victims from Haiti over medical bills

2010-01-30T10:55:00.001-08:00

It appears that some hospitals in Florida were reluctant to take patients from Haiti due to not knowing how the patients' medical bills would be paid. Once the federal government was asked to help pay for the bills by Florida's governor, the evacuations apparently stopped one day later on Wednesday.

This is a case of money being placed before the lives of people (almost as one would expect given the U.S. medical system). It is also an even stranger case of the U.S. being financially generous in some ways while being not helpful in other ways. Mountains of money mean nothing if the money can't be used to obtain goods (like food, which there is a shortage of in Haiti despite donations) or services (like medical care for the victims).

Peace and long life.

EDIT: And now the evacuations will resume.

Supreme Court and Senate: quick points

2010-01-29T11:44:00.000-08:00

1) The Supreme Court ruled that Omar Khadr's rights were violated but that it wouldn't order the government to repatriate Khadr (yet), stating that it is up to the government to decide the best course of action. The Supreme Court cited the government's constitutional authority over foreign affairs as well as its own lack of knowledge of foreign relations specifics (such as whether the government had negotiated with the U.S., etc.).

The Supreme Court, though, did warn that it would make sure that the court could order the government to ensure that it was doing everything to rectify the abuse of Khadr's rights.

2) Harper has appointed five new Senators, as expected after he prorogued Parliament at the end of 2009. While the Conservatives do not hold an outright majority in the Senate, it does hold the largest number of seats there.

It's too bad that Harper has apparently given up on the idea of an elected Senate, as it was probably the only point of the Conservative platform that I liked.

Peace and long life.

Renaming real mountains after fictional ones

2010-01-27T10:17:00.000-08:00

In Zhangjiajie, Hunan, China, the Southern Sky Column (Nantianzhu) was renamed to "Avatar Hallelujah Mountain" after the floating mountains in the blockbuster movie "Avatar".

The Wulingyuan Scenic Area (a UNESCO World Heritage Site in which the Southern Sky Column is located) consists of many karst limestone formations that apparently were an inspiration for the design of the Hallelujah mountains in "Avatar".

The move seems to be an attempt to attract more tourists. One example given is that the municipal government is now saying on its website that "Pandora is far but Zhangjiajie is near".

The move leaves me just shaking my head. The Southern Sky Column is already in a World Heritage Site, already a beautiful location. Renaming it just leaves me astounded. People are only half joking when they refer to the "almighty dollar".

I know that a "rose by any other name would smell as sweet", but still... it seems weird for a name that has (presumably) existed for centuries to be replaced by something fictional that has been known to people for only a few months. Perhaps I am just overreacting?

Peace and long life.

Estimate for the attendance of the anti-prorogation rallies

2010-01-24T08:45:00.000-08:00

A very impressive number of people attended the anti-prorogation rallies across Canada yesterday. While media sources say "thousands" attended such rallies, the cross-country number is about an order of magnitude higher... given that the rallies in just Toronto and Ottawa push the number to over 10000 (CTV Toronto reports "over 7000" in Toronto, while media sources vary from 3000 to 4000 for the Ottawa rallies).

An estimate (primarily using twitter) places the attendance to be about 27090 people from 40 communities across the country (and this still excludes some communities, as No Prorogue! lists 66 communities with rallies).

While exact numbers will surely be a point of contention between those who are opposed to prorogation and those who support Harper's action, one cannot deny that this issue has angered enough Canadians to enable such considerable protests to spring up.

Some people will also note the discrepancy between the size of the Facebook group (over 200000 members of the Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament group) and the size of the protests, but it takes real commitment for tens of thousands of people to show up at the protests (often in cold winter conditions for hours).

Peace and long life.

EDIT: The original link to the 27090 number is now broken, so here is another link.

Typo taken as fact?

2010-01-19T16:47:00.000-08:00

Mistakes happen, especially when one is trying to compile information from a huge number of sources. Such a mistake seems to have turned up in the IPCC's 2007 assessment of climate change.

The mistake was made with regards to the disappearance of glaciers on the Himalayas. Apparently, a paper from 1996 estimated that the ice on the Himalayas (ranging from 200 to 400 metres thick) would be gone by 2350. New Scientist had an interview from 1999 with glaciologist Syed Hasnain which gives a date of 2035, which is likely a typo (or misreading) of the 1996 paper. Regardless, the mistake made its way into the IPCC's report.

Make no mistake, though. This doesn't invalidate the existence of global warming. If one thinks about it, losing an average* of nearly a metre of glacial ice thickness per year (covering the large expanse of the Himalayas) is a staggering amount of ice loss. It's just that global warming isn't enough to result in the loss of 11 metres of ice thickness per year (from 2007 to the supposed 2035 date). ;)

Given the reaction to the hacked and stolen CRU e-mails from late 2009, though, I am going to guess that climate change deniers are going to have a field day with this.

Peace and long life.

*EDIT: I should note that the loss of ice would not be constant over three centuries. The average ice loss would also probably increase with time as global temperatures rise. Regardless, it does provide evidence of increasing global temperatures.

"Active paternalism", i.e. vestigial imperialism

2010-01-17T11:05:00.000-08:00

David Brooks wrote an article in the New York Times basically stating that Haitian culture is "progress-resistant" and that this "resistance" is making the Haitian earthquake disaster worse. He says that throwing money at the problem is not going to help and that an "active paternalism" is needed to tell Haitians what to do to improve.

Mr. Brooks' article receives the tongue-lashing it deserves over at thwap's.

Brooks ignores the fact that the Haitian government right now is just an inept puppet government set up with external influence by the usual suspects. The West is already actively interfering in Haiti to no one's benefit. "Active paternalism" on how to use money is basically a form of economic imperialism, telling the Haitians what to do through economic means. Perhaps the Haitians would be better off if the West actually listened to what they say they need and then actually worked with them to help them achieve their goals, not the West's. Still, Haitians continue to do their best with the little that they have.

I never thought I would have to say this, as it should be obvious after an earthquake, but please donate if you can. Don't worry about what David Brooks says about money being wasted. Money is needed, and NGOs generally know what they are doing (unlike meddling foreign governments).

Peace and long life.

Harper's antics: The concise and detailed versions

2010-01-15T08:52:00.000-08:00

Well, one knows of the importance of the spirit of the law. All languages are inherently imprecise, and different people often interpret words differently. This is why there is such a thing as "legalese": it attempts to make language as precise as possible. Still, people are inherently flawed, and even the best attempts at removing all ambiguity often leave holes that can be exploited by those who are unscrupulous.

This is the argument of this open letter, signed by 175 academics, with regards to the repeated prorogation of Parliament by Harper. Legal, but not in the spirit of the system. One person should not hold so much power over the only elected body on the federal level of government.

For those looking for a much longer (yet still incomplete) list of specific actions by the Conservatives, here are is one. (H/t to Dr. Dawg.)

Peace and long life.

One possible (and easy) way to give the House of Commons authority...

2010-01-11T16:24:00.001-08:00

... over its own prorogation or dissolution is described in this article (h/t to Impolitical).

According to the article, all the House of Commons would need to do is pass a motion stating that any Prime Minister who would prorogue or dissolve Parliament before a vote in the House of Commons would do so in contempt of Parliament. (I would presume that this wouldn't be the case when an election is required by the Constitution, though.)

Of course, Harper has already done a lot in contempt of Parliament (such as refusing to turn over documents relating to the Afghan detainee issue despite the passage of a motion in Parliament)... Still, the precedent would be set to move the power to Parliament (where it should have been in the first place).

Hopefully, such a motion is passed by the Opposition immediately after Parliament reconvenes.

The larger issue of the more powerful-than-expected Governor General will require much more work (and effectively unanimous support) to resolve, though...

Peace and long life.

Somehow, I doubt the world is a safer place...

2010-01-08T16:32:00.000-08:00

... now that eight 11 to 17-year olds are dead after a secret American-led operation in Afghanistan (h/t to wmtc). Six high-school and two elementary-school students were shot at night by American-led troops, five of them after being handcuffed (and thus, no longer "threats") in one room. Two more adults were shot in the operation.

No arrests were made (despite the handcuffing of five of the soon-to-be-victims), just a lot of killing. The American-led soldiers acted as judge, jury, and executioner here, which is just inexcusable.

In addition to not accomplishing anything for the sake of "security", the operation only resulted in far greater anti-American sentiment and renewed hatred toward NATO troops:

The allegations of civilian casualties led to protests in Kabul and Jalalabad, with children as young as 10 chanting “Death to America” and demanding that foreign forces should leave Afghanistan at once.

It's not worth it. NATO may be superior militarily, but it doesn't hold the moral high ground. NATO troops (including Canadian soldiers) are risking their lives and being ordered to commit war crimes (h/t to thwap) by their governments tens of thousands of kilometres away, only to foment hatred and make new enemies. In the meantime, Afghan civilians die either as collateral... or in this case, in a very deliberate act.

War is good for absolutely nothing, and horrific for absolutely everything else (h/t to Mentarch).

Peace and long life.

Baby steps toward reconvening the Opposition part of Parliament

2010-01-06T09:28:00.000-08:00

Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff has ordered his caucus to meet on January 25. It is a symbolic gesture so far, with discussions with experts to be held on various issues.

He just needs to take it one step further. Just meet with all of the Opposition. The Conservatives have been able to act like a majority government simply because of the divided Opposition. Understandably, different parties will approach issues differently, and the Opposition does not have to always walk in lockstep. However, with regards to the premature prorogation of Parliament, this is one instance where all of the Opposition must act together. If prorogation is used too frequently, the legislative branch of the federal government will be rendered much slower, more inefficient, and less responsive.

Harper has already scuttled over 30 bills before Parliament, including the government's own anti-crime legislation. He has also disregarded the convention of proroguing Parliament only at the end of a legislative session.

In order to show Harper (and future Prime Ministers) that this will not be tolerated, the Opposition should act in unison and meet. It may only be symbolic. It may end up that they end up working together and preparing for the next Parliamentary session in order to move more quickly (under threat of more frequent prorogation).

Either way there is no harm in all of the Opposition meeting. At worst, nothing is accomplished. At best, public goodwill may be generated, and real work is done in preparation for the next legislative session.

As Wayne Gretzky once said, you miss one hundred percent of the shots that you don't take.

Peace and long life.

BeautifulPeople.com? What the deuce?

2010-01-04T22:36:00.000-08:00

BeautifulPeople.com is a dating site consisting of - you guessed it - "beautiful" people as rated by others on the site. In order to sign up, people must meet certain physical appearance criteria as judged by other members of the site.

The site has banned 5000 people who displayed photographs of themselves after gaining weight during the Christmas break. In my opinion, that seems to be quite ugly behaviour. I'm sure the newly-banned people who showed their photographs were just looking for a laugh or two with their friends.

The site founder said that the site's high standard of beauty needed to be maintained. To be fair, it is his site, and it is exactly what it says on the tin (well, external beauty, anyway). Furthermore, it is ultimately up to individuals to decide what they want.

Still, it is a good time to consider what is important in looking for a long-term significant other. External beauty (already subjective as it is) is ultimately fleeting. People grow old. Finding someone who is a good fit personality-wise seems to be the key. Unlike external beauty, people will also grow wiser over the years, hopefully increasing their "inner beauty", so to speak.

People don't grow old into their thirties anymore, as they did for our ancient ancestors. People now live well into their eighties or more. It might be a good idea to think about the long haul and place less importance on subjective external "beauty" (as judged by people on BeautifulPeople.com, anyway) that lasts only a fraction of a person's lifetime.

Peace and long life.

Something to do while waiting...

2010-01-03T11:33:00.000-08:00

... for the prorogation of Parliament to end.

It is anticipated that Prime Minister Harper will fill the remaining vacancies in the Senate with Conservatives, giving Conservatives a majority in the Senate. Here is a suggestion: write to independent (and other) senators to lobby them to cross the floor to join the Liberal senators. Given that senators are appointed and not elected, there should be no fuss from their "constituents" (not that a senator represents any constituents).

Harper prorogues Parliament for a second time

2009-12-31T13:57:00.000-08:00

Harper has decided to prorogue Parliament again (although it seems as though no one can get confirmation from the Governor General's office).

It is mildly disturbing how one elected member of Parliament (even if it is the Prime Minister) and a supposed figurehead (the Governor General) is able to halt the operation of the only elected body on the federal level (the Parliament).

A few have argued that this is perfectly legal, and by all technicalities, it is. Yes, the executive isn't able to rule by decree or anything like that. Yes, Parliament still holds its legislative power. At the same time, only two individuals have managed to halt any work being done by the proxy will of the people (the elected Members of Parliament). The federal government has basically ceased functioning until the prorogation ends. Furthermore, it resets a lot of work, including bills introduced by government and not yet passed into law (although private member's bills are not affected). The count is 37 bills (or 32 bills) having to be started from scratch.

That is a cause for concern due to the precedent set. Any future Prime Minister of any political affiliation could do the same thing. Normally, prorogation is used whenever a legislative agenda has more or less been completed. Remember, Parliament is our elected federal government. It does work for us, not whenever a Prime Minister feels like Parliament should be doing stuff.

One way to fix this would be to allow Parliament itself to decide when to start and end its own sessions. It may require modification of the Constitution, which would require a lot of support for change. A more permanent solution would be to remove all powers from the Governor General (and by extension, the Monarchy) and leave the Governor General for pure ceremonial purposes only. A change to the Monarchy and office of the Governor General, however, requires "unanimous support" (that is to say, all provincial legislatures, the House of Commons, and the Senate).

Regardless, I foresee a lot of "do-nothing" Parliament sessions for at least the near-future (regardless of whichever political party is governing)...

Peace and long life.

EDIT: The last time a minority government prorogued more than once during their mandate was under Lester B. Pearson's Liberal government. Presumably, each prorogation was after some legislative agenda was completed, given the current outrage, although I can't seem to find anything definitive right now.

H/t to Impolitical for the links.

Attempted terrorist bombing over Detroit: quick thoughts

2009-12-28T12:17:00.000-08:00

Due to pure good luck, an attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253 as it was approaching Detroit failed to cause any harm (except for burns on the attempted terrorist himself, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab).

Given that this was a failure of airport security (and possibly of the FBI and CIA, although it is hard to say at this point), one would think that the logical response would be to spend more money to beef up airport security and police forces with better equipment and resources rather than continually pour money into the military.

(Sure, money can't buy everything, especially with regards to airport security, which also relies heavily on procedure. However, even simply more personnel will help alleviate the bottlenecks that are appearing as airports react to the attempted bombing. Money poured into research, development, and installation of better equipment, such as tunable THz-frequency scanners, will also help in the future.)

Perhaps some people are more interested in retaliation than prevention, as described here by Dr. Dawg. Prevention may never be perfect, but one must remember that air travel is safe today due to people learning from mistakes made in the past. People will learn from this near-miss as they have from past disasters and near-misses. The worst thing to do now is to overreact.

Peace and long life.

It gets worse...

2009-12-20T09:25:00.000-08:00

... but it isn't surprising.

Short summary: Canadian soldiers try to help an Afghan detainee who is cooking in a holding cell in Canadian custody that reaches 60 degrees Celsius by giving the detainee frozen water bottles and warning Ottawa headquarters about the conditions. Ottawa headquarters initially refuses to allow the detainee to be released and ignores warnings about the detainee's condition.

Although this isn't directly related to the transfer of Afghan detainees over to Afghan custody (where there is a significant chance of torture), it seems to be quite indicative of how little the Canadian government really cares about the treatment of detainees. The Conservatives, however, are quite happy to throw around rhetoric and act indignantly when faced with allegations.

H/t to Dr. Dawg.

Copenhagen: Do it for a better tomorrow

2009-12-18T17:37:00.000-08:00

Here is a comic that says it all. (H/t to Pharyngula.)

Some people look only at the possible temporary economic setback during a transition to a greener economy (never mind the fact that an economic depression is the perfect time for government investment into new industries to increase the flow of money and to diversify the economy). Some people take the anthropogenic global warming as an implied condemnation of their lifestyles, and thus argue against the science with tooth and nail. Some people are too invested in the fossil fuel industry to want greener alternatives to succeed.

At the same time, there are many other benefits to switching to a greener economy, many listed in the comic, even if one disregards the impact of burning fossil fuels to the climate. Not directly listed is the fact that reducing our consumption of fossil fuels will preserve the world's "one-time gift" (as Dr. David Suzuki would put it) for other uses as they may come up. (For example, many plastics are made from fossil fuels.) In a sense, burning fossil fuels has been a quick fix for the developed world's energy needs. Longer-term solutions will rely on renewable sources of energy (at least renewable when ignoring far future events, such as the death of the Sun, or the likely radiation heat death of the universe).

The monetary arguments for inaction are boggling. Countries keep standing armies and weapons of war just in case, and they cost billions (or more) annually to do little or nothing. (This doesn't include the costs of actually waging war, which is much more... like hundreds of billions.) The scientific consensus is that the world is slowly advancing toward a climate change catastrophe, whether it occurs fifty or a hundred years from now. One would think that the threat of an impending global catastrophe would be enough to spend money to avert (by changing our lifestyles and going greener) or prepare (through new geoengineering methods). A military may not ever go to war (although it may be employed for peacekeeping) but costs billions. War only causes death and destruction, but costs hundreds of billions to wage.

Why does trying to avert a potential climate catastrophe not deserve significant monetary investment?

Canada is not even considered to be a nation serious about dealing with climate change anymore. Why does preserving one precious resource (tar sands and oil reserves) trump the development of other precious resources (lots of land, lots of wind potential in many places, many rivers, etc.)?

Peace and long life.

Take many small steps quickly... Copenhagen or bust

2009-12-13T07:07:00.000-08:00

Today, I discovered a blog on the BBC written by Justin Rowlatt: the Ethical Man blog. Mr. Rowlatt and his family tried to reduce their carbon usage for a year for a television program.

One issue covered in Mr. Rowlatt's post is potential opposition against wind farms in Britain, supported by arguments by Dr. David MacKay. Dr. MacKay estimates the power produced by a wind farm per unit area for an average 6-m/s wind as 2.2 W/m^2 (of land area). The wind potential calculated for those winds is 140 W/m^2 (of swept area). (I kind of wish he integrated the instantaneous power to calculate the energy produced instead, making use the histograms shown here, though. It would have been more accurate.)

Dr. MacKay believes that wind power is insufficient to supply enough energy to cover enough of Britain's total energy usage (not just electricity, but also heating and transportation) to be worthwhile, especially considering Britain's small area and relatively large population. He is known to advocate a massive move toward nuclear power in order to significantly reduce carbon emissions now (while figuring out how to deal with radioactive waste and more environmentally-friendly solutions later). It is not an outright horrific idea anymore (which in itself is depressing), considering that potential catastrophic climate change is likely to occur before the 22nd century rolls around. At the same time, wind power helps. A lot of steps need to be taken together to make a real difference. (Plus nuclear waste is a major negative... and it's not like we have infinite uranium reserves either...)

One thing I should note is that Mr. Rowlatt says that wind power is a "very dilute energy source". True, but one must note that the only reason fossil fuels seem like a concentrated energy source is due to hundreds of millions of years of geologic processes. As Dr. David Suzuki once said, fossil fuels are a one-time gift from the planet, and we're burning it all up (and it's not taking us a hundred million years to do so).

As for Canada, we're in the opposite position of Britain. We have a relatively small population and a huge country. Furthermore, we have some awesome wind potential (based on swept area) in Canada as shown on this wind map. At 80 metres high, Canada has plenty of regions that easily surpass 1000 W/m^2 of wind potential based on swept area (most notably around the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador). Even in the heart of coal-addicted Alberta, there is some decent wind potential (most notably in the Rockies, and a region near Edmonton). Yes, Canada has huge areas having more than seven times the wind potential in Britain.

Even if some locations are off-limits due to ecological concerns, there is still a huge area that can be considered. (Did I mention that Canada is huge?)

The Conservative government has sent representatives to Copenhagen with Canada now viewed as one of the "bad guys" with regards to climate change. The Conservatives (and Ignatieff) regard, at least outwardly, the tar sands as a crucial part of Canada's future and economy. Despite what the tar sands generate, the future does not lie in fossil fuels, and tying Canada to an anchor that's going to be tossed off the side of the boat eventually is silly. Heck, Alberta produces most of its electricity by burning coal (so yeah, electric cars might be worse for the environment in Alberta). The worst part is that inaction will not affect the worst polluters first. It is the people who live on small islands, like the Maldives, who will suddenly find their land disappearing rapidly as ocean levels keep rising.

Instead of thinking about how Canada is blessed with the money-making tar sands, remember that Canada is blessed with so many more resources, as the previously-linked wind map shows. Take advantage of the economic depression, and spend some government money on starting up some green industries, or start some government projects like setting up wind farms (or concentrated solar collectors or whatever). This will rebuild and diversify our economy, reduce our reliance on oil, and reduce our carbon emissions. Many small steps can taken quickly.

The rest of the world is probably looking at Canada and wondering why we seem unwilling to step up when it is quite possibly the easiest for us to step up. Britain wishes it had Canada's size and wind resources for their wind farms.

Peace and long life.

Constitutional crisis, or an attack on democracy?

2009-12-12T11:12:00.000-08:00

Dr. Dawg and Brian Topp at The Globe and Mail point out that with the Canadian Conservative government unwilling to hand over documents pertaining to the transfer of detainees to Afghan officials, despite a passed motion in the House of Commons demanding the release of those documents, the Conservatives are basically putting the executive ahead of the legislative branch of government.

While a lot of media outlets have deemed this as a looming constitutional crisis, the fact of the matter should be simple. The whole of Parliament was democratically elected, which means that the entire Parliament represents the entire populace. In a democracy, there is majority rule with minority rights (in Canada, protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms). The majority of Parliament voted for the release of government documents, which does not violate any minority rights. (Trying to protect cabinet ministers does not count as a right.) By ignoring Parliament, the Conservative government is ignoring the proxy for the will of the Canadian people.

Originally, I was not too worried, as a vote of no-confidence could have resulted in either a coalition government or an election.

However, Dr. Dawg and Mr. Topp are correct in saying that there should not be a need for a motion of no-confidence. As Dr. Dawg states, we should be hearing a lot more alarm bells (from the media, at the very least) than what we have heard.

Peace and long life.

The soundtrack to "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", and beyond

2009-12-11T09:35:00.000-08:00

Trekmovie.com has a nice tribute to the soundtrack of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" as part of their week-long celebrations of the first Star Trek movie.

Jerry Goldsmith was, frankly, an amazing composer with a wide range and willingness to experiment with new instruments and techniques (with regards to "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", the blaster beam). Amongst the Star Trek films, Jerry Goldsmith's scores crowd the top soundtracks in the film franchise ("The Motion Picture", "The Final Frontier", "First Contact", "Insurrection", and even "Nemesis"). His work outside Star Trek was also outstanding. (Two very different and effective soundtracks for two very different movies from the top of my head include "Mulan" and "The Omen".)

Aside from the movies (Star Trek or otherwise) that were blessed with Goldsmith's music, the Star Trek franchise has been lucky to have good to excellent music for all of its movies.

Death of the public option?

2009-12-10T16:51:00.000-08:00

Approximately 46 million Americans are unable to afford health insurance, and tens of thousands of Americans die annually as a result. After much caterwauling by Republicans and some Democrats, the government-run public option for low-income Americans appears to be dead.

The new idea is for non-profit insurance options that will be administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). That seems like a more convoluted solution, and it would still leave out more people than a public option. They are non-profit options, but they will still require people to pay money to cover costs (which was a major point of contention with regards to the public option... the use of taxpayer money).

It's mildly better than nothing, but somehow, I suspect that tens of millions of Americans will still be left without health care in the end... Minimally-costing health insurance may still be too expensive for some people.

Hopefully, health care reform will arrive in the U.S. to the benefit to everyone, rich and poor, in the future. A triggered public option, in case insurance companies don't participate in the network of OPM-managed insurers, is still on the table. For now, though, it looks like incremental progress seems all that is possible.

Peace and long life.

President Obama picks up the Nobel Peace Prize... awkward timing...

2009-12-10T07:34:00.000-08:00

President Obama has picked up the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. Coming off the heels of a 30000-soldier troop surge in Afghanistan, the "ironing"... well, it burns.

To his credit, Obama has acknowledged that his "accomplishments are slight" with regards to promoting peace in comparison to previous winners as well as those who "toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering".

Obama also referenced the fact that the U.S. is fighting two wars:

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries – including Norway – in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

It is well-known that the U.S. invaded Iraq on flimsy pretenses. What is somewhat less known was that the U.S. may have possibly averted the war on Afghanistan as well if it had been more open to negotiation in the first place. The Taliban had actually been willing (almost desperate) to hand over Osama bin Laden and his high-ranking associates in order to preserve its rule over Afghanistan. Indeed, the atrocities committed by al Qaeda on September 11, 2001 were significant and caused nearly 3000 deaths. At the same time, one must remember that the attacks were carried out by a relatively small number of criminals and terrorists, who may have been given up by the Taliban with more negotiation. Raining death and destruction upon Afghanistan reeked more of revenge, and it actually gave a chance for Osama bin Laden to escape in the chaos. Eight years later, Osama bin Laden and most of the high-ranking members of al Qaeda are still free. Ultimately, the problem was that the U.S. government didn't even try to negotiate for bin Laden's extradition... they went straight to war.

While no one can argue that the Taliban was a repressive regime, the current Afghan government is effective only in major cities while most of the country is still controlled by warlords. Furthermore, the current Afghan government (even in its limited range) functions more like a "tyranny of the majority" than a real democracy (majority rule with minority rights) given the disparity in rights given to males and females.

Obama also invokes the Second World War in his argument about the necessity of war as an option, although he does note the disproportionate number of civilian casualties with respect to military ones:

And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

Defeating Hitler and the Third Reich ultimately ended the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity. Defeating the Japanese Empire prevented the continuation of crimes against humanity across southeast Asia. Those are the undisputed good that came out of the Second World War.

At the same time, the Second World War is an easy out when used as an example. Hitler was itching to go to war with nearly everyone in continental Europe (Poland to take back the territory ceded by Germany in the Treaty of Versailles, France to avenge the loss in the First World War, the Soviet Union because of the Communists, etc.). Hitler also declared war on the U.S. after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. As for Japan, it wanted an empire (like the European powers at the time, most notably Britain and France), and the U.S. was a potential competitor, so it preemptively attacked Pearl Harbor. The U.S. didn't have to start a war with the Third Reich nor the Japanese Empire: it just had to respond.

Had the Third Reich and Japan limited their crimes against humanity within their borders and not declare war on anyone, would anyone have stepped in to stop them? The answer is probably not. Japan had already been committing war crimes in China for years before Pearl Harbor (the Nanjing Massacre being a major example, and others like the bombing of Chongqing). The U.S. responded with trade embargoes and a small American volunteer group known as the "Flying Tigers" (which actually first saw action only after December 7, 1941 due to the length of training). The British offered some planes to the Chinese, and the Soviet Union offered a Soviet volunteer group until the Soviets and Japanese signed a non-aggression pact. With regards to Nazi Germany, one should also take note of the fact that the U.S. refused (or made it as hard as possible for) Jewish refugees desperate to flee the Third Reich prior to and during the Second World War. In particular, the S.S. St. Louis was turned away from Canada and the U.S. (amongst others) in 1940, only to unload its passengers in Belgium, the Netherlands, the U.K., and France. Those in Belgium, the Netherlands, and France were unlucky enough to be trapped and subject to the Holocaust after Germany invaded.

One, though, should also remember the lesser war crimes committed by the Allies as well, such as the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo (not even mentioning the atomic bombings).

Drawing on the Second World War as a crutch for the "war is needed" argument is flawed. Germany and Japan (and the other Axis powers) were the aggressors, and they were defeated. (It's a valid argument for keeping a military around for deterrence, though.)

Escalating the war in Afghanistan, which is what a troop surge will result in, no longer has any point. No one has any clue where bin Laden is, nor does anyone know where al Qaeda operates from anymore. NATO cannot dictate legislation that will result in equality for women. NATO cannot purge corruption from the current Afghan government. NATO cannot diminish the power of the warlords. Ultimately, NATO cannot eliminate the Taliban. Aside from the unknown whereabouts of al Qaeda, all of the other problems facing the NATO mission requires societal change. That cannot be made through force. Reducing poverty will help as well, since people with something to live for will be less easily converted into becoming insurgents. Unfortunately, poverty abounds when warfare goes on.

It's time to negotiate with the Taliban insurgents and withdraw. That will give the civilians of Afghanistan a chance for peace.

Peace and long life.

Handy list of other indicators of global warming

2009-12-09T17:15:00.000-08:00

Here is a nice list of non-temperature indicators global warming (and potential consequences of delaying action).

H/t to Mentarch.

Depressed about the state of the world... (rant)

2009-12-08T05:57:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, I really needed that tribute to "Star Trek: The Motion Picture". On the whole, "Star Trek" (the original series), "Star Trek: The Next Generation", and the Star Trek films pushed a positive humanist vision of the future: any problems can be solved rationally by people, and anyone we meet in space will mostly be rational. Working together, people can create a utopia. Personally, I needed that detour into what may be...

... because "what is" sucks. I have three examples illustrating the point. (I have many more examples, but this will have to do for today.)

Responses to the Ecole Polytechnique massacre:

Going back to the Ecole Polytechnique massacre, read this for some accounts of disturbing reaction to the 20th anniversary. In short, some people were celebrating the killer rather than remembering the victims. The killer was, for all intents and purposes, a terrorist before the term became popularized: he tried to achieve some societal or political gain (trying to stop the inroads women were making into a male-dominated world) through violence. What would these people who celebrate the killer feel about celebrating a terrorist? What would these people who celebrate the killer feel about denouncing remembrance of a terror attack?

The problem with these people who celebrate the killer is that they don't see the murdered (and injured) women as people who lost their lives in a meaningless attack. These people who celebrate the killer see the victims only in terms of being detrimental to their political beliefs. This in itself speaks volumes... and it doesn't paint a very flattering picture (to put it extremely mildly).

To put it less mildly, it is sickening... absolutely disgusting.

The vitriol shown toward feminists (and just women in general) is disturbing... Beyond just remembering those who died in the Ecole Polytechnique massacre, the fight against misogyny must continue.

Climate change "controversy":

I wanted to write about the unrelenting attacks on scientists, and how I would have felt if I was in their position. Unfortunately, I couldn't even fathom my reaction. It's already hard enough getting back standard reviewer responses to a submitted paper (and they are usually pretty tough). Also being attacked by those less qualified (not saying that they can't be qualified if they did the sufficient work and research... but generally, they don't) would be unbelievably stressful. And when those who attack have vast resources, it just becomes just that much more difficult.

It becomes even worse when pseudo-science is thrown out to fight legitimate science. One example that comes to mind is the "warming Sun" theory. It is indeed true that the Sun will on average radiate more energy over time as it depletes its hydrogen and converts it into helium; however, the Sun's rate of change is not nearly rapid enough to explain the rise in temperatures over the past century or so. This is shown by observed stratospheric cooling accompanying tropospheric warming: the same amount of energy is delivered to the ground, but the greenhouse gases trap more energy in the troposphere rather than allow the energy to radiate away into the higher levels of the atmosphere.

Here is a reminder of the "manufactured doubt" industry, and how it fought hard against links between smoking and lung cancer, links between CFC emissions and the ozone hole, and links between fossil fuel burning and global warming.

Heck, even "climate change" seems to be a construct of those who don't like the phrase "global warming".

It's depressing how people are happy to accept the fruits of science and engineering when they result in nice toys and gadgets and conveniences. When scientific findings imply that people have to change their ways for the better of the planet and the longer term, scientists are dismissed as being part of some great "conspiracy" and the like. So, are retreating glaciers, thinning and retreating Arctic ice, giant icebergs breaking off of Antarctica, and rising ocean levels (amongst many other indicators) the result of warmer or cooler temperatures? It seems pretty obvious.

Afghan detainee transfer by Canadian soldiers:

Politicians fight hard for their jobs rather than try to find out whether something is going wrong and trying to prevent future war crimes from happening. Outright lies are spewed. These people are supposed to represent Canadians.

As usual, the Conservative government will ignore the passed motion for a public inquiry. It would, however, be possible for a non-confidence motion to be passed, a coalition government to be established, and then a public inquiry to be called. (It would be highly unlikely, though, given the general lack of cooperation between the opposition parties.)

The American populace, according to a survey, now condones torture by a slim majority, which is absolutely disgraceful. Hopefully, Canada is not on the same path.

Well, I'm done ranting for a day, even though there is much more inequality and injustice in the world. Much work has to be done for a better future...

But right now, as far as I can tell, our world looks like it is the road to Star Trek's mirror universe. Don't make it so.

Peace and long life.

That sense of wonder: "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" turns 30

2009-12-07T21:32:00.000-08:00

It was only recently that I was able to find time to read again. In particular, a few weeks ago, I was reading The Mammoth Book of Mind-Blowing Science Fiction, edited by Mike Ashley, who tried to choose stories that would convey a "sense of wonder".

Taking each "Star Trek" series and film into consideration, it is clear that the one movie that stands out as conveying (or at least trying really hard to convey) a sense of wonder is "Star Trek: The Motion Picture". December 7, 2009 is its thirtieth anniversary.

SOME SPOILERS FOLLOW:

Sure, it has flaws pointed out by various detractors. It is sometimes referred to as "The Motionless Picture" due to its slow pacing. Compared to the movies of its time, it is at impulse while other movies are at warp. It is sometimes referred to as a ripoff of the "Star Trek" episode "The Changeling" (although, it is like saying that "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" is a ripoff of "Hamlet" since both deal with revenge... the similarities between "The Changeling" and "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" are superficial).

At the same time, it offers a true sense of wonder in its antagonist: V'ger. V'ger is literally shrouded in layers of mysterious mathematically-generated patterns of energy, which (being 82 astronomical units wide... the distance from the Sun to Neptune!) hides the object at the centre. Even the object at the centre is so huge that the Enterprise never gets to see the entire object at once. Only glimpses of giant alien structures are seen. The viewer is (hopefully) left wondering about what amazing beings could have built this vast object... only to then learn that V'ger is approaching Earth in order to return to its creator. Who (or what) on Earth could have created V'ger?

The Enterprise, refitted into the most modern starship, is marveled at near the start of the film and then is shown to be completely insignificant next to V'ger. Still, V'ger eventually needs a human person to accomplish its ulterior motive.

Finally, V'ger wins. (No, really, if one thinks about it, V'ger does win.) At the same time, everyone else wins. The film ends on a hopeful note.

Seriously, "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" is the last "Star Trek" film that portrays the universe as a mysterious place where things that are not well understood can still be found. (Honorable mention goes to "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier", where the Enterprise is hijacked and travels to the center of the galaxy to find "God", only for "God" to be killed by a Klingon warship. Finding "God", the climax, and denouement were the letdown, but the build-up in the movie was relatively good, despite its other flaws.)

In the various "Star Trek" series and films, the heroes are shown to be the masters of technology and their corner of the universe, where (generally-speaking) the Federation slowly expands peacefully through diplomacy and exploration (kind of like a more effective United Nations in space).

"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" simply reminds the viewer that the universe, while not being overtly hostile (keeping with a key "Star Trek" theme that the problems in the universe can be solved rationally and peacefully), has more to offer around the corner than just another "nation" in space. It reminds us to keep looking, keep learning, and keep wondering of what may be.

Peace and long life.

Ecole Polytechnique...

2009-12-06T06:26:00.000-08:00

... massacre occurred 20 years ago.

It is a time to pay respect to the dead by remembering the 14 women who were killed, by working to prevent it from occurring again, and fighting misogyny wherever and whenever possible.

Peace and long life.

Concentrating solar power (CSP) for home

2009-12-05T08:17:00.000-08:00

Historically, electrical power generation on a large scale has relied on getting a turbine to rotate, which in turn rotates a connected armature (wire windings) within an unchanging magnetic field (typically permanent magnets). (In motor terms, the armature would be the rotor, and the magnetic field would be provided by the stator.) Getting the turbine to rotate often involved (in fact, still involve) the burning of fossil fuels in order to boil water. Steam then pushes the turbine. Later the steam is collected later in the loop, allowed to cool, and then returned to the water reservoir. More modern and renewable alternatives are found in hydroelectric dams and wind turbines.

A major exception that comes to mind is solar power generated through photovoltaic cells. Instead of taking mechanical power and turning it into electrical power, photovoltaic cells absorb photons to excite electrons (assuming the photons are of sufficiently high frequency). Commercially-available solar panels tend to be of relatively low efficiency (<20%), although far more efficient solar panels are being researched and developed.

Concentrating solar power (CSP) takes us back to our heat-a-fluid-and-then-have-it-flow-around-in-a-loop roots. Well, not exactly, and not always. Steam turbines are indeed used for solar thermoelectricity, but CSP has also been used on air turbines, photovoltaic cells, molten salts, and Stirling engines (described surprisingly well in Wikipedia). CSP is also being looked at as a way to desalinize ocean water into freshwater (very necessary as freshwater supplies continue to dwindle and ocean levels continue to rise).

In general, concentrating solar power is still more efficient than solar power from photovoltaic cells (ignoring possible future next-generation photovoltaics). Given the noisiness of a wind turbine in an urban setting, and the low efficiency of commercial solar panels (combined with the fact that this is Canada, with limited hours of sunlight already), I've always wanted a miniature CSP generator to play around with.

Amazingly, Sopology has a portable parabolic trough-style CSP generator. Additionally, they have a rooftop-mounted product as well.

Equally cool (or hot) and infinitely cheaper, if one is looking simply for a solar-powered heater to help keep costs down during a Canadian winter, is a self-made heater made partially from old soda cans.

Finally, I'm not sure how many people know this, but the bottom curve of a soda can is typically parabolic in shape. As such, if one can find soda cans that are not dinged up, a person could hypothetically polish the bottoms of soda cans until they are reflective and then build an array of parabolic mirrors. You never know what you could build... just think MacGyver...

Peace and long life.

Online petition for a public inquiry into the transfer of Afghan detainees despite warnings of torture

2009-11-30T17:01:00.000-08:00

It's time for the Canadian public to know everything about this mess.

Here is the link to the petition.

H/t to thwap.

EDIT (December 1, 2009): The House of Commons has voted 146-129 in favour of a public inquiry. H/t to Impolitical. As I have opined before, it's unlikely that the Conservatives will call a public inquiry unless it's right before an election in order to avoid discussing the topic on the campaign trail. Still, the Opposition is on the right track.

The so-called "climategate" cover-up

2009-11-28T04:59:00.000-08:00

It's pretty common knowledge by now that there is one particularly embarrassing e-mail hacked from the CRU: one where a "trick" (which is, in mathematics, engineering, or science, just a way to refer to a neat solution to a problem) is used to "hide the decline" (referring to the divergence of tree ring proxy data from the measured temperatures starting in 1960).

So, is this a case of covering up some nefarious giant conspiracy? It's actually extremely easy to find out if one is a university student. I'll now go through papers through ISI Web of Knowledge [v4.7] - Web of Science as though I was a new graduate student who new to a lab that studies climate change.

Here is thus (dun dun dun!) my first live blog of any event: me reading through research articles! Think of it like reality TV, except through blogging, with fewer insults, and a lot more exciting! ;)

1) Search "climate change" in the Topic field.

Become incredibly depressed at the fact that I have no clue what anyone is saying in most papers. Realize that despite all that hard work in undergraduate studies has done little to prepare someone for actual research. (No, I actually didn't do this, but trust me, this is what every new graduate student feels like. Eventually, though most grad students do make good use of the work habits and some skills learned from undergrad.)

2) Search "Mann M*" in the Author field, "Nature" in the Publication Name field, and 1998 in the Year Published.

Since Dr. Michael E. Mann is the one being targeted, I'll look at his paper.

Well, the name of the paper is "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries". That already screams out the reason why direct temperature records are insufficient, unless there was a worldwide record of temperatures dating back to 1400.

Mann et al. are already discussing "multiproxy" records (i.e. data from multiple sources, including tree ring data, ice core samples, coral, etc.). Direct temperature measurements are available only from 1902 onward. (In this paper, the data ends at 1995.)

So far, much of the paper goes into describing assumptions necessary to reconstruct the temperature record before 1902. Assumptions of largely linear relationships (you'll see this in many papers), that a sparse number of proxy data sets that are widely distributed will be enough and will capture out-of-measuring range events (such as the El Nino/Southern Oscillation), and that variations in proxy data will have analogues to variations in the temperature records from 1902-1980. Due to the duration of the multiproxy data (600 years), it is safe to assume that statistical reconstruction methods will be sufficient since most temperature cycles occur over the span on the order of a decade (hence, there will be multiple repetitions of temperature cycles over 600 years).

Now, he describes what causes the variations in the multiproxy data. There are five sources that account for 30% of the variations. The first is obviously the overall global warming trend (modern day). The second is the El Nino/Southern Oscillation. The third is the North Atlantic Oscillation. The last two are multi-decade variations in El Nino and the Atlantic basin.

Now, it seems to me that this "hiding the decline" is silly. If one looks at the "hockey stick graph" (Figure 5b), the plot shows the mean of the ACTUAL MEASURED NORTHERN HEMISPHERE TEMPERATURE DATA from 1902-1995 (mostly a mess with the reconstructed, reconstructed 50-year low-pass, and error lines, but still clearly visible after the reconstruction line ends at year 1980). Surprise, surprise, but the mean of the actual recorded temperature is going up.

Also of note is the reconstructed 50-year low-pass line: low-pass doesn't mean "lowering the temperature displayed" or anything like that. It refers to a low-pass filter to get rid of the noise in the data (since noise is high frequency and will not pass through the filter). Just to get that out of the way.

What probably happened was that Dr. Mann was faced with an incomplete data set for the tree-ring proxy data after 1960, given that the extrapolated temperature from the tree rings diverged from the data obtained from other proxy sources (as well as, you know, the actual temperature). As such, Dr. Mann just filled in the blanks with the actual temperature so that he could finish the demonstration of his technique.

To me, this paper is mostly about introducing the technique of using multiple proxies to extrapolate the temperature record. The temperature reconstruction itself is almost secondary. The tree-ring data could be replaced with some other proxy source if desired, and a new reconstruction could be made using the multiple proxy technique.

Scientists have already expanded on Dr. Mann's work with more extensive temperature reconstructions using far more proxies in far more locations. Other scientists have gone on their own way with other techniques. Guess what? Despite variations in the reconstructions, the one consistent theme is the rapid increase in modern day temperature.

-------------------------------------------

That's it for now, I guess. It's pretty easy to refute the "hide the decline" claims by just looking at Figure 5b (with the mean of the ACTUAL MEASURED TEMPERATURE plotted from 1902-1995). Furthermore, the tree-ring data is only one proxy source, with other proxy sources (such as the ice core samples and coral growth) used for the temperature reconstructions. I'm still happy that I read the entire paper, though. Learning new things is never a bad thing.

Still, the paper is over a decade old (even though it is a high-impact paper). Perhaps I'll live blog yet another paper reading one day... a newer one with the latest science.

Peace and long life.

War is the ultimate failure

2009-11-27T08:02:00.000-08:00

Death, destruction, disease, horror... that's what war is all about, Anan. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided. But you've made it neat and painless - so neat and painless, you've had no reason to stop it, and you've had it for five hundred years. - James T. Kirk in "A Taste of Armageddon"

People have the ability to communicate and cooperate with one another to solve problems facing humankind as a whole. In light of this, the leaders of a nation must consider war as the ultimate failure, regardless of eventual outcome:

1) failure to preserve the lives of a nation's citizens (which includes military personnel)

2) failure to preserve the lives of the opponent's citizens (all lives are important)

3) failure to preserve the world's limited resources (used for destructive instead of constructive ends, not to mention destruction of resources and infrastructure due to fighting)

4) failure to use time for better purposes (time is wasted on destroying, when the world's problems go unsolved)

5) failure to communicate with or understand the opponent, as well as sowing seeds of mistrust and hatred, thus increasing the likelihood of future failure at communication

As Kirk once said to the mirror universe Spock in "Mirror, Mirror", the problem with war is the "illogic of waste". War must always be remembered as failure, a dark and lasting blemish in history.

-------------------------------------------

It is downright bizarre how some view war. For example, the Conservative government increased the combat role of Canadian troops in Afghanistan shortly after it came to power. This significantly increased the likelihood of Canadians killing Afghans and increased the likelihood of Canadians being killed. This was supposed to bolster Canada's standing in NATO somehow (for some obviously misguided reason).

War is glorified when it should be abhorred. In real life, war should not be a game with a scorecard with spectators cheering at from the sidelines far from the action, yet this is exactly what happens.

It takes a certain level of bravery to be a soldier in a warzone, but it should never have to happen. Some politicians (and some "spectator" citizens), colloquially known as "chickenhawks", are far too willing to take advantage of the reflected "glory" of winning a war without taking any risk to themselves, the way the Moon's brightness is just the reflection of sunlight.

And I really mean without taking any risk. Most wars that Canada and the U.S. have participated in have been/are fought on faraway continents, far beyond the reach of any significant counterattack. Fighting a war, at least to those at home, is largely neat and painless.

This is why people must remember the people on the other side and the reasons why war is a failure.

It takes bravery to be a soldier in a warzone, but it also takes bravery for a government to be willing to work with another government, overcome differences, and be willing to be challenged. It's easy (in fact, cowardly) to send someone else to kill others due to challenges that one is not willing to work to overcome.

A military should simply be a deterrent, never to be used unless all else has failed.

Peace and long life.

Take Harper's "hard ball" and run with it

2009-11-25T08:04:00.000-08:00

The Conservatives have their preferred witness that they wish to present to the Afghanistan Special Commons Committee flying back to Canada. David Mulroney is supposed to be ready to testify on Thursday regarding the handing over of Afghan detainees by the Canadian military. Unfortunately, the committee is unprepared due to the lack of documents from the Conservatives. Right now, the committee is refusing to hear testimony from David Mulroney precisely because they are unprepared.

Unfortunately, it plays right into hands of the Conservatives, who wish to make it seem like the opposition is only looking to discredit the Conservatives by cherry-picking witnesses. Already, certain media headlines (though not necessarily the content of the articles themselves) are already sensationalizing this crooked sleight of hand.

One way out is to take the ball and run with it, as suggested by Mike-D's comments to the "Harper's last stand" post at Dawg's Blawg. Then, follow up David Mulroney's testimony with testimony from expert witnesses from Amnesty International or the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (for example).

Regardless, the opposition must push hard for a public inquiry.

Drawing on simple analogies commonly used in Star Trek, consider a situation where a police officer is approached by a person who says that there was a murder and that he knows where the body is. The officer asks another nearby person, who says that he was not aware of any such murder and that the first person was making stuff up. One would hope that the officer would at least check out the claim to see if there is anyone reported missing, or perhaps see if there is a body where the first person claimed.

It's the same here. If the government cared about the issue and was interested in getting to the bottom of these "serious allegations" (as Peter MacKay would put it), the Conservatives would be more cooperative. The Conservatives say they will do as the committee asks, but they are making it as hard as possible for the committee.

Perhaps it's just my cynicism showing, but I don't believe for a second that a public inquiry will be called until just before an election call. I also don't believe that things can't improve in Afghanistan in any meaningful way anymore (whether there has been any meaningful improvement at all in most parts of the country since the war began is still up to debate) with Canada's continued presence while politicians rage on against one another.

Not much real hope right now... but hope for a better future is all that is left.

Peace and long life.

The gradual dissolution of democratic discourse, and health-care reform

2009-11-24T17:33:00.000-08:00

The August town hall meetings regarding health care reform are already infamous for their unruliness, with people resorting to shouting others down in order to deny them their freedom of expression. A town hall meeting in Illinois, where a woman is heckled while trying to relate her story of the death of her daughter-in-law, is just the most recent example.

Firstly, the same as I was in the summer, I am astonished by the lack of empathy. Furthermore, even ignoring the crassness of the hecklers, the obvious attempt to prevent democratic discourse is evident. Ideas cannot be discussed. This is just a tiny step above silencing dissenters with force.

The leader of the hecklers (colloquially referred to as "teabaggers") claimed that the woman's story was simply derailing debate about the actual health care bill. However, when consistent with the larger body of evidence, anecdotes give a human face to a problem, and this is the case here. There is no denying that 47 million people have no health care coverage in the United States due to their low income.

Finally, why the heck was it necessary for the teabaggers to be hurtful to another human being? Just let her finish, and then continue with the debate (if that was what they were truly interested in). Sheesh.

The public option is far from perfect. It will offer coverage to only 31 million of those 47 million uninsured. It acts only as an alternative to other health care insurance plans and doesn't enable universal health care. There is also that silly amendment that denies coverage to low-income women who require abortions.

There is plenty to debate. Unfortunately, instead of debating the actual pros and cons of the bill, though, too often it is the misinformation that gets tossed about. (The hysteria is unbelievable when the solution is so simple. Don't like the public option and can afford a better plan? Then buy a better plan from an insurance company! Heck, you can do that in Canada!)

-----------------------------------------

I have no idea on how to restore the democratic discourse to a useful level. As such, I turn to Star Trek.

In the Star Trek episode "Miri", Kirk has to negotiate with nearly-ageless children for the communicators that they stole from him. As he tries to talk, they keep chanting "blah blah blah" loudly to drown him out (sound familiar?), until Kirk snaps and yells "No blah blah blah!" (hence my username). Eventually, after beating Kirk for a bit with clubs, they listen to him. Why?

In the episode, the reason was due to contrition and the realization that they were being as brutal as the "grups" (grown-ups) that had terrorized them before the grups died from disease... plus the episode was coming to an end, and two-parters were not common in the 1960's... but what if all the ageless children did was shout down Kirk? Would they have ever become contrite and listened?

As far as I can tell, as long as the hecklers aren't violent, they will see themselves as being correct in their actions (despite their obvious crassness and lack of empathy). All the while, they will be eroding the democratic discourse... and eventually end up being the poorer for it.

Peace and long life.

How can one man supposedly be the cause of so much evil?

2009-11-23T16:41:00.000-08:00

The theory of evolution is, like any other scientific theory, simply an attempt to understand how a part of the universe works based upon observation. No more, and no less. It was an explanation built around data and has been corroborated by more data as time went on.

Evolution has been pretty consistent with the workings of the little part of the universe that it describes, just like general relativity, quantum mechanics, electrodynamics, etc.

During the theory's existence, evolution has been derided and demonized by a very vocal opposition. As of late, this demonization has only increased. Terms like "Darwinists" and "Darwinism" are thrown around to make it seem as though mainstream biologists are following the cult of a single personality. (The current understanding of evolution, of course, is the culmination of the work of many biologists over many years.) In particular, Ray Comfort's recently-released abridged version of Origin of Species has an added introduction (written by Ray Comfort himself) that links Darwin to the most infamous atrocity of modern times: the Holocaust.

Evolution does not describe a human way of life just because it is based upon observations of life in nature. It does not tell people how to treat other people. "Social Darwinism" was a flimsy excuse used by those who supported the abuse of greater power (such as those who supported European imperialism) by trying to give their cruelty the legitimacy of science.

Ray Comfort is simply going the other way. He attempts to remove the legitimacy of evolution by tying it to those who used their power for cruelty. At the same time, he ignores the death and destruction people have inflicted onto other people for as long as history has been recorded.

Here's an analogy: consider a crime where a man murders a child. This evil act mirrors an action that happens in nature: adult male lions and bears often kill cubs. The murderer is the one who is responsible for the crime, not biologists who publish research articles on the behaviour of lions and bears. In the same way, how can evolution be blamed for the actions of people who can think for themselves?

Adolf Hitler was evil. Enough said.

-----------------------------------------

In the second season of Star Trek, there was an episode called "Who Mourns for Adonais?" in which Captain Kirk says to Lieutenant Palamas:

... we're the same. We share the same history, the same heritage, the same lives. We're tied together beyond any untying. Man or woman, it makes no difference. We're human. We couldn't escape from each other even if we wanted to. That's how you do it lieutenant, by remembering who and what you are: a bit of flesh and blood afloat in a universe without end. And the only thing that's truly yours is the rest of humanity.

There is a great diversity of people across the world, to the point where wars have been fought over these differences (and not just competition for scarce resources). Yet, from the scientific study of genetics, people across the globe really are not all that different from one another. We are one big family. That is enough reason for us to work together for a better future for all of us.

Peace and long life.

"Out there, thataway!"

2009-11-23T16:20:00.000-08:00

Captain Kirk was starting the newly-refit Enterprise's first full shakedown cruise, but it also applies to where my attention is most of the time: in some vague, undefined location.

No bloody A, B, C, or D... but there will be plenty of F's, given my lack of blogging experience. Hopefully, whoever bothers to read this blog will enjoy their stay.

Peace and long life.