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