Saluting Cars

On October 25, 2009 the New York Times published an article titled “Salute All Cars, It’s a Rule in China” by Sharon LaFraniere. The article described a new law requiring that all school children must salute passing cars. The students at Luolang Elementary in Huangping, are seen grinning at the photographer.

The author groups the law with other dubious ones such as the law requiring Chinese citizens to buy a monthly quota of government manufactured cigarettes, and the law requiring the extermination of all dogs in the town of Heihe.

China, more so than most countries, is guilty of having too many hyperactive beureaucrats passing numerous laws that are ineffective, manipulative and corrupt. The thousands of protests annually are a testament to the civil unrest present within its borders. The government’s frequent bouts of nationalism do not help the situation.

Hundreds of responses online have condemned the law calling it pitiful, childish, Orwellian, and stupid. http://www.chinasmack.com/stories/american-school-buses-vs-chinese-children-saluting-cars/

It’s sometime wise to look beyond the ulterior motives and gauge the real effect. Look past the desire to make the country’s youth nationalistic, and more likely to salute a tank in Tiananmen Square. What is the real effect?

Construction workers are required to make eye contact with the excavator operator. It seems that a day does not pass in Vancouver when there isn’t a pedestrian hit report on the radio. In the past three days I’ve come close to hitting people on each one at dusk.

People need to learn respect for those on the road, and pedestrians need to learn respect for the half-ton square of steel coming at them at 50mph. They are far less likely to hurt each other if there is a mutual acknowledgment.

Besides, instead of saluting our cars we give them Bailouts. How is that going to harm our children?

Rob Hajdù

A Scabby in the Abby

Today I witnessed the aftermath of a robbery of a group of tourists outside of Tim Horton's. The man walked up to the minivan where two people had fallen asleep while their family went to get food and silently plucked a bag with their wallets and passports.

Me and my co-workers were parked right next to them at the Whatcom Exit. We probably walked right by the thief. Oddly enough I made a point to lock my door.

I would suggest that one of the authors of Freakanomics, Dr. Stephen Levitt, do an analysis of the crime problem. He has an interesting way of interpreting data, and provides a novel answer to the crime drop in the 90's. Perhaps he can find a solution a little more thought-out than "More cops". No disrespect intended; I am simply pointing out that there are deeper, smarter ways of fighting a war than increasing the number of soldiers.

As a Canadian I wish to express my outrage at this evil act . I hope that you either feel my outrage that this should happen to guests in our country, or at least remain aware of thieves in Abbotsford.

What the BCTF?

Mr. Gates has some wise words in this video clip (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/bill_gates_unplugged.html). All people should consider them, especially teachers who oppose standardized testing.

The BC Teachers Federation is vehemently opposed to data collection via the Foundation Skills Assessment (given to grades 4 and 7) and how it is used by the Fraser Institute. These data are manipulated by the Fraser Institute in various ways to gauge the effectiveness of teachers, schools and the curriculum. Opponents say that some of the claims are invalid and paint an unfair picture of a teacher’s ability.

This may be true but it is the best testing system that British Columbians have; it is not enough. As Mr. Gates suggested, we have to attack the problem of education reform with full-force.

A defensive teachers union, terrified about showing the public that it has poor workers on its roster, is counter-productive and schools like KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program, www.kipp.org/) show a truly innovative and aggressive approach to tackling an important problem of our time. The BCTF should be against the FSA and lobby for a better, more comprehensive test. Give the Fraser Institute something to work with.

The union must take an active role in properly gauging and assessing its members, because the goal is not teacher protection. The goal is to produce educated, and motivated students.

BC schools and teachers need to be tested more often, shortcomings need to be evaluated and solved, and a better overall strategy is needed in our teaching system.

The Fraser Institute is working with what small amount of information that it has, but this is not its fault. That blame belongs to those who would oppose an evaluation and fundamental change to a defunct system.

Look at the issue objectively and consider what is the harm in having additional knowledge about one of the most important social programs in the country. Consider the impact of the testing process and whether it harms students as the BCTF claims. Take a look at alternative forms of education like KIPP and consider.

Conservitism in the US

It only makes sense that the US political spectrum has moved from Left and Right to Centre Right and Crazy (thank you Bill Maher), it has been the most powerful and prosperous country in the world for the last 50 years. Prosperity and power mean that life is good, and there is a direct impetus to conserve. Conserve the way of life. Conserve the easy life.

But at the moment life is not so easy for many people in the US, and they have voted-in a Democrat. There is, however, a resistance in their politics, a lag that is frustrating Mr. Obama and many left wing people. Why, if they are holding all the cards in both houses, is it so hard to get things done? Why is Obama having such a tough time?

Both the Democrats and the Republicans are being too conservative to real change, and clinging to a lost ideal. They only want to make small changes.Why?

The people are still too prosperous, too rich. There simply aren’t enough poor people to demand proper change. Maybe we will see some soon, but the conniption that happened last October was, for the most part, about people losing their computers, cars and ipods. Think about all the horrible things that happened and gauge them against each other:

Houses Lost = Very unfortunate, but you caused it my making a bonehead purchase that you can’t afford.
Solution = Rent and suck it up, take the loss, and make the best of it.

Jobs Lost = 9% unemployment means 91% of people who can, are working. Losing your job is frustrating, suffocating, and demoralizing.
Solution = Tighten your bootstraps, work like a horse to find a job, start a business or join the army. Keep that chin up, keep a roof, a full stomach, and do what ever you can. Survive.

Savings Lost = Billions of dollars lost. Remember that most can still recover and most are not destitute. Very sad, your nest egg is gone; everything you worked for all your life. I feel sad for those who lost much
Solution = Go back to work and slowly rebuild, invest what you can into a smart business, depend on relatives and wellfair.

These are all bad things, but they happened to so few people in the grand scheme of things. Most people are suffering from tough times, and things like: taking the bus, growing your own vegetables, going to the library and playing music instead of going to the movies and playing poker, camping for your vacation instead of flying to Cancun.

Most people lost luxuries, but not even that many.

And that is the crux of it: our luxuries. Cell phone sales have increased, but are they truly necessary? Professional sports players are still making massive salaries (today was unrestricted free agent day in the NHL) so their useless industry is still doing well. If we look around, can we honestly say that things are that bad?

That is why conservatism in the US is still rampant, and strong in the US.

I am: a Canadian, a centrist, a libertarian, a fiscal conservative (I save my money and don’t gamble too much), a social liberal (do what you will, pray if you choose, smoke, ejaculate, and gorge on whatever, whomever, and as much of anything you want. Just don’t harm others or society; gay men getting married does not harm you by the way), and a big proponent of free speech (You may incite hate, but don’t incite violence. If you choose to walk that line we have a Supreme Court to decide your fate if you cross it; this is still a society).

Am I really off-base from normal? I don’t really think so, but then again I live in a city, province and country divided on many issues. We are pretty good in the frozen north of Canada (by the way, a fantastic 28 C/ 82 F today) with our gay marriage, social health care, and congenial attitude. We’re not as big as the US, not really in the spotlight like our neighbours to the south. There isn’t the patriotic perception of the good life that there is in areas like Texas.

I’m not going to pick on Texas, but I’ve seen some rally’s with zealous Republicans in overalls and ball caps listening and cheering for Sarah Palin badmouthing social health care. It is literally a case where some hottie they all feel they can relate to has convinced them that the ability for every person in our society to receive healthcare should not be a right. Like the antagonist in a Teen Movie.

Is it not a noble goal to provide free healthcare? So many other countries not nearly as prosperous have managed to give every person in their society better healthcare for cheaper than the US. Could it be worthwhile to at least try it out? Give health a shot?

That does not fit the patriotic perception of the good life because it is an active societal change (ASC), one that is legislated. Americans hate legislated change. They fear that it will impinge on their freedom so rightly one in World War 2. They are much better at passive societal change (PSC), unlegislated change.

Every large PSC in their society has come from a passive flow, a trend in the population. The drift was shown to be heading towards accepting a black man as president, and thereby accepting black people as equals. Americans all saw color this past election, they perceived it, but the PSC in this case was such that color was not a negative factor for most people (note that active racists are still out there).

Small changes occur everyday, and many Americans and Canadians are so apathetic they do not notice them. Most ASCs are small changes: a tiny bill, an earmark, or a clause. There are few large ASCs, big shifts in legislation and thinking

The large ones only come if there is an impetus: American Civil War = Emancipation proclamation; 9-11 = Department of Homeland Security; Saddam Hussein = Iraq war; Economic Meltdown – $2 Trillion bailout package.

These are significant, and in your face. The last one however, the economy, was only in your face because society has grown so attached to its luxuries that we all freaked out. How can one live in a world without cell phones, ipods, vacations, cars and cheap food?

This was a pathetic freak-out. Nobody is going hungry (except junkies). The American society and system is so strong and resilient that somehow most people still all have the basic needs of life. The US still consumes the majority of the world’s resources.

That is what we all know. The US stills has it good. The threats are minor and mostly manufactured, the people are alive, generally peaceful, and well fed.

FOOD
When the food industry’s practices with one of the basic needs of life become clear and well known change will come. They are destroying the body (read Michael Pollan, In defence of food, http://www.michaelpollan.com/), but the impetus will arrive.

HEALTH
When the negative effects of sedentary lifestyle and poor diet put sickly bodies in the hospital in greater numbers change will come. The number of people without healthcare (40 million) will increase, and the symptoms and illnesses will get worse and become harder to treat. The impetus will arrive

CLIMATE
When pollution, loss of habitat and species, and the destruction of our ecosystem reaches the breaking point change will come. People need to remember that environmentalism is simply a form of humanism and conservatism. Conserve the environment that nourishes you and your children, and humanity will survive. The Earth will do just fine without us, and short of us cracking the planet in half, life will go on, we won’t. Our arrogance in our position within the environment may be our undoing.

Why does over zealous, patriotic conservatism persist? Because life is too good, and politicians exploit or manufacture the fears of a people who don’t really want things to change. Why rock the boat?

Look at it this way:

You’re on a boat. You never thought that you’d be on a boat. It’s a nice day and you have plenty of water, a BBQ, Kanye West bouncin’ with some pigeons in bikinis at the bow. Things look good. Off in the distance somebody says that a storm is coming but the motor is broken. One suggestion is that we all stick our arms over the edge and collectively paddle ourselves out of its path.

But what about the party? What about the fun?

Some people don’t want the party to end but in this world the party has to end. Now the US has a new Captain who also thinks that everyone should perk-up and lend an arm. He’s timidly asking conservatives, and not getting the cooperation. Perhaps the parent needs to be firm with the child. The storm(s) is(are) coming. What to do?

Republicans need to separate issues from threats (ex: Stem cell research versus death of species from consumption of all the resources). They need to stop worrying about issues (gay people simply deserve to be treated equally, it’s a matter of human rights). They need to stop listening to zealots like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin who make careers from playing off their fears.

The Age of Plenty must end. The meaning of Conservatism must change in the US, and in Canada somewhat. Remember the big picture: you don’t inherit the earth from your ancestors, you borrow it from your children (First Nations Proverb).

Prosperity and power are a luxury. Food, shelter and health are a necessity.

My MP

This is my MP, John Weston. I volunteer with him from time to time. If you live in West Van I think that he is an excellent MP. Three things that struck me about him:
-His patriotism
-His energy (also known as hard work)
-His ethical nature.

Whether you agree with his politics or not, it is hard not to admire these traits. I think, that if you are willing to set-aside ideology and just listen, you will see reason, and honesty in the many things he does.

Take a look at the link, challenge him 0n an issue, or on a run. I dare you;)

Tongue and cheek aside, this is simply being written because I think that it needs to be said.

T.Prole

Sotomayor

Sonia Sotomayor has said that her method of making a Judgment is different, better, and leaning towards her Latino roots, her lower income roots.

Michael Steel (longtime Republican activist) believes that “We must have a debate about the issues surrounding Judge Sotomayor” and closes with “God help you if you are a white male”.

I think that Judge Sotomayor was telling the truth when

“Court of appeals is where policy is made. I know this is on tape and I should never say that. We don’t make ‘Law’. I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it”

This comment does not show us how ‘bad’ the new supreme court judge is, rather, it shows us how good, how ‘In Tune’ and how honest she is. She is pointing-out a reality in the world of law, and while it is strategically unwise because Republicans have latched-on to this comment, it is still the truth.

How rare it is, and how fortunate we are to have a judge who will tell it like it is. Politicians have consistently promoted their own agenda and have systematically omitted the truth on various facets of our world. Yes, Appeals Court doesn’t make law, elected representatives do. But when you brush away the façade of intention you will see the reality that Appeals Courts do make law. The judgments made in those rooms change our application of current laws, and set precedents for future judgments.

The Law has many ‘parts’, and is observed in many ways to different people. To our elected officials the Law is a political battleground in the House of Commons and Senate (House of Commons is the same as Congress for Americans). To the police the Law is a set of instructions on how and when to do their job. It is a manual. To lawyers and judges the Law is an image through the bottom of a Coke bottle. In the middle the picture is fairly clear, magnified, and relatively easy to analyze. The real good stuff is on the fringe, where the image is distorted and hazy.

Appeals court judges operate on the edge, where the Law is not quite as clear. Sonia Sotomayor was articulating that reality. She has spent her career speaking her mind to articulate that reality. The reality she was describing when she said “…” was the simple fact that we are all a product of our environments.

A Latino woman is likely to vote in the way Latino women would. A white male will vote like a white male. Depending on that person’s character and upbringing will be the extent of the polarization of the judge’s opinion. Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers is an excellent perspective on how nature and nurture work in human society. Latinos are Latinos, women are women, short people are short people, left-handed people are left handed people, and poor people are poor people. These in combination will make one crazy Latino female, who is relatively short,

“In the District Court you’re looking you’re looking to do justice in the individual case, so you’re looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the Law, because the application of the Law is non-precedential. So the Facts control.

On the Court of Appeals you are looking to How the Law is developing, so then it will be applied to a broad class of cases. So you’re always thinking about the ramifications of This ruling in the next step in developmental Law.”

She does not speak Heresy, as some have suggested. She speaks the truth, and takes the political punches as they come. Her tendency, so far, is one of political faux pas, not über left ideals. It’s not as if Obama just appointed Khrushchev re-incarnate. She’s Rosie Perez in all her glory.

I think we just struck another blow for free speech, and proper truth, not platitudes and political rhetoric. Her voting may be more in-line with Democratic ideals, but they may also get a nasty surprise if she thinks for herself.

TP

And on a Side note, George HW Bush kissing the reported on the cheek was sweet, and good for him for skydiving at 85.

The Next Step in the Iraq/Afghan War

Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan altogether. America will never control these countries and should stop wasting lives in the attempt. What gain is there beyond imperialism? Perhaps these are regions too costly to occupy and make profitable change.

Afghanistan is an act of vengeance that is politically unsavory, because we should realize that revenge might not work. It may do more harm than good but no politician but Ron Paul is willing to say “Give Up”. None has the moral fortitude to live and let live.

Bush’s act of vengeance in Iraq, his completing what his father could not do, has cost over a million lives. One million faces gone. One millions dreams every night. One million of our own, of our species, gone. These are our people.

Yes they lived under oppression, yes they suffered the cruel hand of a tyrant, yes they suffered the economic sanctions imposed upon them by the West, but they lived. Iraqis still managed to eek-out a living and remain moderately content in that they were fairly unlikely to die suddenly, no IEDs in the trash can, no snipers from the roof, no midnight raids by American troops searching for insurgents.

If Bill Clinton had removed the sanctions placed on Iraq Iraqis would have prospered. A prosperous people are a strong people, and a strong people will depose a dictator.

Americans have forgotten that their ability to defeat the British in the war of independence was partly due to their fury at their own government abusing them, partly due to their hard work and ingenuity to survive on their own with a strong economy to acquire weapons, develop infrastructure and innovate.

An overthrown Iraq would have been a fledgling country in an international community that had huge aspirations to progress with their economy, develop education systems, build infrastructure. If this had been done pre-nuclear technological development by Saddam Hussein the United States would have been relatively safe. Pre Weapons of Mass Destruction. The US was so convinced.

They thought the bomb had already gone off, and started picking up the pieces and solving the crime. Imagine a bunch of guys in white biohazard suits rushing into an outdoor café and start picking up people like they were dead bodies, over turning tables, full of food and dishes and culture, as if it had been the remnants of a bomb only the bomb not had gone off yet. They destroy a scene, strange to us because we cannot understand the culture but a scene nonetheless, and leave children crying, everything broken, and people dead.

I propose that the solution to much of these problems is to stop interfering. Don’t meddle with people, and they may not meddle with you. Be prepared, but for God’s sake don’t kick over the bees’ net to check for stingers. That is called Being Stupid.

What if Al-Quaeda attacks again? Well, we show some resilience, some class, and some dignity, and take a lesson from the British. Keep a stiff upper lip. Don’t let fanatical-few change the way you live. Then terrorism has accomplished its goal by creating terror. If there is a bombing in my city on an airplane, or on a bus, or in a Starbucks, or at a community centre, then I’ll be damned if I’m not stopping for a Grande Medium Roast in a Venti cup (because it’s cheaper) filled to the top with skim milk as I catch the 250 Vancouver after a morning workout on the spin bike, and hope to God I make the flight to Edmonton.

The solution to many of our problems is to not meddle, and to support, and to continue to live our lives as we would. No terrorist should influence our way of life if we don’t want him to.

But what of the Axis of Evil (Circa 2004)?

North Korea may already be too late, because if Kim Jon Il has nuclear weapons, which is likely, then economic prosperity may only strengthen him. I am terrified of North Korea. The people have been oppressed for so long, and have shown no sign of resistance to the rhetoric. What else can the West believe?

Iran is different. Iranians are not in the dark; they have communication to the outside world. There are many Iranians on our continent, in our country, and in my community. I know them as a wonderful people with a rich culture. Elements of extremism are strong in small pockets, but the majority of the people are sane, smart, productive members of our society, and only makes us richer and diverse. In an environment rife with species loss a little diversity and mixing has got to be a good thing.

Us North Americans have our own crazies, from skinheads to gun nuts, to gay bashers, to religious zealots. We have our own share of “special people” and we are still trying to channel them in a more constructive direction. Perhaps we should consider our own drawbacks prior to pointing-out the problems of others. Otherwise we look like hypocrites.

Iraq was a mistake. Admittedly I cared little in the goings on of the world at its inception, and did not speak out. Now that I’ve apologized let us all apologize and be done with it.

The United States cannot escape Iraq. There is something inherent in our nature that tells me that there we always be a US presence in Iraq. I’m not even sure if I’m willing to complain about that either. But why? There is the thought that the country has been tamed. It may be a foolish notion, and it my not be. I simply do not know at this stage.

President Obama must get a large portion of troops out of Iraq, and harm’s way, to satisfy the people of the United States, but 75,000 troops are likely to remain indefinitely. Germany still has about 50,000 troops stationed within. The US Department of Defense implies that this is a legacy deployment from the cold war that has been useful in Kosovo and Bosnia; troops stationed in Germany were deployed efficiently and effectively.

Iraq could become the Germany of the Middle East. The US can now support Israel, and threaten Iran, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and even Saudi Arabia should it suddenly become “evil”. Iraq is a pivotal country for the US to hold and gives it many options to influence regional powers.

This is a big and costly chip for America to hand over to a group of broken citizens. They are just as likely to be courted and controlled by another emerging power like Iran. I simply don’t know what to do. The US fractured Iraq and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men won’t put it back together again.

Afghanistan is a nightmare and it only has a hope of ending once Osama Bin Laden is dead. I make a recommendation to both sides:
- Afghani people: Give the US Osama Bin Laden, his Generals and Lieutenants
- US: Pull out 50% of the troops that existed before Jan 25, 2009, followed by 100% of the troops once you have Bin Laden in you position. Make sure that you follow through with the commitment

Both of these are shows of faith. I propose that the US go first because it can fluctuate troop levels. It can also support and fund Afghani leaders sympathetic to their cause. Afghanistan has only ace in the hole. Don’t expect Afghanis to be foolish enough to play it first.

Once Osama Bin Laden is in US custody and has been extradited to the United States for trial and execution (because that is what it must be) the US pulls-out entirely. I mean no bases, or installations; leave the region. There is no gain and the US is powerful enough to get back in should the need arise. Faith must be given before trust can be earned.

Support the people and make them stronger. They live in some of the harshest regions of the planet and are resilient. You can try to fight them, but they will resist. You can support them, are they may surprise you.

The world is a different place. That is always true. Always. Nothing stays the same and it is always a little different. This is why we take comfort in rituals.

But we must accept that to thrive as one species we must work together and have strategies that allow this to happen. War is a function of the human world, and it has changed as well.

I know why I like Adam Smith. He is the Sun Tzu of our generation. Humanity has evolved and we have become less violent. War has evolved and become economics. Adam Smith’s book The Wealth of Nations is the guidebook to the current level that war has evolved to become.

The playing field of War is no longer large swaths of grassland or vast oceans of sand and sea; it is the numbers of economics, and the connections of cash, product, and technology. The world has changed

It is, and always has been, about competition. Know that, and you understand the basics of human nature, of nature itself. Efficiency rules. It always has, and always shall in nature.

In humanity things are different, more complicated. We are still evolving new sets of values, things that society put a premium upon. They are still governed by efficiency, but we change our direction. The value that Americans put on the death of Osama Bin Laden is significant, but others such as peace, economy, freedom of speech, equality, and the environment are also high. They shall have to make a choice. What is more precious?

Pull out of Afghanistan once vendetta has been satisfied. Pull out of Iraq, forget the oil, and focus on the only real source of energy we have besides geothermal, the sun. Reshape the world. Reshape our conception of its workings and its limitations. Stop killing for the extra inch. Unify the species. Stop War.

Asbestos sold to India

Canadian Asbestos is being sold to India and causing people harm. Melissa Fung of the CBC just reported on Peter Mansbridge that our country, which has banned asbestos because it can not be utilized safely, has been supporting the asbestos industry by donating $20 million dollars.

Ms. Fung questions why Canada is actively removing asbestos from its own House of Commons has deemed it acceptable to sell the product to a developing country that does not have the means to use it safely. Many people are dying right now, slowly and painfully, some required to work to continue paying for medication to treat asbestosis.

This desease causes respiratory illnesses that will cripple someone. They live short, painful lives cause explicitly by working with asbestos. The dust is breathed in and damages the alveoli in the lungs, reducing lung capacity and function. Indians cough themselves to death.

Asbestos is mined in Québec, and thought it is a dwindling industry we keep it alive and even subsidize it. Both the Liberal and Conservative parties have provided funding while in power and I think that it is likely due to the political land mine that is the province of Québec.

The CBC reports that the asbestos being installed in Indian buildings, and may harm the public for a hundred years. It will break the Guiness Book of World Records mark for more people suffering from asbestosis. We are allowing a company from our country to profit from the deaths of these people. We are the only government out of the top 40 industrialized nations to do so. We are morally wrong.

I believe that it is our duty as citizens of this world to put an end to this practice. It is unethical in that it harms others, and hypocritical in that we won’t use it ourselves. This is not a political issue, and if somebody decides to make it one I believe that that person lets other motivations take priority, such as career or financial gain.

We as a nation must be firm. We are a good, decent people, who do what is right. Our place in the world depends on the decisions we take, the ideals that we uphold, and the respect we have for other countries. Canadians put a premium on morality. Let us do so now.

For more information go to http://archives.cbc.ca/ and type in asbestos in a few days to watch the report.

GOYA! Start Listening!

Who's responsible for the Rules of Road?

Recently we have seen Barack Obama in the news speaking in front of town halls and at press conferences saying some rather uncommon things for a president, things like "Wash your hands" and "Don't touch your face." These types of comments are common sense to many of us, so why is the US President bothering to remind the public of these things? Because, as leader of his country, it is his job to guide the people to be safe, productive members of society.

The government has various outlets such as web pages and paraphernalia that say the same things, but it doesn't hurt to have them reiterated by the leader. In fact, if constituents are falling short on their application of "common" sense then it is perhaps not so common and even more crucial that the man or woman in charge remind us.

This thinking applies directly to a little TV spot that the BC Minister of Transportation Kevin Falcon did about a year ago. He was featured driving a car, and showing how slow drivers in the fast lane cause other drivers to get frustrated and drive even more aggressively. I applaud Mr. Falcon for his words and encourage him to do more TV spots. In fact, I believe that as the BC Minister of Transportation it is his duty as our duly-elected representative to "Get out there" and start promoting that "common" sense.

So, in the hope that Mr. Falcon will speak to my fellow British Columbians again, and more consistently, I have come up with a list of rules/common sense ideas that I believe need to be reiterated.

§ Use your turn signal. It is there for a reason.
§ No changing lanes in an intersection. This causes accidents.
§ Use the passing lane (left lane) for passing, and the cruising lane (right lane) for cruising. Not doing so is disrespectful, rude, and causes those behind you to get frustrated.
§ Do not cut in front of trucks that have left a large gap between themselves and the leading car. They NEED this room to stop and without it, will hit YOU in an accident.
§ Bus driver: don’t cut us off. Everyone else: show some respect. The fact that we have a law giving bus drivers the right to do this shows how disrespectful we tend to be as drivers.
§ Nothing is supposed to be on your lap. This includes cheeseburgers and dogs. Your pet is a distraction and obstructs the mirrors.
§ Focus on driving - don't text, apply makeup, shave, pick up kids' toys or surf the web while behind the wheel.
§ The solid white line for the HOV lane means stay in your lane - don't weave in and out - it's safe to change lanes when there is a dashed white line.
§ Don't stop your car on the train tracks (just to be closer to the intersection); stop an appropriate distance from the tracks.
§ No handheld cell phones. These are a distraction. Use the speakerphone or Bluetooth, because you’re supposed to have two hands on the wheel.
§ Change to the left lane when cars are merging into the right lane on the highway. This is an act of courtesy that we all deserve.
§ Trucking corridors are for trucks. Recognize this when you share the road with them because they are integral to our economy and keep the cost of your iPods, diapers and cereal low.

None of these common sense rules are numbered because they are all equally important.

A quick word to the police: I understand that catching speeders is easy and an objective way of giving a ticket, but that does not address many of the problems. I encourage you to give tickets for these other infractions, even though they are subjective, because they make us safer. Please use your discretion, but let’s uphold the spirit of the law. Referees in the NHL give out Interference calls, and so should you.

We should not be surprised, insulted or ashamed when our leader of transportation reminds us to be safe, courteous and respectful to each other in the hopes of furthering efficient transportation in our province. It's his responsibility.

The Canada/US Softwood Lumber Agreement

The Softwood Lumber Agreement

For a quick look at the issues scroll down to The Bottom Line...

When NAFTA came into effect on January 1, 1994, it held the promise of Adam Smith’s dream in its framework. Free trade, like Natural Selection, is a beautiful concept in its simplicity. It elegantly allows economies to maximize output, efficiencies and profit, while minimizing costs for the overall benefit of all.

A little on Free Trade
The uncomfortable downside to Free Trade is that as economies become more efficient sometimes a sector in one country is diminished and increased in another country. If the Japanese make a better car for lower costs than the Americans they will steal the market share. This makes many US autoworkers mad, worried and uncomfortable, and they lobby for tariffs to be imposed on Japanese car importers.

Free Trade is fair, even though it may be uncomfortable. The reality is that if somebody does a better job at creating something, like a car, that person deserves to be in business and the other person deserves to be out of business. The bottom line is that the consumer gets a better product for less money, the Japanese car maker makes money, the American car maker goes out of business, and the worker does something else that he/she is good at.

A poorly adapted organism does not survive if it can not compete for resources with another organism that can. A for-profit company does not deserve to be in business if it can’t compete in the market. This harsh reality is difficult for many people to accept.

Do what you are good at. Cro-Magnon (Homo sapiens) replaced Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalensis) as larger cranium capacity provided a evolutionary competitive advantage. Toyota, Honda and Nissan have replaced GM, Chrysler and Ford as fuel efficiency, reliability, hybrid-technology and lower costs have provided an economic competitive advantage.

What makes Darwin’s Origin of Species and his theory of transmutation (the first name given to evolution) so successful is its simplicity and elegance. The most productive organisms are those that have adapted to the present environment. Those unable to adapt are removed from the food web. If GM, Chrysler and Ford find a way to adapt they may survive the current environment, even thrive.

What of the Logging Industry in British Columbia? What is the current environment? What features are poorly adapted? Why is it dying?

BC Forestry
In BC we are good at logging. We farm logs, replant them, and have innovative ways of manufacturing the wood.

The BC Forest Industry is decimated, but not because it has been unable to adapt. The Munroe Report from a few years ago essentially gave management several powers that allow the industry to remain competitive. BC Forest companies received the rather reasonable adaptation of being able to change and adjust the workers shifts to avoid waste, travel time and over-time payments. The IWA (the union), which has now been bought-out by the United Steel Workers (USW) because so many workers lost their jobs, was fervently opposed to the ruling. Whether or not these measures are deemed fair by the average person the union was legally forced to accept the Munroe Report, and the USW has re-accepted that provision in the most recent negotiations because of one simple fact: If they didn’t adapt then the Forest Industry in BC would have died.

In British Columbia we have various forces, market and social, that either impede or promote economic success, but in the end we have indeed adapted in many ways.

Why then, are we still dying as an industry?

The Argument
The US breached NAFTA and imposed tariffs on BC forestry companies as a result of the US Forestry lobby.

The American Argument: Canada breaches NAFTA because it subsidizes BC companies. They therefore deserve a tariff.

The Canadian Argument: Canada does not subsidize, it is just that the Crown owns all the forests in Canada, and can set the stumpage prices lower (American Forests are privately owned). The Americans have imposed an unjust tariff.

This has gone to international court many times, and each time Canada has won over the past 15 years.

The New Softwood Lumber Agreement
Before the agreement was signed by then Minister of International Trade David Emerson, there was a duty of 10.8% charged on unlimited volumes, paid to the US by Canadian lumber exporters. This was a breach of the NAFTA agreement. (note Atlantic provinces were exempt – deemed not to be subsidized: greater private ownership of timberland; these were hardship provinces, had low volumes of exports, i.e. not a threat).

The NAFTA judiciary panel ruled in favor of the Canadian Government time and time again. The Softwood Lumber Agreement was signed 2 weeks prior to the NAFTA panel rejecting any further appeals by the US Government. Essentially it was pushed through on politically greased wheels by the Harper/Bush administrations.

Why?

The US saves face, and money for the US Forestry Lobby. The newly elected Canadian administration scores an apparent ‘Win’ for Canada, and stronger ties with the Bush Administration.

Canadian companies received 80% of the $5 billion owed to them, even though the NAFTA panel ruled multiple times that the US must pay the full amount.

Many people consider 80% of something to be better that 100% of nothing. But there’s a twist.

The new deal still requires BC Forestry companies to pay a duty, but this time the money is collected by the Canadian government, rather than the US government. Provisions within prevent Ottawa from redistributing the funds back to the forestry companies.

The new deal is complicated, based on the price of lumber in the US. (There were one of two options for each province to choose (and when chosen not switch). BC and Alberta chose “Option A”.

Option A
Lumber Price = Over U$355 Tax Rate = No Tax
= U$335 - U$355 = 5%
= U$315-U$335 = 10%
= Under U$315 = 15%

OptionB
Lumber Price = Over U$355 Tax Rate = No Tax
= U$335 - U$355 = 2.5% + 34% of US regional market share
= U$315-U$335 = 3.0$ + 32% of US regional market share
= Under U$315 = 5.0% + 30% of US regional market share

Current price is under U$315.

With the current economic crisis, companies operating in Canada now pay 15% tax instead of a 10.8% duty. They are worse-off than they were before. Even American companies operating in Canada are unable to survive and compete with companies operating in the US; examples include Weyerhaeuser (one of the world’s largest forestry companies), AbitibiBowater, and Pope & Talbot.

We are left with a situation that has nearly sunk the BC Forest Industry, yet financially it makes no sense for the Canadian government to rescind the deal because it keeps the cash. The provincial and federal political issues are very complex and are hamstrung for ways to help the industry without incurring the wrath of a highly aggressive US Forestry Lobby. Further, BC companies have farming licenses that require them to log a minimum amount therefore they cannot cut production to save on variable costs. The BC government is also trying to have the tree licenses turned back in order to give more to First Nations.

The Bottom Line…
---BC Forest Industry is owed $1 Billion.
---The tax/duty is now higher (15%)
---The international courts have ruled that Canada was always in the right and the US was violating the trade agreement.

The Canadian government sold-out the forest industry and painted it into a financial corner. BC companies are afraid to complain, and many back the deal in hopes of not rocking the boat and keeping the $4 Billion. This is not Free Trade, it’s government intervention, it’s giving a competitive advantage to a less productive company. As a result BC Forestry is dying. Adam Smith and Charles Darwin would be appalled, and so should we all.

TP

Many thanks to Csaba Hajdu for assistance with the numbers

BC Paramedics

You are playing a hockey game and an opposing player slides into the boards at high speed and breaks his leg off at the top of the skate. The blood pool spreads remarkably fast as half-naked hockey players stand in a circle watching you pack the wound with their jerseys. There is nothing to do but wait.

Neighborhood kids are racing their bikes down the street when an unaware driver opens his doors, causing one child to flip over his handlebars and land on his head. He is unconscious and his friends are hysterical. There is nothing to do but wait.

You're rollerblading along one-way path of the Stanley Park seawall at top speed when some clueless tourists on two person bikes come wobbling around the corner run you off the wall. Stumbling over into the intertidal zone you suddenly find yourself helpless, tumbling down the rocks. As you pick yourself up with curious tourists peering over the edge, all you feel is white hot pain; your ankle is shattered. There is nothing to do but wait.

We wait for help, we wait for Paramedics. They arrive calmly, walking as they bring order to chaos. I have depended on them; we all have depended on them at some point in our lives.
When you call 911 the first question the operator asks is "Police, Fire or Ambulance." If someone is hurt the ambulance arrives to help the injured yet for some mysterious reason paramedics are compensated less that Police or Fire.

Paramedics train for 12-18 months. They often work long shifts of 12 hours. They are our first responders, and our first line of defense to help the injured. Paramedics are an essential service and BC has some of the most dedicated in the country because they get paid the least.

There is a shortage of paramedics, and our level of service is dropping. With an increasing and ageing population, response times have increase. Paramedic service should be improving because it's essential, to all of us. So what is the problem? Why are there fewer paramedics joining the cause? Why are more paramedics leaving the service?

This is because they are under compensated for their education and for the work they do. Paramedics truly love to help people, to save them. They work for the love of the job, for the excitement, and for the chance to make a difference. Those who have left (I know a few) or have refused to sign up, I fully understand because I'm one of them. As a former lifeguard I thought long and hard about joining, but knowing the compensation, it just wasn't in me. Those who have stayed or recently joined (I know quite a few) have my admiration.

When a paramedic is on call for 24 hours he or she makes $2 an hour. After being on call, ready to bring the necessary skills and equipment to save a life, this selfless worker receives $48 before taxes. Not even the pay of a full 8-hour shift.
Starting Paramedics work for $15/hr, and serve for 5 years before making a decent wage. They can't start a family or buy a house on the peanuts that they make.

This situation is unfair, and crucial to us being able to receive prompt service. All people, the poor and the rich, need paramedics at some point. They bring order to chaos. They help the injured. Their counterparts make much more than they do and we have a shortage in BC.

This issue is about BC residents being able to receive an Essential service. How many selfless heroes can BC have? Why must we push our current heroes to their economic limit? There is nothing for them to do but wait.

We must now help them.

The website http://www.saveourparamedics.com/theissue.php can provide greater detail.

Weightroom Etiquette

Weightroom Etiquette...

 

Etiquette in the weightroom is often lacking. Here is what a polite, considerate gym rat does:

 

1) Wear proper clothes and shoes - Seems like a no-brainer but there's always some shmo in jeans or loafers. 

 

2) Bring a towel. It protects you from the dirt on the benches. Even if there's disinfectant it adds a layer of protection. Plus, if you go to get a drink of water no one takes your spot.

 

3) Never impede another person's workout. This means don't stand aimlessly in front of the free weight resting or chatting or doing dead lifts. 

 

4) Keep your voice down. If I can hear you over my iPod then there's a problem with you, not me.

 

5) Don't wear cologne or perfume to the gym. Seriously! We'd like to be able to breathe. 

 

6) Come to the gym relatively clean. If you're sweating Old Stinky Sweat then you need a shower. Fresh sweat doesn't smell unless the bacteria on your skin have had time to breakdown your secretions and release their odiferous byproduct.

 

7) Don't smoke a cigarette before working out; it smells. Are you crazy?!?!

 

8) The gym is for working out, not a social club. If you want to have long discussions the go to the coffee shop and get out of my way.

 

9) Get educated! Don't come down and copy other people or overload your weights. Proper form prevents injuries, and me from cringing when I see your moves.

 

10) Don't block the mirror. It is used for ensuring that you have a proper form; not watching your muscles grow in real-time.

 

11) Be willing to work in with others. Be nice and share.

 

12) Be flexible. If your favorite machine is busy, be prepared to use another.

 

13) Men: Stop ogling at the women. Nobody likes a pervert

 

14) Women: If you don't like ogling, don't wear Lulu Lemon. You still don't get the right to have a Women's Only Zone. Gender discrimination works both ways and we all pay the same fee.

 

15) Staff: Show some backbone and enforce the gym rules. You are paid to supervise and manage. If someone gives you grief, send him or her to me.

16) Don't start physical fights

17) Don't ignore, insult or berate the staff. They don't deserve it, and you're probably wrong if they're talking to you. accept it.

18) Don't leave your 100 lb dumbbell on the otherside of the gym for the female staff member to put away. Return the dumbbells back to their proper spot. I shouldn't find a 25lb in a 35l

19) Don't drop the dumbbells. It breaks them, and doesn't look tough, just pathetic.

BC STV

As my first post I will discuss a topic that directly affects me: the way I may choose.

I am a resident of British Columbia, Canada. In our province we are currently in the process of voting for our Premier. When we vote this coming May there will also be a referendum on How we vote. The Citizen’s Assembly is proposing that we change our current system of First Past the Post (FPP) to create a more proportional method of voting, thereby creating a fairer system. Is proportionality truly fair, or is it how we humans perceive fairness?

The BC Single Transferable Vote (BC STV) gives minorities a voice but creates a dysfunctional government.

The basic premise is that if your first choice doesn’t get voted in or already has sufficient votes then your second choice gets counted, and then your third choice.

This system truly creates proportional legislature more indicative of a cross-section of the voters in the province. I shan’t explain the math because it is lengthy and verbose, but you can access a helpful video at http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/flash/bc-stv-full.swf.

With this system of voting ridings are grouped and the number of MLAs (Member of Legislative Assembly) remains the same. Proponents of the system hope that by increasing the proportionality of the legislature people will feel that their vote counts, and that this may in turn encourage greater voter turnout. Personally I agree with this assessment and voter turnout will increase at first.

Unfortunately there are a number of problems with BC STV; however, proponents of the new system of voting say that they are negligible or false. I wish to argue that the objections are in fact valid, and in the interest of fairness should be addressed accordingly.

Trust
BC STV is complex, and that leads to confusion. Proponents say that it is not confusing, but the general lack of understanding that I have encountered indicates to me that it is. Slogans such as “Power-up your vote” sound good, but they do not adequately explain the system.

A confusing system creates an element of distrust in the political system. The people may not trust their officials, but they must trust in the system under which they vote. Trust is very hard to build, and very easy to break. Trust is far more important than a feeling of satisfaction, which is essentially all that BC STV provides.

Imagine Election Night: Peter Mansbridge would explode trying to understand the numbers. What of us Proles? In close races it is entirely possible, if not likely, that there will be an increase in litigation because of losers disputing the result. Do we really want to open the Pandora’s Box that is legal battles for MLA seats? Al Franken just spent many months trying to sit as the Senator for the Minnesota. The legal issues and waste of taxpayer dollars is a grim reminder that even FPP can lead to tight races and complex counting methods.

A pitfall in BC STV includes the minimum number of votes needed. This number varies per riding: (valid # of votes cast/ (number of seats +1)) +1. This formula is used to determine the threshold of votes each seat winner must receive. Where did this formula come from? How do we know that it is correct? Are we expected to simply trust the government that the minimum number is appropriate?

There have been allegations of corruption made regarding the sale of BC Rail. How can we trust that an even more complex system is free of corruption when our current system already has those elements? How will the voter turnout be affected by an increase in corruption and scandal?

Satisfaction
You are meant to feel satisfied that your vote counted, to feel like you have a voice. Remember that you and I have always had a voice. But there is definitely a problem because many feel that their voice doesn’t count. They feel like there is no point in voting, and that may be the cause of declining voter turn-outs.

BC STV is a system promoted by those who try to satisfy everyone; those who weep for the underdog and the disenfranchised. They would do well to remember that convoluting a system into disfunctionality is no solution, and that being a member of the majority gives little solace.

Statement
Many of us are Statementers, those who choose to make a statement with their vote: this person votes in a way that doesn’t lead to an MLA being elected because that person has such a slim chance of winning. Rather, they choose someone based on any number of criteria to show the establishment that support some exists for their position.

This is called “wasting a vote” and it’s yours to waste. That’s the beauty of a free society is the freedom to choose and the freedom to speak. But don’t be fooled into thinking that a statement vote deserves more credence. It’s a wishy-washy, feel-good, cop-out vote.

You don’t get to make your statement and then have a second choice because you were being ridiculous. You only get ONE vote, one check in the box. That is fair.

The Minority
BC STV will give smaller parties more of a voice because of the proportional representation, but they will have more power than they normally would because they would become the deciding factor on many votes. The larger parties, eager to form government would cater to them. Is this truly proportional representation when your MLA makes concessions to a much smaller party to simply beat the next most competitive opponent? It recently happened with the Bloq Quebèquois and the NDP in our federal parliament.

A minority government is not something to be desired. Stephen Harper has managed to accomplish many things, but at great taxpayer expense and politicking. He has weathered a coalitionist government; he has catered to various parties, and is still in power. The Prime Minister said during the coalition scare that he would actually like a chance “to govern”. There are examples of functional minority governments, but they are inefficient and costly.

Proponents of BC STV wish that every party that runs has a voice, but this is simply unreasonable. Take the recent election for the Israeli government: It is exceedingly confusing to elect a leader because of the multiple parties. Once a party reached a minimum number of votes, as in BC STV, they automatically received a seat in the 120-member Knesset (the Parliament). The largest party, Kadima only received 28 votes and spent an entire month catering to the smaller ones just so the government could sit down. They lost to the Likud party who won a paltry 27 or the 120 votes.

A whole month spent just so a party with 22.5% of the vote could start to govern!

This waste of time and money is unacceptable. The long, drawn-out process of an election is further lengthened by a cornucopia of bickering. Further, the Knesset has become a hotbed of corruption, with representatives exchanging hidden benefits with each other. Is that the atmosphere we British Columbians wish to foster?

Once we vote in this system, it will be very difficult to modify it if any proposed changes make it harder for small parties to receive seats. They won’t vote against their own existence.

The real problem
The problems with our current system are many, but they are underlined by a single issue: the Party System. The reason that the current lack of proportionality leads to perceived failings in fairness is that we allow our government to be formed (Premier and Cabinet) by the party that wins the most seats. This doesn’t always lead to a proportional legislature because the number of people in each riding varies, and if one party keeps coming in second place, it still gets no seats despite a high combined percentage of votes.

Independents struggle with funding and name recognition, while those who choose to tout the party line benefit from the strength in numbers.

The solution is to make everyone an independent. Do away with funding, group campaigning and branding. Make each MLA candidate run alone and independently, and make entry barriers low so that anyone can run. Then require that the Premier also run as an independent, but as a Premier, and not a candidate in a riding.

This will create an atmosphere that requires MLAs to work in the best interest of their riding and only be accountable to their constituents. The Premier picks his cabinet from the pool of elected MLAs, but they could be from anywhere, not just his or her own party.

And so…
The purpose of an election is to create a functional government. While our current system of First Past the Post (FPP) has its flaws, its underlying strength is its simplicity. Most votes wins.

A minority government is not a form of government to be desired. We can make it work at times, but we run the risk of dissenting coalitions that freeze the legislature, corruption and inefficiencies. Yes, your vote may count more so, but do you know how it’s counted? Even if you understand the system do you that it is being counted correctly?

Majority governments are effective, and even if they make a mistake, that mistake can be corrected by voting in a new party. Things like photo radar can be abolished overnight, and fast-ferries can be sold. Run-of-River projects can be approved or abolished (I favor the latter).

A bastardized partisan political system is not the way to solve the problems cause by partisan politics. The solution is to do away with parties entirely. Remember the old adage of KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid!

Fairness is subjective. I believe that it is fair that you may choose to vote for whomever you wish. It is not fair to “Power-up your vote”. If the people vote in Carole James over Gordon Campbell then so be it. Let her work, and vice versa. If she does well, she stays. If she doesn’t, she goes. Simple. Most votes wins. NDP or Liberal or independent or whatever. Pick a winner, pick a loser, or make a statement. Don’t waste your vote. We trust you.

But you only get ONE vote.

Greetings

Greetings!
I am the Thinking Prole: an average member of the masses, not part of the elite, not a socialite, and unremarkable when compared to the rest of my species. I write because I constantly judge my world, the surroundings and the people in them, with a critical eye. To me Faith is not an objective, but rather a luxury.

I hope that my objectivity does not offend, but that shall not stop me. I know that my Values won’t match everyone else’s; it’s unrealistic to think that they will. Perhaps those from the Inner Party will make me into an unperson for speaking my mind, but I think that those who stay silent are the true unpersons.

I write here because I have a perception of right and wrong, and I feel cowardly when I do nothing to alter my world in accordance with that perception. Many people strive to do justice, to help others; I hope that this can be some contribution.

TP