Towards World Peace

Apparently peace is spreading around the world.

Let the Games Conclude

I loved the Olympics. I stayed up until 4 A.M. local time to watch the Closing Ceremonies with a bunch of folks. I adored the volleyball, I religiously watched the basketball, and I complained when that moron sideswiped the marathon leader. I like the ceremonies, the entertainment, the thrill, and the excitement.

Yes, you may think that I am a sap. But my argument is, so what if the Olympics have a significant "entertainment" component?

It's Your Future Survey

Being the conscientious Albertans that most of us are, and knowing that several other such Albertans read this blog, I thought I would direct you all to the Province's "It's Your Future" Survey which the government will supposedly use to help determine what future surpluses will be used for.

You can fill out the survey here.

Thanks to Andy Grabia for directing me to the site.

It's time to play "Guess the Partisan Affiliation"

Guess the partisan affiliation of the MP who said the following:

"[Name of another MP]'s infantile outbursts appear to reflect a pattern of bigoted, extremist behaviour and [name of this other MP's party's leader]'s reluctance or refusal to deal with bigotry within his own caucus sends a signal that either encourages it or at the very least permits it."

The speaker, as most of you have doubtlessly guessed, is Conservative MP Stockwell Day, who is speaking about Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish's (accurate and fair-minded) remarks on George W. Bush. I trust that readers of all political stripes should find this amusing.

If You Build It, They Will Come

So I'm told that there are these things called Olympics at which people, like, compete and stuff. I wouldn't know, because I've been assiduously avoiding the TV for the past few weeks. But at any rate, a bunch of my friends keep saying "Wow, it sure sucks that we're not getting more medals. We need to spend more on Olympic athletes!".

First, I don't think that the notion of a country winning medals, as opposed to a bunch of athletes winning medals, makes any sense, but I've long since accepted that I'm in the minority on that point.

But let's examine the second contention: that more money should be spent to send a few people to a week-long party/orgy/competition to get pieces of metal. The typical justification that my friends give (having long since given up trying to convince me about national pride etc.) is that it encourages young kids to get active, thus reducing the obesity epidemic and so on. I'd suggest that maybe it makes more sense to give ordinary people opportunities to get moderately active rather than spending it on relatively few high-performance athletes who will likely be active (albeit perhaps not full-time and at the same level of competitiveness --- though since I don't care about national pride, I really don't care whether or not athletes nominally representing this country are competitive) regardless of whether or not my tax dollars pay them.

It strikes me that, given that demand greatly exceeds supply for things like, say, indoor soccer field time, or ice time at skating rinks, that it might make more sense to spend money on addressing these insufficiencies first. Since the amount of money going into amateur sport seems to be more or less capped by the fact that it doesn't seem to be a public priority, it seems to me to make sense to cut Olympic funding to pay for more rinks, more field[s] of dreams (pace W.P. Kinsella), and to subsidize little league fees for poor families. If, on the other hand, you're going to increase funding as a whole to amateur sport, it strikes me that you should still put that money to mass sport as opposed to elite sport, at least until all the demand for mass sport is satiated.

Now, one of my friends, in particular, claims that the Olympics inspire kids to want to play sports, and points to the massive increase in womens' hockey over the past few years, claiming that the addition of womens' hockey to the Olympics caused this. While this may or may not be true, she further claims that it's important that national teams be competitive in order to draw kids. As a rebuttal, I offer into evidence the abysmal ranking of the Canadian mens' soccer team: over the past decade, they've only rarely been over 50th in the world, more usually languishing in the doldrums below 80th. During that same time, however, the ranks of those playing soccer have increased dramatically. One can make the same point about alpine skiing, where the top-rated Canadians on the World Cup circuit are somewhere around 20th.

The kids already want to play: you don't need to convince them by having Olympians doing their stuff every few years. You need to give the kids the ability to play, first. Cut funding for the Olympics, and build soccer fields, build cricket pitches, build baseball diamonds, build skating rinks, and subsidize registration fees. That's the way to get the kids active.

Why I Don't Use $50 Bills

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Now, it seems that there is some controversy regarding the proposed depiction of the "Famous Five" on the back of the new $50 bill. The main point of the article is, that yes, the Famous Five did alot of nice things, but they were racists and bad people so they are not deserving of such an honour. Now, while a number of good points are made, this strikes me as all very ironic. It seems to me, if we're concerned about honouring people with dubious records relating to racial equality and harmony, we should be more concerned about the fellow on the other side of the 50.

Where the Boats are Swifter than the Voters

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is it wrong that we on this side of the house are more concerned about Mr. Kerry's unwillingness to make any sort of substantive policy statement on matters domestic or foreign than we are about just where on the bravery-cowardice spectrum he fell many years ago in a situation that none of us have ever faced?

Just wondering.

More Moore

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Via The Associated Press comes news that Simon & Schuster will be publishing a book by Michael Moore, to be entitled The Official Farenheit 9-11 Reader. Those of us on this side of the House who have seen the movie and read Dude, Where's My Country? can perhaps be forgiven for the impression that that was the official Farenheit 9-11 reader.

Miscellaneous Round-Up

A few items that amused me recently:

POIfriend Spencer Keys is bemused at one of the decidedly not work-safe results of googling for information on Bentham, Mill, and the problems of utilitarianism.

At best tangentially relatedly, I must recommend John Barnes' series of books dealing with the problems of integrating isolated cultures into a galactic metaculture, which starts out on a bleak utilitarian paradise, if you will. The books are A Million Open Doors, Earth Made of Glass, and The Merchants Of Souls.

Finally, in a nice little coincidence, POIfriend Jesse van Herk started work at WeSellBooksOnline today.

Love of the universe

I just have to remind everyone that British Columbia had a premier named Amor de Cosmos. Isn't that cool? I wish all politicians had funny names, but instead we're stuck with Paul Martin and Stephen Harper. Stockwell "Doris" Day was pretty funny, but we all know what happened to him...

Maybe we could prevail upon Paul Martin to name himself...what? Spam Chris (email) with your suggestions. Let it not be something snarky or satirical or testifying about Paul's character, but rather just a randomly amusing name for him to have. Remember, Chris is there to be spammed.

UPDATE: Chris sends me this link, containing much more detail on the colourful life of Amor de Cosmos. Of particular amusement is this:

After four months of this type of villification Governor Douglas tried to muzzle the Colonist by invoking an old British regulation under which editors and publishers were obliged to post a large cash bond as guarantee that they would not break the law. The Governor announced on April 1, 1859, that the newspaper would have to put up $3,000.00 immediately or suspend publication. De Cosmos knew that this was no "April fool" joke and he ceased publication temporarily. This apparently brought a popular reaction in his favor, because three days later, at a public meeting, the amount demanded by the Governor, was subscribed in amounts of $25, $50 and $100. The paper was back in circulation in a few days and as De Cosmos wrote: "this was to enable the Colonist to lay barer still the rascality that was done under the guise of government and under the sceptre of Governor James Douglas."

Busy; le choix pour ou contre CHOI; no more referenda?

Alas, Mr. Speaker, as Minister for Mandos Affairs, I have been developing a rising deficit of responses to my fellow members in the Opposition benches, particularly to the Member for Steve Smith. But I have been busy in ministerial work outside this House; I fully intend to return to them at some point in the future.

The Olympics and Government Support of Amateur Athletics

Many people complain about the commercialism surrounding the Olympics. Personally, it's never bugged me. What does bug me is that the Olympics is no longer about true amateur athletics.

Most obviously, professionals in sports such as basketball and tennis are now allowed to compete. However, the government supporting of athletes to compete in the Olympics bugs me as well.

The Olympics are supposed to inspire us to be all that we can be, to push ourselves to achieve more, and to excel. And to do this, not because we have to, but because we have an intrisic desire to be our best. Athletes working hard to hone their skills and improve their game should inspire us to follow in their suit.

Committees

Last month, the Students' Union's Committee for Council Reform and Progress asked me to give my comments on the Students' Union's committee system and to give my thoughts towards its reform.

Seeing as many of those involved in the University of Alberta Students' Union read this blog, I thought I'd post the document here for everyone's perusal.

Oh, and because I'm sure you'll ask, the answer is 14,196 words.

Modelling doesn't always involve absurdly thin women

Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Mandos is quite correct to state that economic policy is set primarily on ideological grounds. Indeed, the fundamental question of macroeconomics - the question of how resources ought to be distributed within a society - is almost the basis of all ideology. Should resources be distributed in accordance with needs, or on the basis of merit? Should resources be exploited in the present to ensure maximum economic growth, or should they be left unexploited for future generations, even at the expense of present economic growth? These are ideological questions, and they are questions at the root of any economic policy. Anybody who asserts that economic questions can be settled without recourse to ideology is more full of bullshit than the proverbial constipated heiffer (we have some strange proverbs in Peace River).

The economics of whoop-ass

From this babble thread on the relevance of Marxism, near the end:

And N.R.Kissed, you've increased your number of unsubstantiated dismissals of economists to two in one thread. You've now reached your quota. A third time will buy you a big can of whoop-ass.

A)Would it be possible to express that formula as a function?

B)What exactly is the price of whoop-ass on the open market or are we dealing again with manufactured demand?

C)As a rational actor why would I be buying whoop-ass when I can get it almost anywhere for free?

Ramblings on XP and Greens

At VanRamblings, Raymond Tomblin wrote recently on how the Canadian Green Party seems to be taking a turn to the centre with its new leader:

Hypocrisy would seem to be the order of the day for Jim Harris, the leader of a Canadian Green party whose corporate ties are in conflict with a global Green movement whose roots extend deep into the global anti-corporate movement. A right-wing agenda which mixes corporate business with green politics — is this what Canadians, and most members of Green Party Canada, are looking for in a leader of an alternative national political party?

Personally, I welcome our new ecologically-friendly corporate overlords a move to the right centre by the Greens: capitalism and conservation are not mutually exclusive, and as someone who's perhaps somewhat on the edge of the libertarian/conservative votespace in Canada, but also wants strong protection for the environment, it's nice to have someone to vote for without having to hold my nose too much.

But it is pure narcissism

The erstwhile king of blog pretentiousness, Will Baude, yet again defends his reactionary and anti-progressive stand on comments. I note, as an aside, that he doesn't seem to have left a Trackback on Soupie's well-justified criticism of Baude's position.

My own position in favour of comments on all blogs, no matter where, is well known to my fellow participants here. I held up Crescat Sententia as an example then, as well. I also delineated in detail my objection to this attitude that everyone should have a pedestal.

So there, Mr. Baude. Pbbbt.

The Least Qualified Critique of the Firewall Report on the Web

Mr. Speaker, it behooves me at this time (and I hope this House will trust me when I tell it that being behooved hurts) to offer my critique of the "Firewall Report". No, I haven't read it, but I trust that the Honourable Member for Chris Jones has gotten most of the points right (though I couldn't actually be bothered to read his entire post, either - just the bullet points. I am *so* cabinet material). Anyway. . .

Firewalls

Word on the street is that the (Alberta) provincial "Firewall Report" will be released to MLAs and possibly the public today. The report is the output of the committee on Strengthening Alberta's Role in Confederation, which toured the province earlier this year, trying to stave off threats to the provincial Tories from the independent-Alberta crowd. I'm told that the report stays far away from recommending following any of Mr. Harper's suggestions in his (in)famous firewall letter. Pity. We'll see, when it comes online....

Update: One hour later, Andy Grabia points me to the press release for the committee report release. Brief summary:

• Continue trying to gut the Wheat Board monopoly
• End federal transfers (CHST et al.) in favour of tax point transfers
• Continue fighting the gun registry
• Continue working with other provinces to repel evil federal intrusions on provincial authority
• Think about maybe not renewing the RCMP contract in '07
• Continue doing Senate stuff, provincial nominees, yawn

In other words, "more of the same". Meh. Not even a recommendation to study having our own pension plan. I am not impressed: this is utter rubbish.

Updatedest: The report's now online and will be thoroughly deconstructed here sometime in the near future. That is all, carry on.

Oh, joy!

Because he was unable to post a decent comment here, some guy named Bill Maude or Mil Waude or something wrote me an email:

You ask, "is CS really so great that we should cry out with joy when they deign to notice one of us?"

Yes of course it is! Crescat is a wonderful blog that all should heed and take notice of! (After all, your very own Chris Jones has had multiple guest stints with us, http://www.crescatsententia.org/archives/2003_07_05.html#001229 and
http://www.crescatsententia.org/archives/2004_06_13.html#003986).

Though where I come from, the saying is "different strokes for different
folks."

Secondly, it is well known that Chris often uses crack; did this Laude guy think that Chris' presence enhances CS's appeal?

Finally, "folks" sounds so insipid.

UPDATE: Fixed the Fafblog link.

On Simpering Sycophancy

Well, a CS mention probably doesn't merit a post, but I've been hearing rumblings that my post count isn't enough so I thought I'd post it regardless.

Really now

Different strokes for different blokes, I think the expression is, but is CS really so great that we should cry out with joy when they deign to notice one of us? Surely their approbation is overrated. OK, the more we are noticed, the better, but still, we don't go around celebrating every trackback with a post, now do we?

Now if one of us were mentioned in the Toronto Star or something, we could perhaps pat ourselves on the back for achieving notoriety---but even then, a big congratulatory post? It's not an award, it's a mention.

Congratulations

Apparently POIer Nick Tam has been mentioned on Crescat Sententia. Good show Tam!

Nader Continues to Crash

You may remember that Ralph Nader refused to be a part of the Green Party's Presidential ticket, but yet he wanted the Green Party to endorse him so that he could get on the ballot in most states at the Green Party's expense. The Green Party (IMHO) wisely nominated David Cobb, a party activist who would work to build the Greens.

Well, Nader didn't get on the California ballot. And now he wants the Greens to dump David Cobb so that they will endorse him.

Didn't Nader learn the first time that the Greens don't take kind to snubbing?

Music and Computers

As many of you probably know, the new version of RealPlayer will enable conversion of songs bought from non-Apple online music stores to a format playable on Apple's iPod and RealPlayer. Currently, most online music stores includes some kind of security feature that prevents a purchased music file from playing on rival's music players. This seems to be a requirement of the record labels so that music piracy won't gut record company profits—each person needs to buy their own music file to play on their preferred player.

The problem is that some people will buy songs from one company's music store, but will want to play it on another player. There are work arounds to this, but they're cumbersome. Effectively what this lack of interoperability is doing is that it's creating a divergence in technology.

Two-tier Justice

Svend Robinson has been given a conditional discharge for stealing a ring earlier this year. This means that he isn't going to have a criminal record, and his only penalty will be community service. This is a very light punishment for stealing over $20,000 dollars. The judge justified it on the grounds that Robinson has already undergone emotional and psychological punishment over the incident.

I recognize that Robinson was likely under stress, that he has a long and distinguised career in public service, and that he turned himself in. However, I have one question:

If a poor aboriginal man living on a reserve had stolen over $20,000, would he have been given only a discharge, or would he have served jail time?

Come Lie Next To Me

I'm sure you all caught the news that the best premier Newfoundland never had, and the best PM Canada never had, the Hon. John C. Crosbie, will be writing a preface to the Hon. Sheila Copps' most recent autobiography. (Note to Mme. Clarkson: make the man a Rt. Hon., for crying out loud!)

One title which I'd be amused to see would be "Come Lie Next To Me", which would not only be a reference to one of their more celebrated contretemps, but also happens to be part of the title of a thoroughly good Apoptygma Berzerk song (a.k.a Kathy's Song), reproduced in part below. As an amusing side note, the song's title uses "Lie" instead of "Lay", which allows for acknowledging that (federal) Liberals, with some exceptions, have a rather disturbing lack of acquaintance with veracity at times. Here, have a free bonus link to on-the-spot reporting of the Liberal convention — erm, coronation.

Oh my love it's time
You know how it feels
You read between the lines
You know me better than I do
I lost again my friend
You know I'm not a saint
You knew it all this time
Still you've been waiting for me...

Come lie next to me

Know why, you and me are one

Come lie next to me

No lies, you and me are one

Unrelatedly, via Colby, a review of The Day After Tomorrow written by a paleoclimatologist.

Fifth Estate Scoops Moore

So, I was watching CBC Newsworld earlier tonight, when The Fifth Estate came on. They're on summer hiatus, but they're rebroadcasting shows they did earlier in the season. Tonight's show was Conspiracy Theories, a look at the connections between the Bush, bin Ladin, and Saudi royal families.

Some of you will be familiar with this material as being very similar to that used in the first half of Michael Moore's recent film, "Fahrenheit 9/11". However, CBC managed to, notwithstanding its inherent left-wing elitist Toronto-centric bias (ed: surely you're being soft), present this material with more coherence and in a substantially less polemic manner, which lent it more credence, in my view. Now, as much as I'm a Michael Moore fan (admittedly, based in no small part on Canadian Bacon), I have to say that as a piece of work trying to convince people that it's correct, F9/11 doesn't do a very good job: instead, it's aimed squarely at true believers, and can spend its time preaching to the choir, which I have to admit, it does very well indeed.

When was this episode first aired, you ask? October 29, 2003. As far as I can tell, F9/11 didn't make any substantial contributions to the body of knowledge that The Fifth Estate didn't already add.

Unrelatedly, I strongly recommend the Glenn Miller classic, Pennsylvania 6-5000 for listening. Yum.

PPPOE Is An Abomination

Mandos, supra complains about service from a particular ISP in the Ottawa area. On the other hand, I had a wonderful experience with them three weeks ago when they provided me with unlimited dialup service while I was in Ottawa, for the low, low, low price of $9.95 per month. Not quite as wonderful as when they used to be located two blocks away from my home and I could just walk in and order internet, but you can't expect that to last.

My experience with the inefficient private sector

I will later make use of the Sword of Logic to cut through Steve Smith's peculiar amalgam of non sequiturs and misreadings. But for now I would like to bring your attention to this post by one of the men from La Mancha: My Experience With Efficient Government. There Kevin Brennan extols the virtues of the passport office in its comparatively quick and helpful service.

Just as Mr. Brennan has provided us an anecdote demonstrating how efficient government can be, I will now proceed to deliver an anecdote about how aggravating the service in the private sector can be. Specifically, I am talking about a particular ISP in the Ottawa area (who shall go unnamed) whose services I have used for dialup and DSL for several years now. They used to be a small ISP, and this was good; I got quick and efficient service. I could replace a faulty DSL modem exactly the afternoon I call, on a weekend. I could speak directly to their technicians, who could explain to me precisely what they had been doing to solve my problems (which have been many, but that's another story.)

Now that they've gotten big somehow, all this has changed, and I have recently been living in a two-week [Martha]Kafkaesque[/Martha] nightmare of dealing with a trained-seal tech support service in stupid Calgary who has only very indirect contact with the technicians who actually know anything, and must allow many days to replace new parts because the Ottawa office no longer keeps them in stock. Let me tell you, I am completely exhausted from this saga of trying to get this DSL service to work reliably, and I would have switched to cable a couple of weeks ago if it weren't for a couple of obstacles I will not now disclose. If I could have talked directly to a knowledgeable technician like I used to be able to, I would probably have had to spend much, much less time on the phone with them, trying to convince them that no, my non-use of Windows has no effect on the operation (or lack thereof) of my router.

Now, of course, according to the logic of competition, I should be able to defeat this evil ISP by switching to some other ISP. As their service deteriorates, they'll lose customers, and they'll either have to improve or die. But not so; most of their competitors are as bad or worse than they are. There are too few people with a problem of my complexity, and there is simply no economic reason important enough for them to care that I am seriously annoyed at them.

I have DSL back now, but there' s no guarantee it will stay up for any length of time...

My list is better than your list

To the pain, Mr. Speaker. . .

1. Since definitional debates are worth none of our time, I'll not comment on the question of my faux populism any more except to concede that yes, if "populism" is used antonymously to "partisan", I am indeed a populist of some kind. Mind you, if "Aunt" is used antonymously to "non-caucasian", then I'm an Aunt, my testicles notwithstanding. As to the question of the vagueness of representatives acting in the best interests of their constituents, I think it's a philosophy that is sufficiently time-honoured - and, at the corporate level, legally enforceable - to be clear in its meaning. Of course, until the Honourable Member for Mandos brought his new definition out of left field (er, so to speak), I thought the definition of populism was fairly well established as well, so what, Mr. Speaker, do I know?

Words, Words, Words

... some are good, some are bad. POlloI Nick Tam spent the past few days Scrabble-blogging at the National Scrabble Championship in the Big Easy. Worth a read if you're hooked on the opiate that is Scrabble.

There's No Way Of Knowing

From the Toronto Star comes an article by the titleAlert No. 6, or just another scare?, by Lynda Hurst that's good (although not surprising / startling) reading:

After so many high-level alerts, or "bright orange" in New York's case because it's been on constant code orange since 9/11, Rosser says the administration runs the risk of triggering either "cynicism, fatigue and unhelpful speculation" — or public panic.

Only France uses a similar colour-coded system but it does so without televised news conferences informing the public. After years of "bitter experience dealing with Irish militants," the British don't publicize every possible threat", says [Kevin Rosser, a terrorism analyst at Control Risks Group in London].

"Instead, they work closely with institutions that may be affected to help them address threats in the least disruptive way possible."

The U.S. approach creates public anxiety, he says. "If the goal of the terrorists is to spread fear and unease, then to some extent (the government) has done the job for them without anybody carrying out an attack."

Crack-based life forms

I would like to recommend, Mr. Speaker, that the Honourable Member for Steve Smith be commended at least for his clear understanding of the important issues facing this House regarding commenting and pseudonymity.

ESP

Check it out: Pickover's ESP experiment. Gets it right with remarkable accuracy. ;)

A partial list of the things about which Mandos is wrong

Before I proceed, Mr. Speaker, I should note that however much it pleases me to see a term I popularized - to wit, "faux populism" - used by somebody who I don't believe I've ever met, its application to yours truly is tenuous at best. Therefore. . .

Are we now looking to trust films as Gospel?

I certainly hope that Mustafa Hirji doesn't rely on any visual medium at all for the enlightenment he evidently seeks. I myself have found little evidence of actual outright lies on the part of Moore to which Moore and his supporters have been unable to respond. I have seen valid charges of funny logic, out-of-contextisms, and so on, but this is par for the course in propaganda, even Good Guy propaganda; any movie that would have pleased me perfectly would not have sold. Be realistic.

But, as usual, my great guru Giblets has the correct response:

See, when Giblets was just a little Giblets, he used to watch Seseme Street. And on Seseme Street, Big Bird used to sing this song while he sorted out objects of different colors and shapes. And he would sing "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong."

And Hitler also pointed out the differences between groups of things, when he pointed out the difference between the pureblood Aryan race and the corruption of international Jewry that pervaded it. So both Big Bird and Hitler talked a lot about differences, and tried to train people who watched them to sort out what was different from what was the same. So isn't Big Bird the same as Hitler?

The Problem with Doctoring

Mandos questions why I object to Michael Moore's doctoring.

Simply put, if he's misleading us about these facts, what else is he misleading us about? He's shown a propensity to lie and skew the truth in his film and I am now unsure what is fact and what is fiction. I can't trust his film. It, therefore, is rendered useless to me as an opinion on politics.

This is analogous to George W. Bush's lying. He's lied countless times (would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, would withdraw the US military from engagements all around the world, that there were, with no uncertainty, WMDs in Iraq, etc.) Unless I have other agreeing and credible sources on anything Bush says, I tend not to trust what he says—he's shown he can't be trusted to be honest. Michael Moore has shown himself to be in the same boat.

What makes Moore's actions more deplorable though is that he didn't need to fabricate his evidence. There's plenty of material to attack Bush with already. He could have taken the high road, been honest, and still shown Bush for the lying politician that he is. Moore could have shown he's better than Bush and put forward a credible, though still biased, piece of political commentary. Instead he decided to put forward a seemingly-fabricated piece of political fiction.

Junior on Junior

FYI, here's Ronald Reagan Jr. on George Bush Jr. in Esquire:

Oddly, even my father's funeral contributed. Throughout that long, stately, overtelevised week in early June, items would appear in the newspaper discussing the Republicans' eagerness to capitalize (subtly, tastefully) on the outpouring of affection for my father and turn it to Bush's advantage for the fall election. The familiar "Heir to Reagan" puffballs were reinflated and loosed over the proceedings like (subtle, tasteful) Mylar balloons. Predictably, this backfired. People were treated to a side-by-side comparison—Ronald W. Reagan versus George W. Bush—and it's no surprise who suffered for it. Misty-eyed with nostalgia, people set aside old political gripes for a few days and remembered what friend and foe always conceded to Ronald Reagan: He was damned impressive in the role of leader of the free world. A sign in the crowd, spotted during the slow roll to the Capitol rotunda, seemed to sum up the mood—a portrait of my father and the words NOW THERE WAS A PRESIDENT.

The comparison underscored something important. And the guy on the stool, Lynndie, and her grinning cohorts, they brought the word: The Bush administration can't be trusted. The parade of Bush officials before various commissions and committees—Paul Wolfowitz, who couldn't quite remember how many young Americans had been sacrificed on the altar of his ideology; John Ashcroft, lip quivering as, for a delicious, fleeting moment, it looked as if Senator Joe Biden might just come over the table at him—these were a continuing reminder. The Enron creeps, too—a reminder of how certain environments and particular habits of mind can erode common decency. People noticed. A tipping point had been reached. The issue of credibility was back on the table. The L-word was in circulation. Not the tired old bromide liberal. That's so 1988. No, this time something much more potent: liar.

That's doctoring?

The previous post, Mustafa Hirji complains that Michael Moore presented a misleading view of a newspaper headline.

My friends, he did not lie about what was in the paper, at least from what I read in the article Mustafa links to. Michael Moore's film is first and foremost a political propaganda film (that I agree with), and he did a fairly minor trick of editing. It's amazing how the little corners that Michael Moore cuts to make an effective movie (not to mention his personality and body type in other forums) become crimes equivalent to constantly misleading the public about a casus belli (among so many other things) and screwing up a major portion of the world in the process.

More Doctoring by Michael Moore

Michael Moore seems to have yet another blatantly misleading bit in his movie.

One would think that with such an easy target as George W. Bush and the Republicans that Moore would be able to make his case without being manipulative and dishonest. It almost reminds me of President Bush arguing for invasion of Iraq.

Because Of The Not-So-Wonderful Things It Does

Geekgirl2 comments at Musings & Ephemera:

Well it does mean that everyone votes (or most people) BUT does it mean their vote counts for something? I'm not so sure about that!

wrt Tim's post (We're off to see the wizard, supra) about compulsory voting down under:

Well, I dunno. I appreciate that voter participation is a key part of democracy, but punishing folks for not voting seems a little harsh. Of course, I'm not sure that bribing voters is the right approach, either. Is a "compulsory" voting process a "good thing" for democracy?

My answer to Tim's question is an unequivocal "no", and my answer to Geekgirl2 is a highly equivocal "maybe".

Ring the Alarum-bell!

So, I see from my perusal of various news sources that the US government is warning of possible terrorist plans to attack up to five financial institutions in New Jersey, New York, and Washington DC (NY Times story, Globe & Mail story). Now, one could take the view that this is a noble thing to do, warning your citizens so that they can take appropriate precautions, and so on....

The Public Has A Right To Know

Pity. Alberta's regional health authorities (e.g. Capital Health) used to be 2/3 elected, 1/3 appointed. This got changed in a reorganization of the authorities last year, such that they're all appointed again.

I'd almost been tempted to run for Capital Health's board, on a "institute restaurant health/safety report cards" platform, à la DineSafe program run by the City of Toronto. The premise is pretty simple: if you pass the health inspection, you get a little placard with a green symbol to put in your window. If you get a conditional pass (you have some health issues to take care of, but they're not serious enough to shut you down), you get a yellow placard. If you get shut down, you get (gee, who'da guessed it?) a red placard.

What brought this on? Mandos pointed me to an article in the Ottawa Citizen:

Restaurant inspection documents obtained by the Citizen show the highest fines over the past two years went to the Shawarma King restaurant at 395 Bank St. and Hong Kong Chinese Take Out at 1-800 Hunt Club Rd., totalling $920 and $1,000, respectively.

The latter racked up six provincial offence notices. In one report, an inspector writes that chicken was being thawed on the floor and a man was smoking in the kitchen while working above food.

"Back doors propped open," the inspector also writes. "Large number of flies in premises and sitting on foods."

The Shawarma King was served with provincial offence notices for offering hazardous foods for sale at internal temperatures between 5 C and 60 C, and failing to provide a hand wash basin in the food preparation area.

Both eateries have been re-inspected and, according to the reports, the problems have been fixed.

Isn't this the sort of thing you'd like to know about before you ate there?

Er, what am I wrong about, again?

That David Anderson or anyone else chooses to work with other people is not evidence of a "non-partisan politics," whatever that means. This is not new. Furthermore, the very fact that there is something after the em dash suggests that Steve Smith is on strange faux-populist crack. So sad.

David Anderson's declaration can also be taken by the cynical to mean that he wants to stick a finger in Paul Martin's eye, due to internal party politics. Second-order partisanship maybe?

Where there are commonalities of ideology and interest, in a Parliamentary system it will always mean that the political party will be the most efficient way to express these commonalities.

Mandos is Wrong

Those of us on this side of the House would like to take this opportunity to congratulate David Anderson on his willingness to work with (gasp!) members of an opposition caucus to stop offshore drilling in Canada's Pacific waters. Rather commendable for an M.P. to understand that he is something more than a lump of hydrocarbons with a partisan affiliation, and more commendable still for one to defend his point of view with almost heretical lucidity by saying "I am not a member of the government - I am a supporter of the government on the backbenches."

Those of us on this side would be congratulating Mr. Anderson with still greater enthusiasm if he'd end the aforementioned quote immediately before the dash, but we've learned to take what we can get.