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.