Common Sense (Ain't So Common Anymore)

News Flash: Barney Frank Opposes the Right to Strike!

2009-03-20T16:46:00.002-07:00

On the Lou Dobbs show tonight, Barney Frank was talking about how he dislikes "retention bonuses". Summed up, he's against people who say "If you don't bribe me, I'll quit and hurt your company."

Isn't that precisely what unions do when they threaten to go on strike? "Pay us more, or we'll all quit working and hurt your company."

Pay people MORE bonuses

2009-03-17T20:11:00.003-07:00

Politicians and reporters need to stop talking about economics, particularly when they have not the slightest clue as to what they're talking about.

Yes, AIG lost a ton of money last year. Yes, the taxpayers had to bail them out. Yes, they just gave people $165m in bonuses. Yes, reporters and politicians are piling on.

Let's look at this simply: Let's simplify AIG into two divisions (and the numbers are made up) a Securities Division and a Life Insurance Division.

The Securities Division is getting hammered with all their underwriting losses on mortgage backed securities. They lost $125b last year!

The Life Insurance Division by contrast is doing much better. With all the stock-brokers throwing themselves out of windows, they're able to get out of paying off on based on the suiscide clauses (note...this is fiction...but I've gotta spice it up a bit)! Last year was a banner year, and they made $25b for the division.

Overall, the company lost $100b.

So, it comes time to do bonuses. The head of the Securities Division gets, how do I put this, zip, zero, nada, perhaps even a suggestion that he seek other employment in the near future. The Life Insurance division, however, has met and exceeded all of their quotas. Their contracts specify that they should get about $165m in bonuses! Happy days are here!

Now, in comes the Government. They decide to tax those Life Insurance bonuses at a rate of 100% (retroactively and as a bill of atainder, in violation of the US Constitution, but who cares about that). They got to show who was boss in that little p!$$ing contest, didn't they.

So the next year, the guys in Life Insurance say "Why bother working so hard?" The Securities Division doesn't stink up the place quite as bad, losing $100b, but now Life Insurance, who aren't working so hard to get the suiscide clauses in their policies, lose $50b. No bonuses for anyone! Yay, the Government's happy! The press is happy! The proletariat are happy!

The company has, however, now lost $150b this year and needs a bigger bailout...good thing they took those bonuses away!

Memories of 9/11/2001

2008-09-11T16:11:00.002-07:00

At the time, I lived in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, so it was a bit earlier out in the Mountain timezone.

My wife at the time had a really early morning job, so she'd sneak out early and leave me to catch some more sleep. I had a TV in the bedroom that woke me up each morning tuned to CNN (yes...I'm a news junkie).

So it fired up in the morning, and it was between the two hits on the WTC, and there was smoke billowing out of the one. While I was watching, I saw a gray shape cut across the screen, and my first thought was "That looks like a United plane..." and boom.

I remember screaming at the idiot doing cometary on the TV when they asked "How is such an accident possible?" I'd already come to the conclusion that we were at war...and even as a Canadian, I felt that we were there with you, both as part of the NORAD system, and as part of the North Atlantic alliance, and the words of that treaty came to my mind unbidden at that moment: "An attack against one shall be an attack against them all."

I was proud of my country in the days following, the way that Canadians opened their homes to stranded travelers, the way that we stood shoulder to shoulder with out American brethren both at home, and in Afghanistan. I certainly would have preferred that Canadians take a more active role with our ally in Iraq, but it was not to be.

Today, I say as a proud Canadian, God Bless America, and thank you, America for taking the fight to the terrorists, not sitting back meekly waiting for the terrorists to bring the fight to us. Today, all freedom loving people are citizens of America, and I am proud to say "I am an American", if only for today.

Law of Unintended Concequences Strikes Again

2008-03-20T10:29:00.002-07:00

Who is the largest supplier of oil to the United States? Canada, right...well maybe not for long. Are Canada's oil reserves drying up? No. Has the US found a better supplier of it's oil? No. Have Canadian oil companies offended their customers to the south? Not really...that is unless you count the US Congress...

Investor's Business Daily reports that Canada has taken some objection to some provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, passed by the holier-than-thou Democrats in Congress last year. Two provisions in the law make oil from our friends in Ft. Mac off limits for export to the US:

Tar sands are considered "alternative fuel"
Oil sold to the US Government from "alternative fuels" must emit fewer greenhouse gasses than conventional crude.

Anyone ever look at the process for extracting oil from tar sands? Put simply, they pump it full of steam and the heat and water serve to separate the oil from the sand. Producing that steam takes, you guessed it, energy...mostly from burning natural gas, and guess what burning natural gas does? It emits the dreaded "greenhouse gasses". Alternatively, they could produce steam from nuclear power (see http://commonsenseaintsocommon.blogspot.com/2006/06/albertas-nuclear-option.html), but that's years, if not decades away.

Congrats Speaker Pelossi...you now get to buy the oil for your strategic petroleum reserve from such good friends as Hugo Chavez, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Happy St. Patrick's Day

2008-03-17T06:00:00.002-07:00

On a day when everyone seems to claim that they're Irish...you might want to check to see if you actually are!

Ireland has some very liberal rules for citizenship through descent. The basic rules are:

If one of your parents was born in Ireland, you are an Irish Citizen
If one of your grandparents was born in Ireland, you are eligible to become an Irish citizen through the "Register of Foreign Births"
If your great-grandparent was born in Ireland, and your parent registered as above before your birth, you are eligible via the same mechanism.

As you can see, you can go back a ways on this. Myself, my grandfather was born in County Donegal on the isle back in the early 20th century. By providing the Embassy with documentation, including my grandfather's birth certificate (like Canada it's bilingual, just the other language is Gaelic), his marriage certificate, my mother's birth and marriage certificates (showing my grandfather as a parent), and my birth certificate (again the one with descent info), I was able to receive a certificate of foreign birth. Finally, with that document, I was able to apply for an Irish passport...

Now I can go through that "EU Citizens Only" line at airports in Europe, and if I ever choose to, I can live and work in most of the EU without any significant immigration hassles! And because I took the time to fill out the paperwork before my daughter was born, I've passed these same rights on to her as well!

Reference: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/moving-country/irish-citizenship/irish_citizenship_through_birth_or_descent

The Myth of Voter Turnout

2008-03-04T14:00:00.003-07:00

How often have you heard the talking heads on TV decry the fate of falling voter turnout in our democracies? When was the last time your heard anyone, from any part of the political spectrum, say that maybe this isn't so bad? If you said "Never", read on...you're about to!

Most people in the political world take it on faith that more voter participation is a good thing. Like most articles of faith, however, it really isn't based upon any real evidence.

I divide voters (regardless of how they vote) into 5 main classes:

Ideologues/True Believers: These are the people for whom the leaders of their party can do no wrong, and would vote no matter what for them, even if they happened to run a yellow dog for a particular office. I also include in this list people who vote on the basis of a single issue and say "Well, I agree with X on 99.9% of issues, but we don't agree on this last issue, so I can't vote for him!"
Information Addicts: These people are addicted to information and news. The research about all the parties and candidates running for an office and choose between them.
Sheeple: These are the people who look for momentum in an election. Nothing bothers them more than voting for a loser, so they're mostly concerned about who will win, and getting onto that bandwagon
Traditionalists: "My daddy voted for party X, and his daddy before him voted for party X, so that's why I vote for party X"
The Apathetic Majority

Two of these groups have high turnout already, and increasing it is difficult (a small pool to work with)

True Believers: These people vote with near 100% reliability. Increasing/Decreasing turnout among this group takes an Act of God (think major storm preventing them from getting to the polls)
Information Addicts: These people generally are pretty high turnout too. They've invested so much time in researching the candidates that it would be a shame to waste all that time by not voting.

So, increasing turnout has to focus on the other three. The question then becomes "Why?"

Does someone who simply votes because Candidate X is ahead in the polls actually help democracy? They have no idea what the issues are or what they're voting for/against.

Traditionalists are similarly uninformed, and honestly, I could care less if they drag their backsides out of their homes/offices to vote.

The Apathetic Majority, again. If they don't take the time to learn about the issues and candidates, does their vote actually matter? Or is it mere random chance that serves no real purpose other than to make us feel better about ourselves because more people voted?

So, in summary, the informed voters are already voting. Why we should be encouraging the uninformed and apathetic to vote and dilute the votes of those who actually care is beyond me.

US Immigration

2008-02-29T22:19:00.003-07:00

Lately, this is a topic that has been occupying a lot of my thoughts...mainly due to the fact that in July of last year, I relocated from Canada to the US with my company, and now I'm learning just how many roadblocks there are in the US Immigration system.

First, I'd like to say the best line I've heard on immigration policy during the US presidential primaries came from Fred Thompson...he said "We need high fences and wide gates." and I heartily agree. Another good line came from Dennis Miller when he was ranting on the subject and said "...but for God's sake, sign the guestbook on the way in."

I believe that every country has both a right and obligation to control their borders and control who comes into their country. The US is one of the most open societies in the world, and they accept huge numbers of people from all over the world.

First, I want to address some of the just plain stupid stuff that people think about immigrating to the US. One is about "chain migration", where someone, once they get into the US, can bring their brothers, sisters, etc. into the use, multiplying the number of immigrants that are permitted into the US. This came up with the debate this last summer with the "12 million people being legalized and bringing 3-4 others each with them".

OK...the proposal this past summer would have taken an illegal immigrant (and I never use the term undocumented!) approximately 13 years to become a US Citizent (USC). Only USCs can sponsor sibblings to come into the country. The current wait to sponsor a brother/sister to come into the US for a USC is estimated at 30 years...that's right...3 decades. So...let's say I was 21 when this passed. I wait 13 years to become a USC. At age 34, I take my oath and become a USC. Now that same day, I apply for my 2 brothers and 2 sisters to come in. I'll be almost ready to collect Social Security before they can come to the US!!! That's a huge threat to US society!

Now, let's look at the process to come to the US with a job offer...personally, I'm in the us on an L-1B visa, available to employees of US companies who have specialized knowledge, and have worked for the company outside the US.

First, you need to prove that there is no US person, either USC or green-card holder, who is available for your job. This involves advertising the position, both in newspapers and online, along with a review by the US Department of Labor of the recruitment process. This is called Labor Certification and needs to be done as the first step.

Next, you submit a "Petition of Alien Worker" (I-140), and you need an approved Labor Certification to submit this form. You need to prove that you fall into an appropriate category of people who can immigrate to the US.

Now, you wait...there's a concept of a "Priority Date" that you have to wait for. Even though your employer has established via the Labor Certification that nobody wants your job, you have to wait until a quota becomes current. Over the last year, the wait has varied between zero and 65 months for this.

Finally, your Priority Date (actually, the date you file for Labor Certification) becomes current (Yay!). You can now file for "Adjustment of Status" (because you're in the US in another status...both L-1s and H-1b visa holders are allowed to file for permanent residence). This takes from 6-18 months to complete, and you're finally a permanent resident of the US. You're probably 6-7 years from when you first started now.

My biggest question: What is the purpose of the quota? Why, once you've established that there is no US person who is qualified for your job, do you need to then stand in line? Isn't this disruptive to business who need people? I can see quotas to protect jobs and keep foreigners from flooding into the country. I can see the Labor Certification process for the same purpose, but the combination is simply useless redundancy!

Anders Acclimation in Calgary West set aside by Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

2007-03-21T07:30:00.000-07:00

"In the end result, I am satisfied that the decision of the Panel was not correct and that its decision must therefore be set aside. As a result, the acclamation of Mr. Anders also must be set aside and a new nomination meeting and process must be set in place. Ms. Mason should be replaced as Chair of the Committee."

Decision in Full

Floor Crossing

2007-01-05T12:22:00.000-07:00

There will be much wringing of hands and knashing of teeth over the crossing of Khan to the Conservative benches this morning. In the interest of full disclosure, I was of a mixed mind about both Stronach's and Emmerson's defections, but that was more of a questioning of motives than saying that floor-crossing per se is wrong.

When you go to vote, you are voting not for a party, but for an individual. The respective parties all endorse particular candidates for election as Members of Parliament (and I pray someday Senators), but in reality, it is the individual who is being elected to represent the interests of their constituents.

I disagree with anything that would prevent floor-crossing in the future. I am from the Reform wing of the party, particularly the small "d" democratic tradition. Requiring MPs to remain where they are elected means that party leaders have even more control over those MPs.

I believe that MPs need to have the right to vote based upon a variety of factors: the platform they were elected on, the platform of the party (think of David Kilgour and his personal crusade against the atrocities in Darfur, which differed from the Liberal Party for whom he ran), the wishes of his/her constituents, and ultimately, the MP's own best judgement about what is best for his/her country.

So long as party leaders can expel members from caucus for voting against the party line, a MP must have the same right to leave. And he/she should not be consigned to the purgatory that is the lot of Independent MPs. Like it or not, the House of Commons is a house of parties, and even though backbench MPs are close to powerless, unaffiliated MPs are even more so, as they miss out on committee assignments, turn in Question Period rotation, support for private members bills and motions, just to name a few items.

Another take on CEO Pay

2007-01-03T20:14:00.000-07:00

Our unbiased researcher friends at the Candian Centre for Policy Alternatives (alternatives to what exactly?) released a report this week that says, in essence, that the average CEO (average of the top 100 companies...that's not skewing the average at all is it?) earns the same amount by 10am on January 2nd as the average Canadain makes all year. Their (and the MSM) spin on it was "Those greedy bastards!"

I on the other hand took it an entirely different way..."Holy Crap, I want to do that!" Seems those on the left can't undertand the concept of ambition, and bettering ones lot in life, only envy for those who do (and have)...count me as motivated to match the achievement, not envious of those who have already done so!

Confession of a Religious Darwinist

2007-01-02T18:04:00.000-07:00

Does the title sould contradictory? I don't think so, and I hope to explain why...

In an earlier article (Can God Exist within Science?) I described two of the great scientific theories of the 20th Century, and how they leave room for God to still exist and exert influence on the Universe. I would like to now deal with the third leg of the altar of science today, and that is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, as described in the book The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.

So, I'll deal with a few issues here:
1) How can the age of the Earth, as measured by geologists and the time required for evolution be squared with the description of Creation contained in Genesis?

The classic way to get around this one is to say that the length of the "day" was not determined unil later in Creation, but I don't think this stretch is necessary.

My opinion is that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but does not, and was not intended by God to be, the literal truth. Abraham and Moses could not have ever understood the timeframes represented by the some 15 billion years that have passed since the Universe came into existence. God revealed to them that He had created the Universe in a way they could understand, not the literal truth. By the same token, I believe that many great minds over the centuries like Newton, Einstein, Heizenberg, Fermi, and even Darwin came to the revelation of their truths through Divine Inspiration, and God revealed additional truth to mankind when we were ready to understand it.

2) How could Evolution have produced such complex life?

One attempt many religious people have made to discredit Evolution is the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, saying that Evolution cannot be true because it is insufficient to describe the complexity of life on Earth.

Again, I think that they are missing an opportunity to fit into the holes in Evolution and exploit them, and rather attacking a theory with much evidence backing it directly.

The Origin of Species, despite its title, describes only how life forms evolve from other life forms. It does not describe how life itself started, or how the first lifeforms came to be on the Earth.

One scientific explanation, abiogenesis (life from lifelessness) has never been able to be experimentally duplicated, and has the same amount of scientific evidence behind it as Creation does.

Evolution & Religion Together
Evolution is not opposed to religion. In reality, the theory of abiogenesis is the antethisis of Creation, not evolution. It is my belief that God set the first life forth on Earth, in the full knowledge that thanks to His Law of Natural Selection, that life would multiply, evolve, and eventually give rise to intelligent creatures who would wonder about His creation.

Now here's the kicker: Scientists cannot disagree with me, as their theory of creation has the same amount of evidence, and is as much a testament of faith as Genesis is.

Time to can the CWB monopoly

2006-12-15T13:30:00.000-07:00

Reading this editorial in the National Post today confirmed my long-held opinion:
Just whose Wheat Board is it?

I would also like to challenge the idea that the decision on this should be up to a vote of farmers. This is an issue of basic economic freedom for farmers. What other business has the federal government dictate to whom they can sell the product of their labour?

Here's an anaology for you:
Let's say there are 100 companies that make a particular trinket. 55 of them sell their trinkets exclusively to Distributor X, while the other 45 sell to various distributors, or even directly to consumers. Should those 55 business be able to have a vote in the industry and require all 100 to sell to Distributor X? That's the logic behind a farmer vote on retaining the "single-desk". We won't accept it for any other business but farming.

Kill the monopoly immediately. If the CWB is right and they get a great deal for farmers, they'll retain the lion's share of the market. Its not for a farmer's neighbour to tell him who to sell his grain to, it's up to the individual.

Quebec as a Nation

2006-11-28T10:34:00.000-07:00

Decided to look up the vote from last night's vote on Quebec as a nation. Looking particularly at the 16 Nays, it includes some people that I feel very comfortable being on the other side of:

Fry, Marleau, Minna, Volpe...anything these people are against, I have to say "Sign me up!"

Alberta PC Leadership - Labour Relations - Other Responses???

2006-10-20T11:49:00.000-07:00

Alberta PC Leaderhip Questions - Labour Relations

Well, tomorrow will be 2 weeks since I sent the question to all of the candidates...I've only received one response so far, so I guess the high cost of beer is more important than freedom of association...

Alberta PC Leadership - Labour Relations Response #1

2006-10-08T15:09:00.000-07:00

OK, I've received a quick response from the first candidate, Gary McPherson. While Gary is considered by many pundits as a "token" candidate and a one-issue person, his response, and the fact that it didn't takes weeks for him to articulate, makes me think differently. He is clearly someone who looks at issues and takes positions on issues as presented to him.

So on the questions:
1) Should workers have the right to work for an employer without joining a union?

Short answer was "yes" (full answer is below)

2) For closed shops how should dues be calculated

Here he was somewhat equivocal, esp. considering he seems oposed to closed shops (understandable). He was clear that dues should only be used for bargaining purposes and not other political activities of the union.

Full e-mail thread (excepting the original post):
Jeff,

I thought that's what you might be getting at -- thank you for the clarification.

No, I don't think that they should have to pay the same dues that union members pay. There may be some validity to pay partial dues based on benefits that may accrue to the nonunion member as per the US example, and your rationale as to the abuse of the nonmember's contribution is well articulated. Thank you!

However, if the answer has to be yes or no -- I opt for no.

Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Gebhart (Blackberry)
- Hide quoted text -
To: Gary McPherson
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: Policy Question: Labour Relations

Thank you very much for your quick response.

Specifically, what I am looking for is whether people who work in union environments, who do not, for whatever reason, choose to join the union, should have to pay union dues. This is not a question about current law, but on what the law/regulation/policy should be.

To that question, there is really only a yes/no option.

If it's yes, then it gets more complex. In the US for example, in many states, the non-member can only be compelled to pay dues for those activities directly related to their bargaining position. The union cannot collect dues from such non-members for certification drives at other companies, or political activities (ie. donating to the NDP, or purchasing 10,000 memberships for union members...). In other states, no dues may be collected at all. In Alberta, the current situation requires the non-member to pay the same dues as the member, including funds for political activities.

Does that make things clearer?

Jeff

On 10/7/06, Gary McPherson wrote:
Jeff,

I believe that a person should have a right to join an employer without having to join the union if they are not in agreement.

In terms of the specifics that you refer to with respect to membership dues, I would need more information before I could comment on this in any intelligent way. Information such as the legislation that created the union, the Company, etc.

Gary McPherson C. M., LLD

Alberta PC Leadership Questions: Labour Relations

2006-10-07T12:10:00.000-07:00

A few minutes ago, I sent the following questions to all 9 of the declared candidates for the leadership of the Alberta PC party...I eagerly await their responses!

Recent news events have brought a question to mind. I want to know where all of the candidates for the leadership of the Alberta PC Party stand on an issue of importance:

Should workers have the right to work for an employer without joining a union?
I understand the current situation fairly well. Some employers now are "open shops", others are "closed". In the closed, employees can opt out of union membership, however they are still required to pay dues to that union, on the concept that they are deriving benefit from the union's activities.

In terms of closed shops, should how should dues be assessed:
a) As they are today (ie. the same for members and non-members)
b) Non-members should not have to pay dues
c) Non-member dues should be restricted to costs related to collective bargaining within their "unit" only (ie. union cannot use non-member dues to fund certification drives, or for supporting political parties)

This e-mail is being sent to all of the registered candidates. Some candidates do not have listed e-mail addresses on their websites, and for those, I will submit this same text via their "contact forms".

I reserve the right to share and/or publish any response (or lack therof) in any way.

Jeff Gebhart

Joining the Liberal Party

2006-09-29T18:45:00.000-07:00

Yep. I've made the decision to join up with the Grits...I have this overriding desire to make sure Volpe becomes the next Leader of the Opposition.

All good Conservatives should do the same...it's the easiest way to a Harper majority!

Higher Surplus = Paying Debt = Even Higher Surplus

2006-09-26T06:56:00.000-07:00

As a result of the decision to put the $13.2b surplus to debt, the Canadian taxpayer gets a windfall of $529,320,000 this year. This is based on the current long-term Government of Canada bond rate of 4.01%, and that's the interest we would have paid over the next year if we had spent the $13.2b...which means next year we will have a $13.7b surplus, and save another $550m in interest...

In Defence of Dual Citizenship

2006-09-21T20:03:00.000-07:00

Reading today's National Post front page got me thinking...the concept of dual, or for that matter, any multiple citizenships, has been taking quite the beating lately.

In the interest of disclosure, I am a dual citizen, both of which are acquired by birthright. In my case, I am a Canadian citizen by birth here, and an Irish citizen by inheritance (Ireland recognizes inheritance of citizenship back as far as a great-grandparent in some circumstances, and to a grandparent with little effort).

Essentially, my understanding of international law on the matter is that, I am entitled to consular services of either Canada or Ireland, except when I am in one or the other of these countries. In that case, that country is entirely free to treat me as a "domestic", and the other government has no right to interfere in any way...so if I get arrested in Canada, I can't ask to speak to an Irish consular official. If I'm arrested in the US, I have a choice of either Canada or Ireland to talk to!

Taken in the context of the current Lebanese evacuation that occured, how many of the 7,000 that have returned are Lebanese citizens, along with Canadian citizenship? If so, the Canadian government is under no obligation to assist these people. It was a political decision to evac these people, knowing that we were not under any obligation, not a legal one. Let's apply the law properly before we go and change it, shall we?

Thank You Maude Barlow

2006-09-21T11:44:00.000-07:00

Wow! Never thought I would ever utter those words aloud, let alone commit them to a written form!

In an editorial that I read in the Calgary Herald today (Integration Talks Kept in the Dark...need to be a subscriber, sorry), she talked about talks that occurred from September 12-14 in Banff with Stockwell Day, Godon O'Connor, and "included such prominent figures as U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Mexican Secretary of Public Security Eduardo Medina Mora and General Rick Hillier" at the second "North American Forum"

Well, our friend, Ms. Barlow, goes on to describe the purpose of the meeting as "priming North America for better business..."

So far, so good...better business is a good thing, right?

She even goes on to confirm Canada's preferential position in terms of energy supplies to the US: "The U.S. administration -- anxious to keep up with its country's high energy demands -- has shown great interest in this "secure" energy source located just north of its border."

I knew it couldn't last, however..."Given the detrimental impacts of oilsand extraction on our environment..." and what would a Maude Barlow work be without "the media should pay better attention to this marriage between our governments and big corporations." (Emphasis mine)....she can't resist taking pokes at "big corporations"...who incidentally employ most of her big labour friends.

Thanks for bringing this meeting to our attention...good work Messers Day and O'Connor for recognizing that further economic integration is in the best interest of all Canadians!

Prince Jim answers his mail...

2006-08-25T14:03:00.000-07:00

A while ago, I reported on a question that I asked of two candidates in the Alberta Tory Leadership race, and noted that Jim Dinning hadn't bothered answering, or even acknowledging my question (A Tale of Two Candidates)

Here's an exerpt from his response:
"The whole range of alternative fuels and energy sources should be explored so that we can make the right decisions about how to fuel not only oil sands development but provincial needs in the long-term."

"I intend to lay out more details in the Fall regarding energy and other policy positions."

With approximately 6 weeks to think this one through, I was really hoping for a response of more than "we will consider all options in the future", but that's life as a frontrunner...don't take a stand on anything except breaking down our flat-tax or outlawing Quarter Pounders.

Can God exist within Science?

2006-08-09T19:00:00.000-07:00

Can someone believe in both Science and grant the existence of the Almighty?

Many will say No, that science is about searching for truths untainted by supernatural considerations, and that's true. Science cannot allow itself to give up on searches for truth when they come up against a wall, and blame phenomena on the supernatural.

I have spent a large portion of my life trying to reconcile two competing concepts in my own mind: 1) That the quest for scientific truth is one of the most noble undertakings of humanity, and 2) that there must be something greater than ourselves.

There are two fundamental theories that have defined physics in the 20th century. I don't claim to be an expert, but I do read a lot, and have a basic understanding of them.

The first of these theories was first published in 1915 by the great Albert Einstein. That theory, the General Theory of Relativity, deals with the workings of the universe on the grandest of scales. It describes why the Earth stays in orbit around the Sun, how the Sun interacts with the rest of the Milky Way, the interactions of the Milky Way with the rest of the galaxies in the Local Group, the Virgo Supercluster, and the universe as a whole. It deals primarily with things that are large, more specifically massive.

The second great theory is that of Quantum Mechanics. While Relativity works phenomenally well at large distances, QM talks about the very small...scales that make atoms seem colossal. It describes in great detail how the most fundamental particles in the universe, from quarks to electrons to photons, interact with each other at the tiniest of distance scales.

The problem comes specifically when these two theories try and work at the same time. What happens when something is both very small and very massive? Well, in a word, the math breaks down and produces gibberish.

So, what we have is a realm that cannot be explained by science. This realm existed at the very beginning of the universe, and currently exists within singularities (aka black holes). That essentially means science cannot explain how the universe came into being.

There are certain fundamental constants of the universe that are absolutely critical to us having come to be in the universe. One example is the relative strength of the electromagnetic and gravitational forces. If the electromagnetic force was slightly stronger, stars would blow themselves apart, slightly weaker and collapsing gas clouds would keep collapsing without the ability to stabilize as stars. Either way, the universe would be a cold and dark place, and we humans would not be here to ponder about it. Some scientists invoke the "Anthropic Principle" for such issues, and exotic solutions like multiverses (infinite universes, each with slightly different properties). The Anthropic Principle, put simply, is that if the properties are pure chance, and that if they weren't as they are, we wouldn't be here to ask the questions. Every time I read or hear someone invoke the Anthropic Principle, I ask, which is more likely: a) Our universe is a highly unlikely chance that just occurred, or b) there is a Creator who "tuned the dials" of the Universe at the time of Creation?

Quantum mechanics also introduced the Uncertainty Principle. Put simply, Classical (pre-QM) theories held that if you knew the position and velocity of every particle in the universe at some point in time, you could theoretically calculate, with complete certainty, the entire history and future of the universe. The Uncertainty Principle tossed that concept on its head. It says that you cannot know information about various linked properties of a particle. For example, the more precisely you know the position of a particle, the less precisely you can measure it's velocity. That means that you cannot ever get the snapshot of the universe. Things like positions and velocities in QM are expressed not as definite properties, but as probabilities that only become definite only when they are measured. Many, many experiments have tried to overcome the Uncertainty Principle, and it has held up to everything.

How does all this relate to coexistence of science and God, consider this proposition. The various constants of the universe were set by God at the moment of creation. Rules of the universe were also set in such a way that nobody would ever be able to have complete knowledge, both through the Uncertainty Principle and the discontinuity between Relativity and QM. In addition, QM's reliance on probabilities rather than definite properties permits a Creator to, from time to time, make certain adjustments to the workings of the Universe without being noticeable (even if the odds of something happening are only 1%, they're still not zero!)

Alberta MPs Weigh In on Leadership Race

2006-07-31T05:50:00.000-07:00

From the Calgary Herald:

Alberta MPs pick Dinning, Morton

Never would have predicted this one...

2006-07-30T20:49:00.000-07:00

It's absolutely shocking, but the legislation to limit Senate terms to 8 years has been stalled in the...wait for it...Senate.

Just before their summer break, the Senate decided to refer the bill (S-4) to a committee of Senators instead of giving it Second Reading (approval in principle) (Source).

Aparently, the Senate doesn't think that limiting their terms, even though S-4 exempts present members of the Senate, isn't a good idea, and that they need to study it more before approving the principle of the idea.

Traditionally, bills are studied by committees after they are given second reading, not before.

Defining Conservatism

2006-07-30T15:52:00.000-07:00

This is one of those issues that I've been thinking about most of my adult life. Pulled into the mix are both my personal experiences, a ton of reading from a lot of different sources, media concepts of conservatism, both here in Canada and elsewhere, and a certain degree of randomness as to what I consider to be relevant.

When I boil it all down to basic principles, the one thing that Conservatism means to me is "small government". To put some more meat on the bones, people have created governments to do that which they cannot effectively do individually. Government that limits itself to only those purposes is a small government. Thomas Jefferson once said "That government is best which governs least.", and this, to me, is the best summary of conservatism that I can think of.

So then, what is conservatism not? I'm going to alienate some people who call themselves conservatives here, but so be it.

Social Conservatives
People who call themselves Social Conservatives often try and use the coercive power of the state to impose morality upon their fellow citizens. This has manifested itself in many forms over history: The Inquisition, Puritans in England, the "Religious Right" to name just a few.

It is not the role of government to define morality. Regardless of the majority of the people who hold a moral philosophy, government should never impose that morality upon others, with one provio:

Governments need to regulate the interaction of individual rights. For example, your right to swing your arms about wildly ends when your hand hits my nose.

Let's look at an issue that pops up in the news frequently, that being the posting of the "Ten Commandments" in public places and how my philosophy of conservatism applies. I feel that it is inappropriate for the state to make or fund such displays. On the other hand, they should not restrict private citizens from making, funding, and displaying them in public places.

Conservatives and Business
Contrary to popular belief, my view of conservatism is not pro-business. By contrast, it's not pro-labour, pro-consumer, or pro-anything. Simply put, the government needs to get out of the business of being in business. The free-market is the most powerful regulator that has ever, or will ever, exist.

That's not to say that I support a completely unregulated free-for-all. Governments need to ensure that there is a stable climate for business to operate within. This means that they need to ensure that the rule-of-law exists, contracts and other agreements between business and individuals have appropriate enforcement mechanisms.

In terms of investors, Governments have a legitimate role to play in ensuring that there is consistency among businesses so that investors can appropriately evaluate businesses and direct their investments. That does not mean that investors should be "protected" by governments from losses in financial markets, but they should have confidence that a company reports they had a profit of $x million, that that number can be reasonably compared to another company that reports $y million. I support laws like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that require corporate offices to personally certify financial results, and face personal civil and criminal penalties if those results are falsified.

Conservatives and Wealth Transfer
It is not the role of government to provide for people. There is a legitmate role for the government to provide assistance to those who cannot provide for themselves, not for those who will not.

Looking at the investor portion above, the basic point of government is to provide equality of opportunity, not equality of result. People need to be able to take risks and profit from them. Taking risks also means that you may lose from them, and generally speaking, the greate the potential profit, the greater the potential loss.

Conservatives and Labour
It is my firm opinion that the right of free association is absolutely critical in a free society. With that said, it is the right of employees to band together to bargain collectively through trade and labour unions. It is also the right of individuals to choose to not associate with unions, and it is inappropriate to use the coercive power of the state to force such association. Nobody should be forced to join a union in order to work at a particular job, regardless of the opinion of other employees at that job site.

Conclusion
Conservatives span a wide range of opinions. There are many ways to emphasise the different aspects of what it is to be a Conservative, and this post is my attempt to define my opinion on the subject. I would never seek to impose my opinions on others. We conservatives are not a monolithic group, which has gotten us in trouble in the past, with some "wingnuts" being blown out of proportion by the media. Unlike some other political movements, I believe on of our greatest strengths is out ability to tolerate dissent and grow from it with constructive debate.

I leave you with these words, which I don't have appropriate attribution for (except that they're not my own!):
"Principles cannot be compromised. They can either be adhered to or surrendered. Honesty is surrendered as surely by the theft of a dime as a dollar".

Discrimination against Fox News

2006-07-29T14:38:00.000-07:00

I'm a Shaw Cable subscriber, and I have a bit of a beef with them. Almost any of their "Digital" channels are available for $2.49/month each.

The exception that I'm concerned about is Fox News. CNN is on basic cable, MSNBC is availabe for $2.49/month, but Fox News is only available as part of a News Pack for $6.95/month. (Shaw Channels)

Why is it that I can get the low-rated, left-wing, MSNBC for less than half the cost of Fox News? Why do I have to subscribe to BBC, Bloomberg, National Geographic, and Discovery Civilization to get Fox News?

Is this just a Shaw thing, or is this a CRTC thing with them protecting Canadians from the evils of Fox News by making them pay more for it?

Law of Unintended Concequences

2006-07-29T12:08:00.000-07:00

Simple problems have simple solutions, right?

I'd like to apply this logic to global warming, and one of the great saviours of the planet, if you listen to Internet Inventor Al Gore: Solar Power.

Now, I'm not an expert sceintist, but I do understand enough to find a flaw in the idea of replacing a huge chunk of our power production with solar power. And the problem has nothing to do with the huge amounts of the Earth's surface that would be required.

What the problem has to do with is basic Thermodynamics. When a system is in equilibrium, energy in = energy out. If you decrease the energy out, then temperature goes up until a new equilibrium is established.

So, Solar Power fanatics want to collect anywhere from gigawatts to terrawatts of solar power to run our toasters and electric cars, right? Where does that energy come from...remember that the law of conservation of energy means that you can neither create nor destroy energy (as modified by Special Relativity, you can convert energy into matter, and vice versa, but that's an extraordinary situation to be sure).

Ever look at a photovoltaic cell? They're very, very dark. Large quantities of them, covering a sizable percentage of the Earth's surface, would have the effect of changing the Earth's reflectivity to sunlight. Viewed from outside, the Earth will look darker than it is now. That means that more sunlight is absorbed at the earth's surface. That would have the effect of reducing the amount of sunlight that is reflected by the Earth into space, and that brings us back to the energy in=energy out equation. We'd be reducing the energy out from the Earth...and under basic thermodynamics, the temperature of the Earth would need to rise until a new equilibrium were met.

Now, I know the principles here, but the math is beyond me. There has to be someone out there who can crunch some numbers for me...here's some basic facts:

In 2005, worldwide generation of electricity was 18,184 TWh (BP Statistics). Can anyone tell me how much sunlight would need to be captured to create each 1% of that amount? What % of reflected sunlight would we capture to replace it all?

A Tale of Two Candidates

2006-07-29T09:09:00.000-07:00

Recently, as part of my personal research to determine who I will support for the leadership of the Alberta Conservative Party, I posed exactly the same question to two of the front runners, Jim Dinning and Lyle Oberg.

The question was sent via e-mail to the "contact" e-mail addresses listed on their respective websites. That question was as follows:

What is your position on putting one or more nuclear power plants near Ft.
McMurray to provide the necessary energy and steam for oilsands extraction
rather than burning natural gas for that purpose?

Now, I have a personal opinion on what the answer to this question should be, but that wasn't the purpose. I wanted to ask a question that would take the candidates off their "talking-points" and call for some thought in an answer. Personally, I'm less interested in voting for a candidate who agrees with everything that I do, than a candidate who is thoughful and willing to state his/her opinion, regardless of what he/she thinks my opinion is.

The response is somewhat interesting:

Lyle Oberg:
I received an almost immediate (approximately 4 hours) response requesting some more information from an assistant. Then about two weeks later, I received an actual paper letter in the mail from the candidate. Unlike many such letters I have read, it seemed that he was addressing hte issue that I had asked about:

"Using nuclear energy instead of natural gas in the Athabasca oil sands is thereefore something that ought to be examined, taking into account such concerns as safety."

Not only that, but the answer to the question came before the usual requests to join his campaign and such.

Jim Dinning:
Two weeks out, and the sound of silence is quite deafening. Not even an acknowledgement of receipt of the question...I'm very disappointed.

Calgary to get a little less free, a little sooner

2006-07-28T19:17:00.000-07:00

This week, Calgary City Council voted to outlaw smoking in all public places effective January 1, 2007. Before your cheer out loud, let's look at the situation before this vote:

-Smoking was prohibited in all establishments where anyone under 18 was permitted.
-Smoking in all other places would have been banned January 1, 2008.

Some disclosure from me: I am a non-smoker, not a bar or other establishment owner, and I believe the smoking is very unhealthy.

All of that being said, if people want to smoke and kill themselves, that should be their right. I am a strong opponent of regulating the activities of consenting adults.

Looking at this specific situation, proponents of the bans say that second-hand smoke is killing people. Again, it's entirely a personal choice. If I don't want to inhale the smoke, I have every right to go somewhere else. Same for employees. In our current labour market in Calgary, there are plenty of jobs out there with nobody to fill them.

It is not the job of the state to protect people from themselves. People need to take responsibility for their own actions, not expect the government, at whatever level, to take care of thinking for them.

Remember, every law that regulates your behaviour, even if it doesn't impact you directly, makes you just a little bit less free. How many more chips until the whole rock collapses?

We owe it to the fallen

2006-07-16T13:23:00.000-07:00

As I heard the news that the two wounded RCMP officers had succumed to thier injuries, I was filled with a profound sense of loss, for them, their families, and for society in general.

They gave their lives to protect the rest of us. They put themselves in harms way every day for meager pay. Many of us have derided the RCMP, particularly while sitting at the side of the hiway waiting for them to write us up for going a bit too fast. I, for one, will endeavour to never do so again, for they are simply enforcing the laws that we, through our elected representatives, have consented to. And every time they pull someone over to do their duty, they take a profound risk.

Lebanon abdicating its sovreignty

2006-07-14T17:35:00.000-07:00

Lebanon seems to be doing a good job of having its cake and eating it too.

They are claiming on one hand that they don't control Hezbola (sp?), but at the same time, they're opposed to Israel being on their territory.

Well, which is it? Do you exercise sovreignty over the southern part of your country?

If you do, then its your responsibility to control the territory and prevent those in your territory from launching unprovoked, and unauthorized attacks against your neighbours.

If not, then you can't complain about another country imposing control over the territory.

Make up your minds. Personally, my preference would be for Lebanon to take control of their own territory, but if they can't/won't, then Israel should, no must use all necessary force to do so for them.

Alberta Prosperity Rebates

2006-07-14T15:05:00.000-07:00

So, the candidates to succeed Premier Klein have decided that Prosperity rebates are a bad idea. Is anyone really surprised?

Politicians of every political stripe are the same all over, regardess of their individual political stripe. They like to decide how to spend money. Spending money is the mother's milk of politics. Giving taxes back to the taxpayers lets THEM spend it, and there are no photo-ops at ribbon-cutting ceremonies for the politician to smile at.

Provinces Tax Thyselves

2006-06-27T17:38:00.000-07:00

The Federal finance minister seems to have a simple message for his provincial couterparts: I'm not paying for your stuff anymore!

Anyone raising taxes is something that I and many others are bound to resist...but there's a subtlty to this that cannot be ignored.

Transfer payments are a way for provinces to have their cake and eat it too. They get to spend money, without the political concequences of having to raise their taxes themselves to pay for it.

On the federal side, it's a lose-lose situation. They have to face their voters about the level of taxation that they are charging, and they don't even get the credit for spending the money for programs! All they get is grief about it never being enough.

Let's keep it simple, shall we? Let the provinces raise money to take care of their responsibilities, and let the feds do the same. Let's not blame the feds for not wanting to be dumped on for the indefinite future.

Dinning and Herald Editorial Board

2006-06-27T07:23:00.000-07:00

Audio

Oberg & Herald Editorial Board

2006-06-26T18:15:00.000-07:00

Audio

I would expect some thing in tomorrow's Herald on this meeting, but I like the option of listening in for myself.

Alberta Tory Leadership - Dave Hancock

2006-06-25T11:06:00.000-07:00

Well, I was planning on reviewing Dave Hancock's policies in the third part of my look at the Conservative leadership frontrunners...problem is, his website doesn't seem to have much by way of policy statements.

Dave, it's a campaing team, not an oilfield crew, regardless of what you call it. It's about policy and vision, not platitudes and names.

The Cost of Post-Secondary Education

2006-06-25T09:07:00.000-07:00

A comment to my bit on Alberta PC Leadership candidate, Lyle Oberg, got me thinking about post-secondary costs in Canada. The comment brought up the standard arguement about the amount of debt that is borne by a graduating student, and this one drives me nuts.

First, post-secondary students in most provinces pay less than 1/3 of the cost of their eductation themselves. The rest is borne by the taxpayers, yet student's unions across the country scream that they need to pay less. They always say that the the government should "invest" in post-secondary education. And here's the hypocritical part...

When the government spends the money, its an "investment". When the student spends the money, it's "crushing debt". Why the difference in terminology?

The simple fact is, a university graduate earns considerably more, both per year and over a career, than a non-graduate. Why then isn't it an "investment" for a student to pay their own way?

Just by way of disclosure, I work in a job that normally requires university education, however, I've earned the job through job experience, not education. Essentially, every university student that I subsidize 2/3 of the cost of, is someone that I am paying to compete with me in the job market.

Alberta Tory Leadership - Jim Dinning

2006-06-24T19:43:00.000-07:00

In my second of three parts looking at the frontrunners in the race to succeed Premier Klein, I've turned my attention to Jim Dinning.

Mr. Dinning is the current frontrunner in the race. So, I went to his website: http://www.jimdinning.ca to take a look at what he's been up to lately.

Dinning is the biggest mystery of the candidates. He's been out of elected office for quite some time. His last elected position was as Provincial Treasurer where he conquored the deficit in Alberta. An accomplishment that he is to be commended for, for sure.

So, the question becomes, what does he think now. I have to say, I was a bit disappointed. In the section Jim on the Issues there is a selection of quotes from Dinning on a variety of issues. I guess it's to be expected that a front-runner will avoid controversy, this section seemed to be nothing but meaningless platitudes like "I will lead a government that respects all of Alberta..." and "The best way elected officials can connect with their voters is to deal with the issues that count and show results." "We can balance the pressures of competing demands. But only if we think it through deliberately." "And the need to put real solutions on the table to combat real problems."

Overall, I see only one proposal to this point. He's promising to cut Alberta's tax rate in half for those under 30. While I'll never complain about taxes going down, this would, according to his figures, only account for 1% of provincial revenues. I think there's more room than that for tax relief.

Hopefully we'll see more details and proposals from Dinning in the coming months. For the present, I'm skeptical to say the least.

Alberta Tory Leadership - Lyle Oberg

2006-06-24T10:17:00.000-07:00

I've decided to inform myself on the developing leadership race to replace Premier Klein here in Alberta.

From the first poll out, it seems there are three serious candidates in the race, Jim Dinning, Lyle Oberg and Dave Hancock. I'm going to take some time and read what they have to say about issues and try and do a synopsis of them.

First up, Dr. Lyle Oberg: http://www.lyleoberg.com

Dr. Oberg was a family physician before entering politics, and his site shows it. It seems, he's focusing on three policy areas: Healthcare, Education and Energy. Most of the thought at this point seems to be devoted to Healthcare.

Healthcare
-Eliminate Healthcare premiums
-Shortening waiting times
-Enhancing patient choice (ie. dual public/private system). Interesting wrinkle here is that he plans to force docs to work 75% of their time in the public system. Does that mean he'll only be working 25% of his time as Premier? Never been a fan of dictating how people in society should use their skills.
-"Proactive Disease Management" - it seems we have a new buzzword for "wellness"

Education
No mention here of primary or secondary education. Plans to open up 30,000 new post-secondary spaces by 2012...lets just hope this isn't all university...we need tradespeople and apprentices too...

The interesting idea here is to make "high achievers" final year of post-secondary school tuition free.

Energy
A lot o' "green" talk here. Encouraging "individual" actions to reduce greenhouse gasses.

Summary
Not a bad platform to start. As basically a libertarian, I really don't like the 75% quota on docs, but I like the idea of bringing choice into healthcare. I'm a bit disappointed with the lack of detail on the Education file, he used to be the responsible Minister after all. The campaign is still early, let's wait and see if he adds some meat onto the bones.

Alberta's Nuclear Option

2006-06-15T11:16:00.000-07:00

While you're talking to contenders for King Ralph's job on the BBQ circuit this summer, consider asking them a question about their stance on putting some nuclear plants up in Ft. McMurray for the oilsands.

Oil is extracted from oilsands by using a little substance known as steam. Nuclear power plants run on steam (nuclear reaction heats water to make steam, goes through a heat exchanger and more water is boiled off, then it hits the turbines to generate power). We are currently buring, literally, tons of natural gas to generate the steam necessary go get oil...does it really make sense to use one non-renewable resource to get another? Granted, uranium is, technically, a non-renewable resource, but the world's largest supply of it is only a couple hundred miles to the northeast in the People's Republic of Saskatchewan. Hell, even if we don't generate a single kW of electricity, a more efficient way of generating the steam necessary for the oil extraction will be worth its weight in gold!

Early Frontrunner Officially Joins Leadership Race

2006-06-14T19:45:00.000-07:00

After a long serving and personally popular leader is forced from office, the former finance minister has officially joined the race to succeed to both the party leadership and a return to Cabinet at its head.

Now, the media has declared that former minister as the runaway front-runner for the leadership of the party. He is expected to walk away with the leadership after a pro-forma leadership race.

Sound familiar?

The one difference is, this is the Alberta provincial PC leadership race, not the famous Martin takeover of the federal liberals...and we all know how well that one worked out.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Dinning will be the same disaster that Mr. Dithers was in 24 Sussex. Personally, I respect him greatly, and think that if the predictions of his victory are realized, he will serve the Province admirably as Premier.

It's just that coronations tend to stifle the debate about the future that a good, competitive leadership race can foster. Strong competitors challenge each other and put forth differing visions of the future for the members of the party to weigh, consider, and choose between. Here's hoping that the PC leadership race is less a coronation, and more a competition.

2006-06-12T18:46:00.000-07:00

Why is it the words "National" and "Federal" have become synonymous in the Canadian political lexicon?

Activists seem to believe that every problem that our society faces has a "National" solution. By this they mean that the federal government should drive the bus. it seems that its been easier (TBD if that will change significantly) for them the lobby the feds to get their interventionist policies in place, rather than having to lobby 10 provinces for the same thing...inevitably some provinces will tell them to get stuffed and they won't control the entire country.

While I tend to agree that some programs need to have "national standards" to ensure that people can move from province to province more smoothly, but that does NOT mean the feds need to stick their noses further into provincial jurisdiction.

Let's look at the greatest intrusion that currently exists: the "Canada Health Act". Looking at the Canadian Constituion, it's clear that health is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Provinces. However, in the name of "National Standards", the feds have passed this law to impose these standards. Then, they utilize the massive taxation powers to over-tax the citizens of the various provinces, and use the excess money to dangle in front of the provinces and make them roll-over, sit, and lay down on command.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that the fact is that I can move from Alberta to Ontario and get, more or less, the same level of healh care, is a good thing. The question is, however, can we achieve the same results without the federal government invading provincial jurisdiction?

Why couldn't the provincial governments agree on minimum standards in such programs? Wouldn't that achieve the same result (having a minimum level of service across the country)? Why not solidify the "Council of the Federation" (CoF) process and give officials responsible to provincial governments authority over defining and enforcing national standards? At the same time, the feds coul drop their taxes by the amount they currently give to the provinces for health care, and the provinces could, and I don't like tax hikes any more than anyone else, could raise their taxes to cover that amount.

I can almost hear the groans coming from everyone out there..."He wants to create another level of mandarins there to run the health system!" Well, actually, no I don't. I want to take it away from the feds and give it to the CoF.

Next question: "Won't it cost money to move it?"
Answer: "Probably"

"OK, it's going to cost more, what's in it for me?"

Well, first, "Accountability". Right now, we have a situation where the provinces say "The feds don't give us enough money, blah, blah, blah.", and the feds say "We give the provinces tons of money, they don't spend it right, yadda, yadda, yadda."

What if we could stop this back-and-forth finger pointing? By having the provinces responsible for both the money and the delivery of services for health care, we would have a single point to blame for inadequacies! We could actually hold someone responsible for a system that doesn't work!

Any comments?

Jeff

2006-06-08T20:13:00.000-07:00

I don't know why I do it, but on my way home from work today, I was listening to the CBC news (never good for my blood pressure).

A story was on about the bombing of terrorist Al-Zarqawi, and they had the unmitigated gall to call him a resistance fighter...they won't use the ugly "T" word.

2006-06-08T05:50:00.000-07:00

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

Two items in today's Calgary Herald brought this question to mind this morning.

The first was about smoking bans, and in the story "Delay in butt ban irks health official", there are several comments about Calgary being the last major municipality in Canada to ban smoking in bars. Now, let me say, I'm not a smoker, never have been. There's the typical complaints about "second hand smoke" and how we need to protect people from it. Two things: 1) Nobody has ever kidnapped me off of the street and dragged me into a smoky bar. 2) If there are really so many people who want smoke-free bars, where are they? I bet a good entrepeneur could have his bar packed every night with all of these people...unless it's just a few people who are whining and making so much noise that we think it's a lot of people...nah, that would never happen.

The second was about "road rage", or as it has now been termed "intermittent explosive disorder (IED)". This one was on the Editorial page, titled "It isn't rage, it's a disorder". You know, I've personally been angry behind the wheel, but that's not a disease.

What's the common thread between these two stories: Personal Responsibility. What seemed like comedy when Homer Simpson ran for Sanitation Commissioner of Springfield on the slogan "Can't someone else do it!" has become a mantra. Nobody seems to want to actually accept responsibiltiy for their own decisions or actions, and nobody wants to be told that their decisions and actions all have concequences.

2006-06-01T15:32:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Joe Volpe, I now understand why the Liberals never wanted to raise the age of sexual consent. A major source of their funding seems to be 11 year-olds with $5,400 to drop into political leadership campaigns. I suppose 11 year olds are old enough to buy influence with Liberal politicians, they're old enough to consent to sex!

2006-06-01T05:43:00.000-07:00

My wife will admit that there are few things in this world that drive me more insane than when the media decides that they need to teach us all about science. That, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, but the simple fact that few people in the media have a clue about science is the problem.

Take for instance a lot of the reporting on Global Warming. The argument that makes my blood-pressure skyrocket is "A majority of scientists believe that global warming is occurring and is caused by human beings." This very argument presupposes that science works on democratic principles...it does not. Let's look at a few other things that "the majority of scientists" have believed in the past:
The Sun revolves around the Earth
The Earth is flat
The next issue that makes my blood boil is when the media reports on public opinion polls about scientific issues like: "Do you believe that ?" Inevitably, there is some insane result. And why don't we submit scientific principles to referendums? Well, I have my first candidate...Let's have a referendum to declare the value of pi to be 3...it would be easier to remember, and much easier and quicker for engineers to make their calculations. All in favour, say "I'm a moron"

2006-05-30T14:49:00.000-07:00

Wow, I was skeptical when I read that Harper wanted to limit Senators' terms to 8 years (the "legaslative" body, not the hockey team). I was always convinced that changes to the Senate required the 7/50 formula (7 provinces representing 50% of the population) to make happen. Turns out a quick read o' the old Constituion proves me wrong.

Turns out they're relying on s44 of the Constituion Act, 1982 which reads:

"Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons. "

s41 referred to above is the "Uninimous Consent" amending formula for stuff like the role of the Queen and the composition of the Supreme Court.

s42 is the 7/50 formula. There are two important points in this one:

(b) the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;

Notice that there is nothing in there about the term of Senators. They cannot constituionally change the method of appointment (although they could do this legeslatively...more in a bit here) or the number of Senators per province (so, no EEE), but they could restrict the term to 8 years from appointment.

Now, on the method of appointment, the Constituion Act, 1867, simply states that the Governor in Council (ie. the GG after being asked by the PM) shall from time-to-time summon qualified individuals to to Senate. It would be a simple piece of legislation to require that the PM appoint an elected Senator to the Senate.

In terms of the powers of the Senate, that's a major misconception that now exists. The Senate is, with few exceptions, the equal of the House of Commons in terms of power. The fact that they rarely use that power is a political issue of legitimacy (appointed Senators don't feel they have a legitmate right to overrule the elected MPs). Electing Senators to fixed terms will inevitably reduce that check on their power, and they will become an effective legeslative body.

So, here we are, with no complex constituional deal-making with the provinces, we could be 2/3 of the way to an EEE Senate in Canada. I for one think it cannot happen too soon.

2006-05-29T10:54:00.000-07:00

Reading some of the recent controversy surrounding the battles between the media and Prime Minister Harper about asking of questions has driven me to ask a question: Why does the media think that they represent the Canadian people?

Who elected the Parliamentary Press Gallery? They are representative only of their individual news organizations, not the people of Canada.