It’s the day before the election and I can say honestly that I am terrified for the fate of my country. I do not have a soap box. I am not running for office. Many if not all of you know where I stand politically, and many of you disagree. Fine. Disagree if you will, but for the love of your country if not for respect for me, please give me the credence of an ear and an open mind. Let me make one last plea for the good of the nation before you go to the polls and do whatever most of you have already made up your minds that you’re going to do.
I’ve spent this election arguing tooth and nail against the Liberal Party, against the Green Party, and against the NDP party. I haven’t really paid any attention to the Bloc Quebecois, but then again, I only know about four people who would be in a position to vote for them anyway, and I don’t think any of them would. I’ve spent time defending the Conservative party – for good and for bad – to the ends of the blogosphere. It’s time to defend something else – something more important than the Conservative party, the Liberal party, the NDP, or any other party out there; something more important even than you and I. It’s time to defend the one thing, politically, that I truly believe in – to the exclusion of all other ideologies, and all other parties. It’s time to defend my country because the reality of the situation is that as the doomsday clock draws ever nearer for us, this country is, at heart, what is at stake. We are faced tomorrow with a choice – a choice to push that clock ever nearer to midnight and destroy this nation that I love, or a choice to pull ourselves back from the brink. So I ask you all to listen to my final plea, and that, as our countrymen have before us in time of crisis, you rise up to defend this nation – to defend Canada.
We have been faced time and time again in the news, in the papers, and by the talking heads representing every political interest and every agenda with words of crisis. Words and rhetoric designed to scare us into action one way or another. We are in the middle of a financial crisis. We are in the middle of an environmental crisis. Canada is faced with a crisis, and it is my firm belief that it’s very survival is at stake. With an arsenal of good intentions and bad ideas, Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May will do in four years or less what Paul Martin and Jean Chretien couldn’t do with thirteen years of lies, theft, and corruption. It is my firm belief that these two will destroy this country.
It is my belief that this nation has only one hope for the future in the coming trial – that hope is Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada. Many of us are concerned about the type of country that our children will inherit. Having seen the plans that the Liberal, Green, and NDP parties have for my country, my greatest concern is that there will BE a country for our children to inherit – that there will be a future that is protected by the security of a job, and enriched by the finer things in life afforded to them by a good job, and a low cost of living. A future that exists in a greener world because of the policies put forward today: a future that, if the Liberal or Green party have their way, will not be possible.
The Conservative Party has been trumpeted about as uncaring and unfeeling, but I believe it’s time to correct that record. The fact is that Canadians are scared to lose our jobs, our homes, and our savings just as our neighbours to the south are. We are scared to be the victims of crime in our own homes, in our own neighbourhoods, and in our own streets. We are scared of not having clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. We’re scared that we won’t be able to provide a good standard of living for our families. Stephen Harper has presented us with an option that will answer to those – even if his rhetoric hasn’t. The Conservatives answer our fears for our environment in a way that also preserves our jobs, homes, and savings – through cautious, but progressive steps. These steps will not raise our cost of living in these times of economic uncertainty, and will work to preserve the jobs we have, as well as make new ones. The Conservative Party of Canada is looking out for Canadians at a time when we need our government more than ever to protect us. For me, that means that I can go to work every day secure in the knowledge that I have a job that I can reasonably expect to go to tomorrow because the demand for my services will still exist, and the company I work for won’t have folded due to economic pressure. That means that I get to reap the rewards of my work, and not see it all lost in taxes, and that the costs of goods that I need are low enough that I can afford them. It means that there will be a roof over my head to come home to when I’ve been away working, and it means that there will be money in the bank when I need it most. These needs will not be met for most of us if the economic platforms of the Liberal, NDP, or Green parties are turned into law. The Conservative Party offers me the hope of a job, of clean air, and of financial security – something the others assuredly aren’t.
Whether we see a carbon tax, the cessation of expansion of the Athabasca Tar Sands, the multi-billion dollar ramp-up of spending, or a combination of these, the economic platforms presented by the Liberal, Green, and NDP parties present us with one option and only one option: steadily increasing prices, steadily rising taxes, and less and less money in our pockets to pay the rent or put food on the table – ultimately, if things are allowed to progress, they give us the option of a bankrupt nation. We are afraid of losing our jobs, our homes, and our savings – yet this is the option that these parties present. I want to tell you that there IS hope, there IS another option: an option for moderation and caution – an option that will ensure a clean future through investment in green technology; an option that will protect out jobs by securing our resource sector as well as investing in our manufacturing sector; an option that will protect your savings and your homes by carrying on the sound economic practices that were put in place over the last two and a half years.
Leaders from all parties have said that in this election, “the choice is clear”. I echo their words: the choice IS clear. The choice we are faced with is between the high taxes, inflationary economic practices, and deficit spending – a recipe for the financial destruction of our nation – and the Conservative Party of Canada. Friends, the fate of our nation is in our hands – my only hope is that we be found worthy of that trust.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Photos and more
So for the first time since I've been travelling this time, I haven't had to do much work. I eventually have a report to write, but that won't take too long. Furthermore, the surprising lack of sun in this purportedly tropical country came to a sudden and welcome end today, as we finally saw the clouds broke and the day turned absolutely beautiful. As promised, there are some pictures to add. Including the much-talked about view of the Pacific off my balcony at the hotel.
And the mountains out my front window
So for the first time since I've been travelling this time, I haven't had to do much work. I eventually have a report to write, but that won't take too long. Furthermore, the surprising lack of sun in this purportedly tropical country came to a sudden and welcome end today, as we finally saw the clouds broke and the day turned absolutely beautiful. As promised, there are some pictures to add. Including the much-talked about view of the Pacific off my balcony at the hotel.
And the mountains out my front window
At present, most of my time is spent working in a companies rail yard, inspecting the rail tankers that they use to carry sulphuric acid. Overall, it's pretty straightforward work - most of the tanks suck, and I get to tell them why. Some of the tanks don't suck, and I also get to tell them why lol. However, the yard, like my hotel, borders on the pacific coast, and the view from the top of the rail cars is pretty good. Thanks, Yves, for taking the following photos of me (and the scenery) from the top of the rail car.
Now today was interesting. Normally, they work a six-day week here, with Sunday off. So we, in the interests of getting the job done as fast as possible (and taking advantage of the paid vacation for whatever time is left on the contract when the job is finished), we only worked a half-day.
The second half of the day, however, we went back to the markado - and fortunately, my Spanish skills have improved since then. So I was able to stock up on some much-needed groceries and things for the upcoming weeks (lesson number one in living on a perdiem).
Todays lessons also have to do with language:
1) Getting flirted with by hot foreign chicks is pretty cool when you're abroad. Knowing enough of their language to know they're flirting with you and not enough to know what they're actually saying or how to respond is less cool.
2) Thinking in English, listening in French, and talking in Spanish simultaneously is generally considered a bad idea.
At present, most of my time is spent working in a companies rail yard, inspecting the rail tankers that they use to carry sulphuric acid. Overall, it's pretty straightforward work - most of the tanks suck, and I get to tell them why. Some of the tanks don't suck, and I also get to tell them why lol. However, the yard, like my hotel, borders on the pacific coast, and the view from the top of the rail cars is pretty good. Thanks, Yves, for taking the following photos of me (and the scenery) from the top of the rail car.
Now today was interesting. Normally, they work a six-day week here, with Sunday off. So we, in the interests of getting the job done as fast as possible (and taking advantage of the paid vacation for whatever time is left on the contract when the job is finished), we only worked a half-day.
The second half of the day, however, we went back to the markado - and fortunately, my Spanish skills have improved since then. So I was able to stock up on some much-needed groceries and things for the upcoming weeks (lesson number one in living on a perdiem).
Todays lesson also has to do with language:
1) Thinking in English, listening in French, and talking in Spanish simultaneously is generally considered a bad idea, and will probably be doomed to failure.
And to close, the view from my hotel room, as the sun sinks beneath the horizon
And the mountains out my front window
So for the first time since I've been travelling this time, I haven't had to do much work. I eventually have a report to write, but that won't take too long. Furthermore, the surprising lack of sun in this purportedly tropical country came to a sudden and welcome end today, as we finally saw the clouds broke and the day turned absolutely beautiful. As promised, there are some pictures to add. Including the much-talked about view of the Pacific off my balcony at the hotel.
And the mountains out my front window
At present, most of my time is spent working in a companies rail yard, inspecting the rail tankers that they use to carry sulphuric acid. Overall, it's pretty straightforward work - most of the tanks suck, and I get to tell them why. Some of the tanks don't suck, and I also get to tell them why lol. However, the yard, like my hotel, borders on the pacific coast, and the view from the top of the rail cars is pretty good. Thanks, Yves, for taking the following photos of me (and the scenery) from the top of the rail car.
Now today was interesting. Normally, they work a six-day week here, with Sunday off. So we, in the interests of getting the job done as fast as possible (and taking advantage of the paid vacation for whatever time is left on the contract when the job is finished), we only worked a half-day.
The second half of the day, however, we went back to the markado - and fortunately, my Spanish skills have improved since then. So I was able to stock up on some much-needed groceries and things for the upcoming weeks (lesson number one in living on a perdiem).
Todays lessons also have to do with language:
1) Getting flirted with by hot foreign chicks is pretty cool when you're abroad. Knowing enough of their language to know they're flirting with you and not enough to know what they're actually saying or how to respond is less cool.
2) Thinking in English, listening in French, and talking in Spanish simultaneously is generally considered a bad idea.
At present, most of my time is spent working in a companies rail yard, inspecting the rail tankers that they use to carry sulphuric acid. Overall, it's pretty straightforward work - most of the tanks suck, and I get to tell them why. Some of the tanks don't suck, and I also get to tell them why lol. However, the yard, like my hotel, borders on the pacific coast, and the view from the top of the rail cars is pretty good. Thanks, Yves, for taking the following photos of me (and the scenery) from the top of the rail car.
Now today was interesting. Normally, they work a six-day week here, with Sunday off. So we, in the interests of getting the job done as fast as possible (and taking advantage of the paid vacation for whatever time is left on the contract when the job is finished), we only worked a half-day.
The second half of the day, however, we went back to the markado - and fortunately, my Spanish skills have improved since then. So I was able to stock up on some much-needed groceries and things for the upcoming weeks (lesson number one in living on a perdiem).
Todays lesson also has to do with language:
1) Thinking in English, listening in French, and talking in Spanish simultaneously is generally considered a bad idea, and will probably be doomed to failure.
And to close, the view from my hotel room, as the sun sinks beneath the horizon
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Another day, another airport
So I'm finally updating my blog with the start of my Peru trip. For the record this is not a vacation, it is, at the moment, a work trip - so how much "vacation-y" stuff shows up is still up for debate. But, let's start with the Peruvian basics.
1) In answer to any questions about Lima - the airport is an airport. The quality of an airport is inversely proportional to time spent travelling and the time spent in the airport. Lima's airport leaves, according to that formula, much to be desired. On the plus side - Starbucks doesn't close. On the downside, there isn't anyplace convenient to grab a nap on an extended layover.
2) Don't ask about the jungle - I haven't seen it. I'm working in a medium-sized city called Ilo. Ilo exists as a small oasis with the Pacific Ocean on one side, and the desert on the other. I will hopefully get to see jungle in my time here, and will post pictures accordingly.
3) The exchange rate here is NOT especially favourable (only 3:1) - however unless you happen to be going to Starbucks, food, drink, and lodging are all cheap - making it a pretty easy place to go on a budget and have a good time, if you're up for an adventure.
4) As a corollary to number three - be prepared to diet when you get home. The food here is plentiful, cheap (REALLY cheap), and excellent. Be warned, if you're not a seafood person, you could be in for a shock (and possible allergic reaction), as octopus, squid, crawfish, shrimp, clams, and lobster (we think) are the name of the game as far as local restaurants are concerned.
5) Make an effort to learn some Spanish before coming to visit - make everyone's lives easier. Markets (Markados) are a good place to practice your Spanish - some basic vocabulary required.
As it stands, I've done little that's actually noteworthy here other than work - which I do on a daily basis, my usual 8-10 hours a day. When that changes, there will be more stories. Photos will follow as they actually get taken.
1) In answer to any questions about Lima - the airport is an airport. The quality of an airport is inversely proportional to time spent travelling and the time spent in the airport. Lima's airport leaves, according to that formula, much to be desired. On the plus side - Starbucks doesn't close. On the downside, there isn't anyplace convenient to grab a nap on an extended layover.
2) Don't ask about the jungle - I haven't seen it. I'm working in a medium-sized city called Ilo. Ilo exists as a small oasis with the Pacific Ocean on one side, and the desert on the other. I will hopefully get to see jungle in my time here, and will post pictures accordingly.
3) The exchange rate here is NOT especially favourable (only 3:1) - however unless you happen to be going to Starbucks, food, drink, and lodging are all cheap - making it a pretty easy place to go on a budget and have a good time, if you're up for an adventure.
4) As a corollary to number three - be prepared to diet when you get home. The food here is plentiful, cheap (REALLY cheap), and excellent. Be warned, if you're not a seafood person, you could be in for a shock (and possible allergic reaction), as octopus, squid, crawfish, shrimp, clams, and lobster (we think) are the name of the game as far as local restaurants are concerned.
5) Make an effort to learn some Spanish before coming to visit - make everyone's lives easier. Markets (Markados) are a good place to practice your Spanish - some basic vocabulary required.
As it stands, I've done little that's actually noteworthy here other than work - which I do on a daily basis, my usual 8-10 hours a day. When that changes, there will be more stories. Photos will follow as they actually get taken.
Friday, August 8, 2008
A slight change
So this blog will, for the next few weeks (starting sometime on or around August 19th) take on a new look for a few weeks. As a few of you know, I will be leaving for a 3 week contract in Peru that day. As all of you can probably guess, I've never been there, and have every intention of seeing as much of the country as I can when I'm not working. Pictures, stories, and anything else that I figure will be interesting will be posted - whenever I get around to it. So keep reading - it'll be one hell of a ride.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Something that scares the shit out of even me
From the end of the World War II, the threat of nuclear arms has hung like a cloud over top of an uneasy world, the only thread of hope being the idea that none of the states actually possessing these weapons would actually risk the total annihilation not only of their own state, but of the entire globe, by using them. Unfortunately, as the number of states who have joined that club increased, the world has also been faced with certain, less - er... - rational players. Two specific players, however, have shown themselves to be decidedly less rational than others: The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In light of recent progress of the Six-party Talks, we can look at the North Koreans in a somewhat new light, assignificant progress has been made in disarming them. While there are still potential challenges ahead, the future does, at least present a vestige of hope for peace on this front.
We then move to the other side of the nuclear coin - the Islamic Republic of Iran. For the past 20 years, amid protests that their only nuclear objectives are for civilian energy purposes, the Iranians have been moving slowly and inexorably towards the attainment of a nuclear bomb. Constant pressure from the international community has been met with abject refusal to comply with sanctions, or with deals that Iran is party to. For an extensive work on the subject, see "The Iran Threat: President Ahmedinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis", by Alireza Jafarzadeh. Today, in an article published in the Globe and Mail, we can see that the threat of a nuclear armed Iran has moved dramatically forward, with the production of 6,000 centrifuges for the production of enriched uranium, with the eventual goal of possessing 54,000 centrifuges.
So between the unquestionable pursuit of nuclear weapons, the decided antipathy to the United States and the rest of the western nations, and the well-known Iranian support of such terrorist organizations as Hezbollah amongst others, we are faced with three, all-important questions. First - would a nuclear armed Iran, as a state, use the threat or actual use of nuclear arms in conflict (de facto, or diplomatic) with another state? Second - would Iran, as a state sponsor of a number of terrorist organizations, give said organizations access to their nuclear arsenal? Third - if the answer to either of these questions is "yes", what should the west do to prevent this nightmare scenario from ever taking place?
In answer to the first question - we need to consider the actions of the Iranian government in the past. The easiest answer to this question comes with current threats of the Iranian government to "explode the Middle East" if the Americans, Israelis, or anyone else for that matter, decides to step in and remove the potential for a nuclear armed Iran through conventional means. While the use of armed force in self-defense is a legitimate response to an armed attack against your state - the threat of armed force against the national assets of not just the country that attacked yours, but also of your neighbours speaks to an uncommon willingness to protect a weapons program that is designed to do only one thing - wipe another country off the map. This willingness to harm even non-combatants in conflict speaks of nothing less than an unquestionably strong desire to attain such weapons - such a desire speaks only of a willingness to use them to achieve their own ends.
In answer to the second question, we need to consider the primary target of most of the Iranian-sponsored terrorists attacks, and the Iranian policy towards that state: namely, Israel. Ultimately, Iran's policy on Israel is that [Israel] does not have the right to exist, in any borders. The function of nuclear arms is singular - to wipe an offending state off the map. While there is no guarantee, obviously, that Iran would give it's sponsored terrorists nuclear technology, there is certainly no reason to believe that they wouldn't. In the case of such a threat as this, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and assume the answer to be "yes" until proven otherwise.
So we've answered the first two questions - now comes the hard part: what do we do about it. Unfortunately, Iran's threat to take down the Middle East oil supply to the United States and the west is very real, and must be taken seriously. So too, must the eventual threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. Furthermore, we can see pretty clearly that diplomatic effots have failed. The only option left is military. So how does one engage military operations against a rogue state, holding economic catastrophe over the heads of those who must act, without levelling the nation and turning it to dust?
This last question, I will not give a direct answer to - I have no interest in posing the question of declaring war, or committing acts of war against a sovereign state in a public forum online. Suffice it to say that there is no doubt in my mind that Iran must be prevented from attaining nuclear weapons at all costs, and that the only method, at this time, that would be effective in that prevention is through the use of armed force. The west knows what it necessary, and the time to act is now.
In light of recent progress of the Six-party Talks, we can look at the North Koreans in a somewhat new light, assignificant progress has been made in disarming them. While there are still potential challenges ahead, the future does, at least present a vestige of hope for peace on this front.
We then move to the other side of the nuclear coin - the Islamic Republic of Iran. For the past 20 years, amid protests that their only nuclear objectives are for civilian energy purposes, the Iranians have been moving slowly and inexorably towards the attainment of a nuclear bomb. Constant pressure from the international community has been met with abject refusal to comply with sanctions, or with deals that Iran is party to. For an extensive work on the subject, see "The Iran Threat: President Ahmedinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis", by Alireza Jafarzadeh. Today, in an article published in the Globe and Mail, we can see that the threat of a nuclear armed Iran has moved dramatically forward, with the production of 6,000 centrifuges for the production of enriched uranium, with the eventual goal of possessing 54,000 centrifuges.
So between the unquestionable pursuit of nuclear weapons, the decided antipathy to the United States and the rest of the western nations, and the well-known Iranian support of such terrorist organizations as Hezbollah amongst others, we are faced with three, all-important questions. First - would a nuclear armed Iran, as a state, use the threat or actual use of nuclear arms in conflict (de facto, or diplomatic) with another state? Second - would Iran, as a state sponsor of a number of terrorist organizations, give said organizations access to their nuclear arsenal? Third - if the answer to either of these questions is "yes", what should the west do to prevent this nightmare scenario from ever taking place?
In answer to the first question - we need to consider the actions of the Iranian government in the past. The easiest answer to this question comes with current threats of the Iranian government to "explode the Middle East" if the Americans, Israelis, or anyone else for that matter, decides to step in and remove the potential for a nuclear armed Iran through conventional means. While the use of armed force in self-defense is a legitimate response to an armed attack against your state - the threat of armed force against the national assets of not just the country that attacked yours, but also of your neighbours speaks to an uncommon willingness to protect a weapons program that is designed to do only one thing - wipe another country off the map. This willingness to harm even non-combatants in conflict speaks of nothing less than an unquestionably strong desire to attain such weapons - such a desire speaks only of a willingness to use them to achieve their own ends.
In answer to the second question, we need to consider the primary target of most of the Iranian-sponsored terrorists attacks, and the Iranian policy towards that state: namely, Israel. Ultimately, Iran's policy on Israel is that [Israel] does not have the right to exist, in any borders. The function of nuclear arms is singular - to wipe an offending state off the map. While there is no guarantee, obviously, that Iran would give it's sponsored terrorists nuclear technology, there is certainly no reason to believe that they wouldn't. In the case of such a threat as this, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and assume the answer to be "yes" until proven otherwise.
So we've answered the first two questions - now comes the hard part: what do we do about it. Unfortunately, Iran's threat to take down the Middle East oil supply to the United States and the west is very real, and must be taken seriously. So too, must the eventual threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. Furthermore, we can see pretty clearly that diplomatic effots have failed. The only option left is military. So how does one engage military operations against a rogue state, holding economic catastrophe over the heads of those who must act, without levelling the nation and turning it to dust?
This last question, I will not give a direct answer to - I have no interest in posing the question of declaring war, or committing acts of war against a sovereign state in a public forum online. Suffice it to say that there is no doubt in my mind that Iran must be prevented from attaining nuclear weapons at all costs, and that the only method, at this time, that would be effective in that prevention is through the use of armed force. The west knows what it necessary, and the time to act is now.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
A better idea
So somehow, we need to combat rising energy costs, encourage economic growth, and encourage our industries to go green (or at very least, green-ER), and we need to do all of this pretty much simultaneously. After lambasting Stephane Dion's proposed carbon tax as rather a bad idea for reasons pertaining to the first two, I promised an answer. It's time to deliver on that.
To begin, let's look at why bother going green in out industries. Bluntly, there are two reasons - the first is international pressure from a number of parties, including the European Union and, more recently, the United States to go green in our industries, particularily as pertains our exploitation of the oilsands.
The second reason has more to do with domestic quality of living - ultimately, whether you believe in global warming or not, and whether you're especially concerned about the question of global climate change or not (and opinions vary), anyone who's see the skyline around Hamilton, Toronto, and many of our other heavy industrial/commercial centres has seen the brown haze that slowly descends upon the respective cities. Ultimately, the quality of our air and water supplies, notably in heavily industrialized areas, is sinking badly. This in turn has a negative impact on our health - again, something to be avoided.
Thirdly, rising energy costs are taking their toll on all sectors of our economy and directly affecting our cost of living across the board. Reduction in our use of fossil fuels would help to reduce our overall costs at this point, presenting yet another benefit.
dro
How do we do this, and still keep a profit? First off, let's do something about taxes that was suggested by my friend Jason in reply to my last post. Let's give tax cuts to greener companies - perhaps even going so far as to give a tax credit to companies who show a proportional reduction in overall greenhouse gas output - as well as improving funding for research into green and non-fossil fuel based energy sources. Further, as I've said before, we need to put forward a dramatic shift in our national energy production platform from coal/oil/gas fired power plants towards a higher reliance on hydroelectric and nuclear power.
Ultimately, the international demand for fossil fuels will, eventually, reduce as the first world nations move towards a greener industrial future, and as emerging economies such as China, India, and Brazil will inevitably do the same. At that point, the market cost of oil will make it no longer profitable to work the oil sands - costing jobs, money, and potentially causing many of our skilled workers to leave the country for greener pastures. That said, that time is not upon us yet. As we move to eliminate our country's dependance on fossil fuels, we need to recognize that many of these emerging economies are both oil-dependant, and that their needs will continue to increase for quite some time. We need to work to meet those needs, and we need to do so for a number of reasons.
First and foremost is the simple economic question. We ramp up production of our oil and start selling it - irrelevant of where it goes - and we're going to make a profit. The companies that are building multi-billion dollar plants will continue to build, expand, and employ, and petro-dollars will roll in from around the globe - producing increased taxation revenue from abroad. Further, as I said, there will eventually come a time when world dependance on oil will end - at that point, the oil sands will go from being worth potentially billions of dollars, to being worth a fraction of that. Quite frankly, it would make more sense to pull as much of the stuff out of the ground and make as much money on it as we can while it is still profitable to do so. Thirdly is a question of foreign affairs. Right now, many players in OPEC are, at best ambivalent towards and at worst downright antagonistic to western interests. Short version to a long story is that petrodollars in Canada's pocket that are taken away from the pockets of some of these other nations are a decidedly beneficial thing from our Foreign Minister's office's perspective.
Anyhow, short version of this is that we move towards a greener Canada through a combination of R&D, tax incentives, and a shift in energy policy at the same time as engaging in aggressive exploitation of our oil reserves to use for export. Just because we're trying to go green doesn't mean that we have to force everyone else to, and certainly doesn't mean that we can't still try to force a profit off the fact that everyone else isn't going to just yet.
To begin, let's look at why bother going green in out industries. Bluntly, there are two reasons - the first is international pressure from a number of parties, including the European Union and, more recently, the United States to go green in our industries, particularily as pertains our exploitation of the oilsands.
The second reason has more to do with domestic quality of living - ultimately, whether you believe in global warming or not, and whether you're especially concerned about the question of global climate change or not (and opinions vary), anyone who's see the skyline around Hamilton, Toronto, and many of our other heavy industrial/commercial centres has seen the brown haze that slowly descends upon the respective cities. Ultimately, the quality of our air and water supplies, notably in heavily industrialized areas, is sinking badly. This in turn has a negative impact on our health - again, something to be avoided.
Thirdly, rising energy costs are taking their toll on all sectors of our economy and directly affecting our cost of living across the board. Reduction in our use of fossil fuels would help to reduce our overall costs at this point, presenting yet another benefit.
dro
How do we do this, and still keep a profit? First off, let's do something about taxes that was suggested by my friend Jason in reply to my last post. Let's give tax cuts to greener companies - perhaps even going so far as to give a tax credit to companies who show a proportional reduction in overall greenhouse gas output - as well as improving funding for research into green and non-fossil fuel based energy sources. Further, as I've said before, we need to put forward a dramatic shift in our national energy production platform from coal/oil/gas fired power plants towards a higher reliance on hydroelectric and nuclear power.
Ultimately, the international demand for fossil fuels will, eventually, reduce as the first world nations move towards a greener industrial future, and as emerging economies such as China, India, and Brazil will inevitably do the same. At that point, the market cost of oil will make it no longer profitable to work the oil sands - costing jobs, money, and potentially causing many of our skilled workers to leave the country for greener pastures. That said, that time is not upon us yet. As we move to eliminate our country's dependance on fossil fuels, we need to recognize that many of these emerging economies are both oil-dependant, and that their needs will continue to increase for quite some time. We need to work to meet those needs, and we need to do so for a number of reasons.
First and foremost is the simple economic question. We ramp up production of our oil and start selling it - irrelevant of where it goes - and we're going to make a profit. The companies that are building multi-billion dollar plants will continue to build, expand, and employ, and petro-dollars will roll in from around the globe - producing increased taxation revenue from abroad. Further, as I said, there will eventually come a time when world dependance on oil will end - at that point, the oil sands will go from being worth potentially billions of dollars, to being worth a fraction of that. Quite frankly, it would make more sense to pull as much of the stuff out of the ground and make as much money on it as we can while it is still profitable to do so. Thirdly is a question of foreign affairs. Right now, many players in OPEC are, at best ambivalent towards and at worst downright antagonistic to western interests. Short version to a long story is that petrodollars in Canada's pocket that are taken away from the pockets of some of these other nations are a decidedly beneficial thing from our Foreign Minister's office's perspective.
Anyhow, short version of this is that we move towards a greener Canada through a combination of R&D, tax incentives, and a shift in energy policy at the same time as engaging in aggressive exploitation of our oil reserves to use for export. Just because we're trying to go green doesn't mean that we have to force everyone else to, and certainly doesn't mean that we can't still try to force a profit off the fact that everyone else isn't going to just yet.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
A bad idea, couched in good rhetoric, is still a bad idea
So as another election looks to be unfolding around the corner, the Liberal Party of Canada has unleashed yet another bad idea - it's actually kind of funny how often this happens - and has done (as usual) an impeccable job of hiding behind truly impressive (and, at times staggering) verbiage. Verbiage designed to defend why, exactly, we should pay more tax and suffer an increased cost of living when energy prices are skyrocketing, and our economy is facing a significant risk as a result of the effects of the weak American Dollar on Canadian manufacturing, commercial interests, and tourism. Verbiage designed to couch the risks in enacting such a plan behind words like "daring" and "bold" - when words like "foolhardy" and "stupid" seem more apt to me.
So, before I start to take apart the Liberals new taxation strategy for you, let's get a couple of things underway. First of all, we're going to take as given that the climate change issue has been, once and for all, settled. We're going to take as given that greenhouse gases are causing untold amounts of damage to the environment and that we need to (as a globe) reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to prevent further damage. We're taking these as givens not because they're necessarily true, but because they're necessary premises to be able to reasonably debate this policy shift. There are lots of debates around the internet with varying degrees of scientific complexity on this question that you can browse at your leisure.
Second: we are going to assume that what Liberal leader Stephane Dion has said he will do if elected (in this context) is what he will ACTUALLY do. Obviously, it's impossible to debate the merits of a politicians promise if you assume that all or part of the promise is a lie.
Third and lastly - I have read the official Liberal Party documentation on their new policy. Yes, this is mostly rhetoric, but it does outline the basics of the new plan. I suggest you do the same by clicking here.
So let's consider "the plan". Essentially, how the Green Shift works (according to Liberal propagandists) is to put a noticable, measurable, and increasing direct tax on carbon emissions through the taxation of fossil fuels, beginning in year 1 with a $10/tonne tax on carbon emissions and raising steadily to $40/tonne by the end of the fourth year. (see p. 28 of previous link) This additional tax will be directly returned to Canadians and Canadian business through a series of tax cuts. (see p. 36 for total dollar value of "tax cuts and other benefits", and see p. 42 for a rough budget showing the taxation structure change to be "revenue neutral").
The purpose of this new taxation strategy is "shift Canada's taxation strategy away from income and towards pollution in a revenue-neutral way", and to put a price on carbon to "spur industry to pollute less". This would create "a new demand in Canada for green products and technologies". The oncoming taxation reductions would seek to reduce basic tax rates of the three lowest income brackets by ten, five, and four precent, respectively, with the particular goal "to help low-income Canadians". As well, the new plan seeks to "accelerate and deepen the currently planned corporate tax cuts", "accelerate the capital cost allowance rates for investments in green technologies", and make the Science, Research & Experimental Development Tax credit 25% refundable - making it more attractive to business to invest in green technology in the present.
Actually, when I present it this way, it really looks, on the surface, like a decent idea. So why am I sitting here criticizing it? Unfortunately, the Liberal party policymakers are very good at writing, and very bad at mathematics. The basic considerations show that the Green Shift is indeed revenue neutral - in the short term, from the government's perspective. So let's look at the problems.
There are two issues with this platform that raise alarms with me - the first is the concept of increasing taxation on a decreasing resource (aka: pollution). Unlike other federal "sin taxes," the proposed new carbon tax will be specifically designed to drastically reduce overall carbon emissions - the source of the tax. At the same time, income taxes will be being cut to make the plan, in the short term, revenue neutral. However, as the sum of our carbon emissions as a nation reduces, our government's overall revenue will reduce. This change in revenue source will, when the policy is extended from 4 years and continuing to a longer cycle, no longer be neutral. This shift in taxation policy is a multi-billion dollar deficit in the making. Unfortunately, that has long been the platform of Liberal governments in this country - spend now, change now, and we'll leave the consequences to someone else. In this case, those consequences will be left to the Canadian taxpayer - the very working and middle classes that this platform shift will allegedly "help".
The second issue that I see is the term "revenue neutral". I ask "revenue neutral FOR WHOM?" Perhaps what Liberal policymakers neglect to remember (or comment to) is that there is more to calculating a Canadian's cost of living than simply taxation increases. What the Liberal's attempts to buy our countrymen off with simple tax cuts fail to appreciate is the fact that, definitionally, the proposed taxation shift from income to pollution (essentially from income to production) is, of necessity, inflationary. Unfortunately, as much as this new taxation strategy is designed to shift our economy towards a greener future, economies are large, bulky, and notoriously slow to change direction. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will a new, green economy in this country. In the time it takes for this proposed "new economy" to be forged, every stage of the production chain - raw materials exploitation, processing, to final manufacturing and sales - in this country will see an increase in taxation. The cost of those taxes will, in every case, be filtered down to the consumer, resulting in an increased cost of living for the average working Canadian. As this cost filters downwards, there will be a significant push for higher wages amongst the working and middle classes to make up for this increase in cost of living - which will further increase the cost of domestic goods in this country and repeat the process - until a newer, much more expensive status quo is reached. This calculus will actually be slightly higher when directly applied to the fossil-fuel industry itself (ie: gas costs, aviation/transport costs, etc.) Save the taxpayers money? On taxes certainly, but a lower taxation rate is a high price to pay for a hugely increased cost of living.
This new taxation strategy may be politically expedient - designed to appeal to a population where "green" is the new black, but where an understanding of the economic ramifications of such a plan are sorely misunderstood. I can only hope that, come election day, the people of this country band together to reject good politics in the name of a sound, actionable strategy, a strategy that sees investment in green technology and a shift towards a greener future in this country that doesn't come at such a high cost to taxpayers and to our economy. Check back after this weekend and I will present a different strategy, designed to meet tomorrow's need of a greener Canada with todays need to counteract rising energy prices, a too strong dollar, and rising costs of living for the average Canadian taxpayer. I'll present a strategy that makes sense.
So, before I start to take apart the Liberals new taxation strategy for you, let's get a couple of things underway. First of all, we're going to take as given that the climate change issue has been, once and for all, settled. We're going to take as given that greenhouse gases are causing untold amounts of damage to the environment and that we need to (as a globe) reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to prevent further damage. We're taking these as givens not because they're necessarily true, but because they're necessary premises to be able to reasonably debate this policy shift. There are lots of debates around the internet with varying degrees of scientific complexity on this question that you can browse at your leisure.
Second: we are going to assume that what Liberal leader Stephane Dion has said he will do if elected (in this context) is what he will ACTUALLY do. Obviously, it's impossible to debate the merits of a politicians promise if you assume that all or part of the promise is a lie.
Third and lastly - I have read the official Liberal Party documentation on their new policy. Yes, this is mostly rhetoric, but it does outline the basics of the new plan. I suggest you do the same by clicking here.
So let's consider "the plan". Essentially, how the Green Shift works (according to Liberal propagandists) is to put a noticable, measurable, and increasing direct tax on carbon emissions through the taxation of fossil fuels, beginning in year 1 with a $10/tonne tax on carbon emissions and raising steadily to $40/tonne by the end of the fourth year. (see p. 28 of previous link) This additional tax will be directly returned to Canadians and Canadian business through a series of tax cuts. (see p. 36 for total dollar value of "tax cuts and other benefits", and see p. 42 for a rough budget showing the taxation structure change to be "revenue neutral").
The purpose of this new taxation strategy is "shift Canada's taxation strategy away from income and towards pollution in a revenue-neutral way", and to put a price on carbon to "spur industry to pollute less". This would create "a new demand in Canada for green products and technologies". The oncoming taxation reductions would seek to reduce basic tax rates of the three lowest income brackets by ten, five, and four precent, respectively, with the particular goal "to help low-income Canadians". As well, the new plan seeks to "accelerate and deepen the currently planned corporate tax cuts", "accelerate the capital cost allowance rates for investments in green technologies", and make the Science, Research & Experimental Development Tax credit 25% refundable - making it more attractive to business to invest in green technology in the present.
Actually, when I present it this way, it really looks, on the surface, like a decent idea. So why am I sitting here criticizing it? Unfortunately, the Liberal party policymakers are very good at writing, and very bad at mathematics. The basic considerations show that the Green Shift is indeed revenue neutral - in the short term, from the government's perspective. So let's look at the problems.
There are two issues with this platform that raise alarms with me - the first is the concept of increasing taxation on a decreasing resource (aka: pollution). Unlike other federal "sin taxes," the proposed new carbon tax will be specifically designed to drastically reduce overall carbon emissions - the source of the tax. At the same time, income taxes will be being cut to make the plan, in the short term, revenue neutral. However, as the sum of our carbon emissions as a nation reduces, our government's overall revenue will reduce. This change in revenue source will, when the policy is extended from 4 years and continuing to a longer cycle, no longer be neutral. This shift in taxation policy is a multi-billion dollar deficit in the making. Unfortunately, that has long been the platform of Liberal governments in this country - spend now, change now, and we'll leave the consequences to someone else. In this case, those consequences will be left to the Canadian taxpayer - the very working and middle classes that this platform shift will allegedly "help".
The second issue that I see is the term "revenue neutral". I ask "revenue neutral FOR WHOM?" Perhaps what Liberal policymakers neglect to remember (or comment to) is that there is more to calculating a Canadian's cost of living than simply taxation increases. What the Liberal's attempts to buy our countrymen off with simple tax cuts fail to appreciate is the fact that, definitionally, the proposed taxation shift from income to pollution (essentially from income to production) is, of necessity, inflationary. Unfortunately, as much as this new taxation strategy is designed to shift our economy towards a greener future, economies are large, bulky, and notoriously slow to change direction. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will a new, green economy in this country. In the time it takes for this proposed "new economy" to be forged, every stage of the production chain - raw materials exploitation, processing, to final manufacturing and sales - in this country will see an increase in taxation. The cost of those taxes will, in every case, be filtered down to the consumer, resulting in an increased cost of living for the average working Canadian. As this cost filters downwards, there will be a significant push for higher wages amongst the working and middle classes to make up for this increase in cost of living - which will further increase the cost of domestic goods in this country and repeat the process - until a newer, much more expensive status quo is reached. This calculus will actually be slightly higher when directly applied to the fossil-fuel industry itself (ie: gas costs, aviation/transport costs, etc.) Save the taxpayers money? On taxes certainly, but a lower taxation rate is a high price to pay for a hugely increased cost of living.
This new taxation strategy may be politically expedient - designed to appeal to a population where "green" is the new black, but where an understanding of the economic ramifications of such a plan are sorely misunderstood. I can only hope that, come election day, the people of this country band together to reject good politics in the name of a sound, actionable strategy, a strategy that sees investment in green technology and a shift towards a greener future in this country that doesn't come at such a high cost to taxpayers and to our economy. Check back after this weekend and I will present a different strategy, designed to meet tomorrow's need of a greener Canada with todays need to counteract rising energy prices, a too strong dollar, and rising costs of living for the average Canadian taxpayer. I'll present a strategy that makes sense.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
A rant about ducks...
So after seeing the country in an uproar about a few dead ducks (seriously, it isn't like we haven't got lots of them here), and hearing people complain about the environmental impact of the exploitation of Alberta's oilsands, I was able to get a first hand look.
First, let me give the nod to the environmentalists - yes, it's true. the complete destruction of the locales around the major plants in the region is absolutely staggering. It looks like a number of large smokestacks rising out of a desert - seriously.
But how many of you have actually been there, have actually seen the extents (and limits) of the so-called problem? Odds are, not very many. The fact is that it isn't that bad. Yes, the areas where the plants ARE are in a terrible environmental state. That said, the remainder of the areas AROUND where the plants are still exist as near pristine wilderness. Trees are alive and growing, as is wildlife.
So, to the doomsday prophets, I ask only that you take a few minutes and consider this - it's limited. It's VERY limited - the areas around the plants (once you get outside of the "desert" are still pristine wilderness. So, unless you've actually got something useful to say, please stick to hugging trees and stay the hell away from our economy.
First, let me give the nod to the environmentalists - yes, it's true. the complete destruction of the locales around the major plants in the region is absolutely staggering. It looks like a number of large smokestacks rising out of a desert - seriously.
But how many of you have actually been there, have actually seen the extents (and limits) of the so-called problem? Odds are, not very many. The fact is that it isn't that bad. Yes, the areas where the plants ARE are in a terrible environmental state. That said, the remainder of the areas AROUND where the plants are still exist as near pristine wilderness. Trees are alive and growing, as is wildlife.
So, to the doomsday prophets, I ask only that you take a few minutes and consider this - it's limited. It's VERY limited - the areas around the plants (once you get outside of the "desert" are still pristine wilderness. So, unless you've actually got something useful to say, please stick to hugging trees and stay the hell away from our economy.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
On War - my version
So one of the big deals in the last few years has been the issue of war in Iraq. It's been on the minds and tongues of just about anyone with a degree of political awareness, and a whole bunch of people who have none but like to hear themselves speak anyway. More recently, a discussion with a friend of mine in the army brought up the idea of being able to wage war through robotics via the click of a mouse, so I got to thinking about what was wrong with how we wage war.
I am not an anti-war advocate. Actually, I'm more of a pro-war advocate - but an advocate of smart war. War fought to win, and war fought to minimize casualties - both on our side, and on the opponents side, and war fought for reasonable, measurable policy objectives.
So what's wrong with how we wage war, and how can we make wars more efficient, and less costly in materiel and human life, while still protecting the policy objectives that we wage war to protect or enforce in the first place?
I think to answer that question that we need to look at a history of war - not a history of tactics and strategy, but a history of what war is. From time immemorial, wars have been fought between opposing armies on a battlefield of one form or another - from the trenches of Vimy Ridge or Paschendale, the jungles of Korea or Vietnam, to the desert of Afghanistan or Iraq, and even in the cities in Iraq, Kosovo, and even, to a certain extent, Ireland. These wars are won through the capture, death, or forced surrender of the opposing army - of necessity costing thousands of lives, but furthering the political will of the leadership of those armies. Essentially war is fought with a battlefield mentality that has remained unchanged over millenia, however has adapted itself as weapons modernize, and tactics with them.
So what options exist that would allow military leadership to escape the idea of a "battlefield" mentality? The one I would like to look at is a concept I will call a "covert ops" army. So what is such a force, and how would one operate? To answer this question, let's look at the current covert operations teams that exist. Using the Americans as an example, their special forces exist as the Navy SEALS, the Army Rangers, the Green Berets, and the Airborne units - in all respects troops exquisitely trained in covert warfare, and supported as needed by the main branches of the army. These forces are generally used in counter-terror operations, as well as covert/intelligence ops abroad. So how does one fight a war with a force made up of these well trained, well equipped foot soldiers?
How does one kill a snake? Remove the head, and the snake quickly dies. Do the same with an army or a government, and the government, like the snake, quickly dies. Let's further this concept by looking at modern war, but considering a "covert ops war" on the ground. We keep, as our standing army, an elite unit comprising soldiers trained and equipped for covert infiltration, execution, and extraction. Rather than sending our tanks, infantry, artillery, etc in to fight and destroy our enemies armour, infantry, artillery, etc, would we not be better to use the covers of silence and darkness to take down the command structure of the opposing forces - both in the field and at the office? Why not carry that a couple of steps further and use the same strategy to take the leadership of the belligerant power? Ultimately, this change in overall wartime strategy should lead to both a reduced financial cost for a state at war, as well as a significant reduction in loss of life - civillian and military - for all parties involved.
In the end, this strategy comes through two concepts not unknown to combat operations - speed and stealth. Victory through a covert strategy requires a number of factors. First, the operations against the opposition have to go of within a short period of time - striking down the odd person here or there will leave the opposition too much time to find a replacement for that person or those few people. Taking down a larger number of targets in a limited time frame allows for a much smaller response time for the opposition, allowing both for greater disruption to their military operations, as well as a greater chance of successful escape of your own operatives. Second, a sufficient number of operations actually have to succeed to sufficiently destabilize the nations government and military structure to not allow them the option of continuing their belligerance.
Sun Tzu spoke of the value of surprise and stealth many times throughout his treatise - this is, I believe, the logical conclusion of that.
I am not an anti-war advocate. Actually, I'm more of a pro-war advocate - but an advocate of smart war. War fought to win, and war fought to minimize casualties - both on our side, and on the opponents side, and war fought for reasonable, measurable policy objectives.
So what's wrong with how we wage war, and how can we make wars more efficient, and less costly in materiel and human life, while still protecting the policy objectives that we wage war to protect or enforce in the first place?
I think to answer that question that we need to look at a history of war - not a history of tactics and strategy, but a history of what war is. From time immemorial, wars have been fought between opposing armies on a battlefield of one form or another - from the trenches of Vimy Ridge or Paschendale, the jungles of Korea or Vietnam, to the desert of Afghanistan or Iraq, and even in the cities in Iraq, Kosovo, and even, to a certain extent, Ireland. These wars are won through the capture, death, or forced surrender of the opposing army - of necessity costing thousands of lives, but furthering the political will of the leadership of those armies. Essentially war is fought with a battlefield mentality that has remained unchanged over millenia, however has adapted itself as weapons modernize, and tactics with them.
So what options exist that would allow military leadership to escape the idea of a "battlefield" mentality? The one I would like to look at is a concept I will call a "covert ops" army. So what is such a force, and how would one operate? To answer this question, let's look at the current covert operations teams that exist. Using the Americans as an example, their special forces exist as the Navy SEALS, the Army Rangers, the Green Berets, and the Airborne units - in all respects troops exquisitely trained in covert warfare, and supported as needed by the main branches of the army. These forces are generally used in counter-terror operations, as well as covert/intelligence ops abroad. So how does one fight a war with a force made up of these well trained, well equipped foot soldiers?
How does one kill a snake? Remove the head, and the snake quickly dies. Do the same with an army or a government, and the government, like the snake, quickly dies. Let's further this concept by looking at modern war, but considering a "covert ops war" on the ground. We keep, as our standing army, an elite unit comprising soldiers trained and equipped for covert infiltration, execution, and extraction. Rather than sending our tanks, infantry, artillery, etc in to fight and destroy our enemies armour, infantry, artillery, etc, would we not be better to use the covers of silence and darkness to take down the command structure of the opposing forces - both in the field and at the office? Why not carry that a couple of steps further and use the same strategy to take the leadership of the belligerant power? Ultimately, this change in overall wartime strategy should lead to both a reduced financial cost for a state at war, as well as a significant reduction in loss of life - civillian and military - for all parties involved.
In the end, this strategy comes through two concepts not unknown to combat operations - speed and stealth. Victory through a covert strategy requires a number of factors. First, the operations against the opposition have to go of within a short period of time - striking down the odd person here or there will leave the opposition too much time to find a replacement for that person or those few people. Taking down a larger number of targets in a limited time frame allows for a much smaller response time for the opposition, allowing both for greater disruption to their military operations, as well as a greater chance of successful escape of your own operatives. Second, a sufficient number of operations actually have to succeed to sufficiently destabilize the nations government and military structure to not allow them the option of continuing their belligerance.
Sun Tzu spoke of the value of surprise and stealth many times throughout his treatise - this is, I believe, the logical conclusion of that.
Monday, April 28, 2008
On a more personal front
Saturday night was fun, if bittersweet. Goodbyes often are. On Wednesday, I move to Edmonton - first time I've ever been there - new job, working on a new apartment, finding new friends, and all those other wonderful things. I'm very, very excited to be moving - more accurately, I'm excited to be working at something that isn't a call centre again, excited to be starting fresh in a new city again. Then we get to the bittersweet side of things - Saturday night was my goodbye party. Surrounded by by some pretty good friends, and realizing that I don't know when I'm going to see them again - kind of an unpleasant thought. Then again, I've moved enough times in the past year to have done this before, but it seems to get harder every time rather than easier.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Changes in immigration policy
Hidden within the pages of a 136 page budget bill that the Federal Conservatives are looking to pass through parliament are some amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that will give the Immigration Minister more power to decide who gets to stay. These changes, which have been put forward by the government as an attempt to ease the backlog of prospective immigrants to this country, have drawn concern from opposition MPs.
The brunt of the changes put forward in the proposed legislation will "Give the immigration minister the authority to instruct immigration officers to set limits on what types of immigrants — "by category or otherwise" — can have their applications processed each year," and "Require an otherwise ineligible person who wants to immigrate on humanitarian grounds to already be in Canada for their application to be processed," according to cbcnews.ca.
Under existing legislation, the government must go through the immigration applications in the order they are recieved. While this is a "fair" policy, it neglects the most important question that needs to be asked regarding immigration policy - namely "Why do we bring in immigrants - their benefit, or ours?". The proposed changes would allow the Minister to give preferential treatment to certain "categories" of immigrants at their discretion - namely allowing for qualified/skilled workers to "jump the line" so to speak, and make an expedited trip into the country, where their skills could be put to good use.
Personally, I can see a degree of merit to this argument - the fact is that the government of Canada has as it's primary responsibility to enact policy that is in the best interests of the country - and giving preferential treatment to a skilled workforce that is interested in taking their skills, their training, and their families to Canada would seem to be more in our countries interests.
So aside from giving them a preferential place on the waitlist to get here, how else can we encourage skilled, educated immigrants to make their way to this country? This question calls to mind the story of one young family who came over from west Africa. The father was a doctor, trained at Kenya's national university, and an experienced surgeon. The family now lives somewhere in New Jersey and he is practicing as a lab technician because we wouldn't recognize his credentials as being worth anything. This story isn't uncommon, and it also doesn't make sense. To be fair, we do need to be careful whether or not we recognize someone's credentials - just because they're recognized in one country, doesn't mean that they should be recognized in ours. That being said, we also need to be, I think, a little bit more pragmatic. We make our own med students undergo residency, we make our own engineers go through the EIT program, and we make our tradesmen go through an apprenticeship before we allow them to ply their trade on their own, and perhaps it would be reasonable to have our skilled/trained immigrant workforce undergo a similar system. This would allow them to do what they're trained to do - which would give them far more cause to stay and would also give those skills and that training to our own workforce. Furthermore, it would enable us to ensure that their training is up to standards that are expected here. Overall, this seems like a reasonable solution for the good of our country, and for the good of the skilled and educated people who want to come and help us make it better.
More: Picking winners and losers in the immigration race ([here] New Brunswick)
Liberals urged to fight immigration proposals (Globe and Mail)
The brunt of the changes put forward in the proposed legislation will "Give the immigration minister the authority to instruct immigration officers to set limits on what types of immigrants — "by category or otherwise" — can have their applications processed each year," and "Require an otherwise ineligible person who wants to immigrate on humanitarian grounds to already be in Canada for their application to be processed," according to cbcnews.ca.
Under existing legislation, the government must go through the immigration applications in the order they are recieved. While this is a "fair" policy, it neglects the most important question that needs to be asked regarding immigration policy - namely "Why do we bring in immigrants - their benefit, or ours?". The proposed changes would allow the Minister to give preferential treatment to certain "categories" of immigrants at their discretion - namely allowing for qualified/skilled workers to "jump the line" so to speak, and make an expedited trip into the country, where their skills could be put to good use.
Personally, I can see a degree of merit to this argument - the fact is that the government of Canada has as it's primary responsibility to enact policy that is in the best interests of the country - and giving preferential treatment to a skilled workforce that is interested in taking their skills, their training, and their families to Canada would seem to be more in our countries interests.
So aside from giving them a preferential place on the waitlist to get here, how else can we encourage skilled, educated immigrants to make their way to this country? This question calls to mind the story of one young family who came over from west Africa. The father was a doctor, trained at Kenya's national university, and an experienced surgeon. The family now lives somewhere in New Jersey and he is practicing as a lab technician because we wouldn't recognize his credentials as being worth anything. This story isn't uncommon, and it also doesn't make sense. To be fair, we do need to be careful whether or not we recognize someone's credentials - just because they're recognized in one country, doesn't mean that they should be recognized in ours. That being said, we also need to be, I think, a little bit more pragmatic. We make our own med students undergo residency, we make our own engineers go through the EIT program, and we make our tradesmen go through an apprenticeship before we allow them to ply their trade on their own, and perhaps it would be reasonable to have our skilled/trained immigrant workforce undergo a similar system. This would allow them to do what they're trained to do - which would give them far more cause to stay and would also give those skills and that training to our own workforce. Furthermore, it would enable us to ensure that their training is up to standards that are expected here. Overall, this seems like a reasonable solution for the good of our country, and for the good of the skilled and educated people who want to come and help us make it better.
More: Picking winners and losers in the immigration race ([here] New Brunswick)
Liberals urged to fight immigration proposals (Globe and Mail)
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Copy Protection for Canada...
One of my friends sent me an email today with a link to a few articles pertaining to Industry Minister Jim Prentice's new proposed copyright legislation. This legislation, it is feared, will mirror the American's infamous DMCA in how it seeks to address issues such as online file-sharing, circumvention of digital copy-protection, and circumvention devices, amongst others.
I have to admit, as a consumer, and as a Conservative, the implications of such a legislation concern me greatly. First let me state that I believe that it is only fair that the creators of media (movies, music, TV shows, etc) be paid for their work. I'm not even opposed to giving the recording industry their cut - everyone has to make a living. The question remains, however, "at what cost"?
The first and most significant is the question of the right to privacy. Under the protection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, every person physically in Canada is guaranteed the "right to life, liberty, and security of the person". While I do not have constitutional jurisprudence, I have always firmly believed that the concept of individual privacy to be inherent to individual security of person. In order for legislation against such activities to be enforced, the ability to gather personal information about who uses copyrighted media and how it is used is necessary. Specifically, that information must be gathered before any suspicion of illegal activity even exists. To me, this concern alone is sufficient cause to quash any attempts to copy the DMCA here in Canada.
The other interesting aspect of this issue is that the recording industry (per say) is actually divided on the issue - with many artists firmly OPPOSED to any kind of legislation such as this. The reasons are several - first of all are concerns as to how such a law will affect the relationship between the band and their fans. For an example of one of the more extreme cases, one need only refer to the 2000 lawsuit against Napster launched by Metallica - and the resulting backlash from fans. The other concern is one of publicity. Strange though it may seem, there are some bands that I've never heard of. There are bands that my friends and I combined, have never heard of. There are even - heaven forbid - bands that my friends and I combined have never even met anyone who over the course of their entire lifetimes will have heard of. Some of those bands will most assuredly, be atrocious. Some of those bands will, almost equally assuredly, be fantastic. The plethora of music, readily available for download somewhere online gives those previously mentioned bands (good and bad) a wider audience for their work to be heard. To give you a good case in point, I would likely never have even heard of any of my current three favorite bands without the benefit of being able to download their music - and for the record, I also now own a MINIMUM of 5 of the bands CDs each.
For these reasons, amongst others, I am strongly opposed to copying the American's DMCA in this country, and instead favour a different solution. A Canadian solution - one that actually protects the rights of the residents of our nation. A conservative solution - one that espouses the values of a free and open marketplace, lacking in governmental intervention. So what solution do I believe in? I believe that the indiviidual right to privacy supercides the rights of copyright holders to engage in invasive measures to protect their intellectual property. I believe that the study undertaken by two students of the Department of Management at the University of London that suggest a positive relationship between P2P file sharing and CD purchasing might actually be true. I also believe that internet downloading of media is the future of the industry, and should be encouraged by the industry as well as the artists. Or perhaps the recording industry is concerned about being cut out of the market by the artists, and the fans who support them. I believe that maybe, just maybe, the federal government should sit this one out.
Note: for a copy of the previously mentioned study, click
here
For further reading on the subject, any or all of the following links will suffice
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/01/11/copyright-canada.html
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/story/2007/11/19/copyright-law.html
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2419/125/
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080311-canadian-mp-dont-use-wipo-as-excuse-for-canadian-dmca.html
I have to admit, as a consumer, and as a Conservative, the implications of such a legislation concern me greatly. First let me state that I believe that it is only fair that the creators of media (movies, music, TV shows, etc) be paid for their work. I'm not even opposed to giving the recording industry their cut - everyone has to make a living. The question remains, however, "at what cost"?
The first and most significant is the question of the right to privacy. Under the protection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, every person physically in Canada is guaranteed the "right to life, liberty, and security of the person". While I do not have constitutional jurisprudence, I have always firmly believed that the concept of individual privacy to be inherent to individual security of person. In order for legislation against such activities to be enforced, the ability to gather personal information about who uses copyrighted media and how it is used is necessary. Specifically, that information must be gathered before any suspicion of illegal activity even exists. To me, this concern alone is sufficient cause to quash any attempts to copy the DMCA here in Canada.
The other interesting aspect of this issue is that the recording industry (per say) is actually divided on the issue - with many artists firmly OPPOSED to any kind of legislation such as this. The reasons are several - first of all are concerns as to how such a law will affect the relationship between the band and their fans. For an example of one of the more extreme cases, one need only refer to the 2000 lawsuit against Napster launched by Metallica - and the resulting backlash from fans. The other concern is one of publicity. Strange though it may seem, there are some bands that I've never heard of. There are bands that my friends and I combined, have never heard of. There are even - heaven forbid - bands that my friends and I combined have never even met anyone who over the course of their entire lifetimes will have heard of. Some of those bands will most assuredly, be atrocious. Some of those bands will, almost equally assuredly, be fantastic. The plethora of music, readily available for download somewhere online gives those previously mentioned bands (good and bad) a wider audience for their work to be heard. To give you a good case in point, I would likely never have even heard of any of my current three favorite bands without the benefit of being able to download their music - and for the record, I also now own a MINIMUM of 5 of the bands CDs each.
For these reasons, amongst others, I am strongly opposed to copying the American's DMCA in this country, and instead favour a different solution. A Canadian solution - one that actually protects the rights of the residents of our nation. A conservative solution - one that espouses the values of a free and open marketplace, lacking in governmental intervention. So what solution do I believe in? I believe that the indiviidual right to privacy supercides the rights of copyright holders to engage in invasive measures to protect their intellectual property. I believe that the study undertaken by two students of the Department of Management at the University of London that suggest a positive relationship between P2P file sharing and CD purchasing might actually be true. I also believe that internet downloading of media is the future of the industry, and should be encouraged by the industry as well as the artists. Or perhaps the recording industry is concerned about being cut out of the market by the artists, and the fans who support them. I believe that maybe, just maybe, the federal government should sit this one out.
Note: for a copy of the previously mentioned study, click
here
For further reading on the subject, any or all of the following links will suffice
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/01/11/copyright-canada.html
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/story/2007/11/19/copyright-law.html
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2419/125/
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080311-canadian-mp-dont-use-wipo-as-excuse-for-canadian-dmca.html
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Gas prices and the environment
For those of you who were wondering, I was doing some brainstorming on the subject and hit "Publish Post" by mistake. Oh well, there goes the element of surprise.
People here and, frankly, everywhere else have been complaining about high gas prices for years. To be honest, it's a valid complaint. More recently, of course, have been the concerns surrounding the so-called "greenhouse gasses", and the various effects of them on the environment. I think that there may be some ideas that would improve both situations simultaneously. Some of these ideas are very short term - essentially "quick-fixes". Some of these ideas may take more time. Either way, I'd welcome any input.
First, let's look at the economics of the subject. Gas prices at the pumps are determined by four factors: the market cost of crude oil; refining costs; taxes; and profit margins for the various people who are involved in getting the oil from the ground, and into your gas tank. Some aspects of this cost can't be directly affected through government action. Some aspects can - namely the taxes, and the market cost. The market costs can be achieved through influencing the supply/demand curve - namely reduce the demand, at the same time as increasing the available supply.
Step one: increase the overall available supply. Canada is in an interesting strategic situation, as having the second largest oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, the majority of those reserves are in the Alberta oil sands - with a cost of production of up to $40/barrel. In comparison to the production costs of $10/barrel or less in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and other conventional drilling locations, this is pretty high. That said, with the market cost currently sitting around $100/barrel (pre-refining cost), there's enough of a difference to increase production somewhat and maintain a hugely profitable operation. Furthermore, the increased production should lead to an increase in jobs in the market. The other factor in the market cost of oil are political factors - essentially, issues taking place overseas - most notably in Venezuela and the Arabian peninsula - are impacting the cost that we're being charged for that oil. Ramping up production in our own reserves, and simultaneously increasing refining capabilities here would enable us to not be reliant on imported oil - thus making us invulnerable to the political factors that have caused the issues in the oil market, and, long term, would enable us to compete directly with OPEC in that market - and, potentially, profit immensely in so doing.
Step two: reduce domestic oil consumption, which serves the dual purpose of keeping prices lower, and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions which, regardless of your position on global warming specifically, definitely improves the quality of our air. To reduce our total oil consumption, there are two factors to consider: energy production, and transportation. Energy production is a bit of a tricky question - ultimately, the Federal government has limited control over the energy policies of the provinces (constitutionally), so there is no sure policy that can be set. That said, encouraging the provincial governments to (long term) convert their existing coal-and-oil burning electric plants to nuclear and/or hydro-electric (where the capacity exists) could be decidedly helpful. Obviously, this change-over will cost tax dollars, however will also create large numbers of reasonably well-paying jobs - leading to an increase in overall tax revenue both in the form of income taxes, and the sales taxes on the increase in retail spending.
The question of transportation has a few other factors. Ultimately, people need to get from point A to point B, and they generally need to be able to do so with a certain degree of speed and comfort. Generally, people prefer to use cars. Buses are uncomfortable, and trains are generally expensive. It's common knowledge that different cars, different engines, and different grades of gasoline offer different levels of fuel efficiency. Increasing the total fuel efficiency of vehicles, overall, will reduce the total gas consumed, and also reduce the exhaust levels (per litre), thus reducing emissions as well. Furthermore, roughly 1/3 of the cost of gas at the pumps is in the form of taxes. People have always had the option to choose to buy higher grade or lower grade gasoline, and most people use the lower grade because it's cheaper in per litre cost. Perhaps we should change the tax structure on gasoline to give people a reason to buy the higher grade (and therefore more efficient and cleaner burning) gasoline.
Anyhow, those are some ideas I've been thinking about. I honestly don't know if they'll work or not - this specifically isn't one of my areas of specialty. So if anyone has any comments (positive or negative), some ideas on how to make my ideas better, or some ideas of your own that I may not have here, please let me know - I'm always happy to listen.
People here and, frankly, everywhere else have been complaining about high gas prices for years. To be honest, it's a valid complaint. More recently, of course, have been the concerns surrounding the so-called "greenhouse gasses", and the various effects of them on the environment. I think that there may be some ideas that would improve both situations simultaneously. Some of these ideas are very short term - essentially "quick-fixes". Some of these ideas may take more time. Either way, I'd welcome any input.
First, let's look at the economics of the subject. Gas prices at the pumps are determined by four factors: the market cost of crude oil; refining costs; taxes; and profit margins for the various people who are involved in getting the oil from the ground, and into your gas tank. Some aspects of this cost can't be directly affected through government action. Some aspects can - namely the taxes, and the market cost. The market costs can be achieved through influencing the supply/demand curve - namely reduce the demand, at the same time as increasing the available supply.
Step one: increase the overall available supply. Canada is in an interesting strategic situation, as having the second largest oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, the majority of those reserves are in the Alberta oil sands - with a cost of production of up to $40/barrel. In comparison to the production costs of $10/barrel or less in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and other conventional drilling locations, this is pretty high. That said, with the market cost currently sitting around $100/barrel (pre-refining cost), there's enough of a difference to increase production somewhat and maintain a hugely profitable operation. Furthermore, the increased production should lead to an increase in jobs in the market. The other factor in the market cost of oil are political factors - essentially, issues taking place overseas - most notably in Venezuela and the Arabian peninsula - are impacting the cost that we're being charged for that oil. Ramping up production in our own reserves, and simultaneously increasing refining capabilities here would enable us to not be reliant on imported oil - thus making us invulnerable to the political factors that have caused the issues in the oil market, and, long term, would enable us to compete directly with OPEC in that market - and, potentially, profit immensely in so doing.
Step two: reduce domestic oil consumption, which serves the dual purpose of keeping prices lower, and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions which, regardless of your position on global warming specifically, definitely improves the quality of our air. To reduce our total oil consumption, there are two factors to consider: energy production, and transportation. Energy production is a bit of a tricky question - ultimately, the Federal government has limited control over the energy policies of the provinces (constitutionally), so there is no sure policy that can be set. That said, encouraging the provincial governments to (long term) convert their existing coal-and-oil burning electric plants to nuclear and/or hydro-electric (where the capacity exists) could be decidedly helpful. Obviously, this change-over will cost tax dollars, however will also create large numbers of reasonably well-paying jobs - leading to an increase in overall tax revenue both in the form of income taxes, and the sales taxes on the increase in retail spending.
The question of transportation has a few other factors. Ultimately, people need to get from point A to point B, and they generally need to be able to do so with a certain degree of speed and comfort. Generally, people prefer to use cars. Buses are uncomfortable, and trains are generally expensive. It's common knowledge that different cars, different engines, and different grades of gasoline offer different levels of fuel efficiency. Increasing the total fuel efficiency of vehicles, overall, will reduce the total gas consumed, and also reduce the exhaust levels (per litre), thus reducing emissions as well. Furthermore, roughly 1/3 of the cost of gas at the pumps is in the form of taxes. People have always had the option to choose to buy higher grade or lower grade gasoline, and most people use the lower grade because it's cheaper in per litre cost. Perhaps we should change the tax structure on gasoline to give people a reason to buy the higher grade (and therefore more efficient and cleaner burning) gasoline.
Anyhow, those are some ideas I've been thinking about. I honestly don't know if they'll work or not - this specifically isn't one of my areas of specialty. So if anyone has any comments (positive or negative), some ideas on how to make my ideas better, or some ideas of your own that I may not have here, please let me know - I'm always happy to listen.
Monday, March 3, 2008
A change of plans
So I was going to go into discussing some ideas I have for how to improve the energy situation in this country, but was shown an article in CBC that I have to comment on. I'll post the link at the end of the article for your consumption (or not) at your leisure.
Short version to the long story is that, as a result of comments made in two articles on the Liberal Party of Canada's website concerning the emerging Chuck Cadman scandal, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has filed a libel suit against the Liberal Party and leader Stephane Dion. The comments can essentially be summed up in that Prime Minister Harper knew of and was an accomplice to an attempt to bribe a sitting Member of Parliament. A copy of the notice filed, which contains the comments in specific, can be found here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/harper-libelnotice.pdf
Really, this whole suit is based on two different issues. First of all, is whether or not the Conservative party tried to bribe Chuck Cadman with a million dollar life insurance party if he voted against the Liberals in the May 2005 confidence vote. The other question is whether or not Harper knew about the bribe attempt, assuming that it actually happened.
According to Vancouver journalist Tom Zytaruk in his (as yet un-released) book "Like a Rock: The Chuck Cadman Story", Cadman was visited by two Conservative Party representatives shortly before the vote and presented with an offer of a bribe, including the life insurance policy to vote with their party. Harper is quoted as saying that the offer was "only to replace financial considerations he might lose in an election," and adds that the offer was carried out by people "legitimately representing the party". Furthermore, the allegations of the bribe offer are corroborrated by Cadman's wife Dona, and his daughter, Jodi.
Harper has stated that there is "absolutely no truth" to the allegations of bribery, and has also pointed out that Cadman himself said that no offer was made. Furthermore, Dona told press that she didn't belive that Harper knew about the offer, nor did she believe it to be a "party" offer, but rather "the overzealous indiscretion of a couple of individuals."
So let's look at this analytically. First of all, we know that Harper sued the Liberal Party for the comments made on their website for comments that he says are untrue. Conversely, he didn't sue Zytaruk for misquoting him in his book, indicating that we can believe that Harper wasn't misquoted. That being said, we also know Harper's record on talking to the press. It seems unlikely that he would have answered a question in such a way that he would be implicating himself for a federal crime, if he knew that was the question he was being asked. This isn't based on knowing what the question actually WAS, but based on knowledge of Harper's record for talking to the press.
Of further note is the response of Mrs. Cadman to the whole affair - she clearly believes that the bribe was offered, but believes that it was a couple of "overzealous' party operatives - not the work of the Prime Minister or the party.
Of final note is the information given by Mr. Cadman before he died, that no offer was made to influence his vote. The fact is that Mr. Cadman was dying - if the offer was made, then he clearly refused it, showing himself to be a man of integrity. Why then would he lie on national television under the same circumstances? He was a dying man with nothing to gain by lying, and further, an honest man is an honest man. A man honest enough to turn down a million-dollar bribe doesn't seem likely to lie about the offer on national television.
So what really happened? More specifically, to what was Harper referring as an attempt to "replace financial considerations he might lose in an election"? This is a question that I do not know the answer to and will not attempt to predict. That being said, the Prime Minister made a national platform of accountability and integrity. He has a responsibility to the people who elected him to be accountable and to show integrity in this issue and to order an investigation into the allegations. That being said, we the people have a responsibility too - a responsibility to respect the principle that says that a man is innocent until he's proven guilty - lest we inadvertantly bring an innocent man to the political gallows and destroy the career of someone who has, without doubt, done much to benefit this nation.
*note* further information, as well as sources for quotes are as follows, and you can read them at your leisure:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/03/harper-libel.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/03/cadman-statement.html
Short version to the long story is that, as a result of comments made in two articles on the Liberal Party of Canada's website concerning the emerging Chuck Cadman scandal, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has filed a libel suit against the Liberal Party and leader Stephane Dion. The comments can essentially be summed up in that Prime Minister Harper knew of and was an accomplice to an attempt to bribe a sitting Member of Parliament. A copy of the notice filed, which contains the comments in specific, can be found here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/harper-libelnotice.pdf
Really, this whole suit is based on two different issues. First of all, is whether or not the Conservative party tried to bribe Chuck Cadman with a million dollar life insurance party if he voted against the Liberals in the May 2005 confidence vote. The other question is whether or not Harper knew about the bribe attempt, assuming that it actually happened.
According to Vancouver journalist Tom Zytaruk in his (as yet un-released) book "Like a Rock: The Chuck Cadman Story", Cadman was visited by two Conservative Party representatives shortly before the vote and presented with an offer of a bribe, including the life insurance policy to vote with their party. Harper is quoted as saying that the offer was "only to replace financial considerations he might lose in an election," and adds that the offer was carried out by people "legitimately representing the party". Furthermore, the allegations of the bribe offer are corroborrated by Cadman's wife Dona, and his daughter, Jodi.
Harper has stated that there is "absolutely no truth" to the allegations of bribery, and has also pointed out that Cadman himself said that no offer was made. Furthermore, Dona told press that she didn't belive that Harper knew about the offer, nor did she believe it to be a "party" offer, but rather "the overzealous indiscretion of a couple of individuals."
So let's look at this analytically. First of all, we know that Harper sued the Liberal Party for the comments made on their website for comments that he says are untrue. Conversely, he didn't sue Zytaruk for misquoting him in his book, indicating that we can believe that Harper wasn't misquoted. That being said, we also know Harper's record on talking to the press. It seems unlikely that he would have answered a question in such a way that he would be implicating himself for a federal crime, if he knew that was the question he was being asked. This isn't based on knowing what the question actually WAS, but based on knowledge of Harper's record for talking to the press.
Of further note is the response of Mrs. Cadman to the whole affair - she clearly believes that the bribe was offered, but believes that it was a couple of "overzealous' party operatives - not the work of the Prime Minister or the party.
Of final note is the information given by Mr. Cadman before he died, that no offer was made to influence his vote. The fact is that Mr. Cadman was dying - if the offer was made, then he clearly refused it, showing himself to be a man of integrity. Why then would he lie on national television under the same circumstances? He was a dying man with nothing to gain by lying, and further, an honest man is an honest man. A man honest enough to turn down a million-dollar bribe doesn't seem likely to lie about the offer on national television.
So what really happened? More specifically, to what was Harper referring as an attempt to "replace financial considerations he might lose in an election"? This is a question that I do not know the answer to and will not attempt to predict. That being said, the Prime Minister made a national platform of accountability and integrity. He has a responsibility to the people who elected him to be accountable and to show integrity in this issue and to order an investigation into the allegations. That being said, we the people have a responsibility too - a responsibility to respect the principle that says that a man is innocent until he's proven guilty - lest we inadvertantly bring an innocent man to the political gallows and destroy the career of someone who has, without doubt, done much to benefit this nation.
*note* further information, as well as sources for quotes are as follows, and you can read them at your leisure:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/03/harper-libel.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/03/cadman-statement.html
Friday, February 29, 2008
What I stand for...
I was listening to Great Big Seas's song "When I am King", and I got to thinking. Most of my friends know that I have ambitions to lead this country eventually, however maybe it's time to actually put out what I stand for, and let you know what I would do, to coin the Great Big Sea song, when I am king. Feel free to comment, ask questions, or what have you - I'll be happy to answer because in the end, each and every one of you (to my friends) has a place on my team, and to my unknown readership - I'll be answerable to you, so I need to know what you think. I'll be releasing my ideas over the next couple weeks, so please keep checking back in - I value your input.
It's been my long-standing belief that the taxes that we pay are, essentially, an investment in the country by the people, in trust of the government. In the same way that a mutual funds broker, or an investment company is entrusted the funds of it's investors with the aim of maximising the return on that investment, so too, the federal government has a responsibility to the taxpayers to maximise the return on the "investment" of taxes. This is a primary pillar that will be seen throughout any financial policies that a government under my leadership will put forward.
To begin, I'd like to invest in our post-secondary education system - increasing access to higher education for everyone in the country, and rewarding those who are successful who choose to put the skills learned to good use here. On the flip side, it's a poor investment to simply give a free ride to everyone, regardless of whether they manage to succeed or not. Furthermore, expanding an already onerous beaurocracy to manage this "investment" is expensive, as well as being inefficient. So what's the solution?
I'd like to change the extant student loan system to something that rewards success, and repays those who continue to invest in the country for their efforts. I'd like to do it in a fashion that costs the system - you the taxpayers - as little as possible, and ensures a positive benefit. To do this, I'd like to set in place a plan to essentially pay for the first degree/diploma (up to a 5 year maximum timeframe) of all students who successfully graduate any accredited Canadian college or university. How am I going to do this without expanding the beaurocracy, and without allowing those who are not successful to get a free ride through? I'm going to use the existing government student loan system. The government will issue the students enough money for tuition, books, and residence/rent based on whether the student is going part time or full time, based on the location of the institution, and based whether they will be attending for an 8 month year or a 12 month year. Interest will accrue on the loan as usual. Upon graduation (proven), successful students who find full time employment in Canada will have 20% of their loan forgiven every year for 5 years. This time-elapse process will help to ensure that the student remains in the country, and should help solve some of the brain-drain problem as well. Those who are unsuccessful, or who attain employment outside of the country will be made to repay their student loans in full via the usual means. Additional degrees will not be covered. Students who successfully complete a degree/diploma program over a period of more than 5 years will have forgiven the total debt accrued over the first five years of the degree.
How does this policy benefit the taxpayer? The increase in qualified personnel in the country will increase both recreational (and taxable) spending, as well as bring a net increase over the periods of their working lives to their salary (also taxed). To give you an example from personal experience. The degree that I was working towards when I left school was an Engineering degree. At my tuition rates, over the course of a five year degree, the total cost of my degree would be approximately $65000. To be fair, my time-average salary, over a 40 year career, would be approximately $80000 per year. Over 40 years, on the basis of income tax alone (rate of %35 on $80000, I believe), I would pay $1,120,000 in taxes. Negating sales taxes, that's a tidy profit of $1,055,000. In contrast, as an uneducated (no college, no university, no trade-school) person, I could reasonably hope to make an average of $14/hr over a 40 year career, provided I keep the same job for the entirety). That gives a total taxable income over 40 years (40 hrs/wk, 50 wks/yr) of $1,120,000, which, when taxed at a rate of %17 (which I believe is the taxation rate for that bracket), brings in a rousing $190000. Net profit per person (including the cost of a $65000 engineering degree) - of almost $850,000. That money can be further invested in the country, or can be returned directly to the taxpayers through taxation reductions.
Just something to think about.
It's been my long-standing belief that the taxes that we pay are, essentially, an investment in the country by the people, in trust of the government. In the same way that a mutual funds broker, or an investment company is entrusted the funds of it's investors with the aim of maximising the return on that investment, so too, the federal government has a responsibility to the taxpayers to maximise the return on the "investment" of taxes. This is a primary pillar that will be seen throughout any financial policies that a government under my leadership will put forward.
To begin, I'd like to invest in our post-secondary education system - increasing access to higher education for everyone in the country, and rewarding those who are successful who choose to put the skills learned to good use here. On the flip side, it's a poor investment to simply give a free ride to everyone, regardless of whether they manage to succeed or not. Furthermore, expanding an already onerous beaurocracy to manage this "investment" is expensive, as well as being inefficient. So what's the solution?
I'd like to change the extant student loan system to something that rewards success, and repays those who continue to invest in the country for their efforts. I'd like to do it in a fashion that costs the system - you the taxpayers - as little as possible, and ensures a positive benefit. To do this, I'd like to set in place a plan to essentially pay for the first degree/diploma (up to a 5 year maximum timeframe) of all students who successfully graduate any accredited Canadian college or university. How am I going to do this without expanding the beaurocracy, and without allowing those who are not successful to get a free ride through? I'm going to use the existing government student loan system. The government will issue the students enough money for tuition, books, and residence/rent based on whether the student is going part time or full time, based on the location of the institution, and based whether they will be attending for an 8 month year or a 12 month year. Interest will accrue on the loan as usual. Upon graduation (proven), successful students who find full time employment in Canada will have 20% of their loan forgiven every year for 5 years. This time-elapse process will help to ensure that the student remains in the country, and should help solve some of the brain-drain problem as well. Those who are unsuccessful, or who attain employment outside of the country will be made to repay their student loans in full via the usual means. Additional degrees will not be covered. Students who successfully complete a degree/diploma program over a period of more than 5 years will have forgiven the total debt accrued over the first five years of the degree.
How does this policy benefit the taxpayer? The increase in qualified personnel in the country will increase both recreational (and taxable) spending, as well as bring a net increase over the periods of their working lives to their salary (also taxed). To give you an example from personal experience. The degree that I was working towards when I left school was an Engineering degree. At my tuition rates, over the course of a five year degree, the total cost of my degree would be approximately $65000. To be fair, my time-average salary, over a 40 year career, would be approximately $80000 per year. Over 40 years, on the basis of income tax alone (rate of %35 on $80000, I believe), I would pay $1,120,000 in taxes. Negating sales taxes, that's a tidy profit of $1,055,000. In contrast, as an uneducated (no college, no university, no trade-school) person, I could reasonably hope to make an average of $14/hr over a 40 year career, provided I keep the same job for the entirety). That gives a total taxable income over 40 years (40 hrs/wk, 50 wks/yr) of $1,120,000, which, when taxed at a rate of %17 (which I believe is the taxation rate for that bracket), brings in a rousing $190000. Net profit per person (including the cost of a $65000 engineering degree) - of almost $850,000. That money can be further invested in the country, or can be returned directly to the taxpayers through taxation reductions.
Just something to think about.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
End of an era..
The top breaking news story of the day can be only one thing - the official resignation of long-time dictator Fidel Castro from his positions as President of Cuba, and Commander in Chief of that nations armed forces. While this bit of news has been circulating in the rumour mill for quite some time, this time it's actually official, as Castro published his intent openly in Granma, a state-run newspaper. He has publicly named his brother Raul to succeed him. American Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte has said that the trade embargo will not be lifted.
Ultimately, the time has come for Cuba to change. Fidel stood proud over his country for over 50 years, and ruled with an iron fist - standing up to political opposition from the United States, and weathering a crippling trade embargo since the Kennedy administration, and ultimately ruling a nation through the force of his own will and his own fiery rhetoric. It seems funny, in hindsight. I'm not a communist, and hate what Castro stands for, politically, however I also have to admit that I admire the man for his spirit, and for the power of his will. That admiration aside, it's time for a change, but will change come?
The single biggest wildcard in this equation is the person, character, and strength of Raul Castro. This man is, quite frankly, an enigma. The international community does not know him, and yet his power is genuine. The few reports I've read show a man strong in his way, but silent. Not the fiery orator that his brother is, Raul may fall under his brother's shadow, even as his brother retires. On the alternate side is his control over the military, and his problem solving ability. Over the years, it's been Raul who quietly did what needed to be done. Some believe that he will be more pragmatic than his brother on economic reforms, and will bring some much-needed economic changes into the state - including attempts to make friendly with the Americans with the aim of lifting the trade embargo. Others believe that he is more the bloodthirsty revolutionary than his brother - images of his ordering the executions of many of Batista's soldiers during the revolution, and political dissidents thereafter.
So Raul is the wildcard, and he has the choice to make to either set his people free, or keep them repressed. If he frees the people, then he will have broken faith with his brother - or has his brother been breaking faith with him? If he frees the people, Sens. Obama and McCain have both suggested that they would ease the embargo, which would be of huge benefit to Cuba. Alternately, he can maintain the repression that the people have been under since the Batista regime. In doing so, he will validate himself as a revolutionary icon, and prove himself deserving of his brother's confidence. He will, in truth and name, be Fidel's successor. He will also see the American trade embargo continue. I don't envy Raul, but this is the choice he has. Which choice he makes is anyone's guess.
Ultimately, the time has come for Cuba to change. Fidel stood proud over his country for over 50 years, and ruled with an iron fist - standing up to political opposition from the United States, and weathering a crippling trade embargo since the Kennedy administration, and ultimately ruling a nation through the force of his own will and his own fiery rhetoric. It seems funny, in hindsight. I'm not a communist, and hate what Castro stands for, politically, however I also have to admit that I admire the man for his spirit, and for the power of his will. That admiration aside, it's time for a change, but will change come?
The single biggest wildcard in this equation is the person, character, and strength of Raul Castro. This man is, quite frankly, an enigma. The international community does not know him, and yet his power is genuine. The few reports I've read show a man strong in his way, but silent. Not the fiery orator that his brother is, Raul may fall under his brother's shadow, even as his brother retires. On the alternate side is his control over the military, and his problem solving ability. Over the years, it's been Raul who quietly did what needed to be done. Some believe that he will be more pragmatic than his brother on economic reforms, and will bring some much-needed economic changes into the state - including attempts to make friendly with the Americans with the aim of lifting the trade embargo. Others believe that he is more the bloodthirsty revolutionary than his brother - images of his ordering the executions of many of Batista's soldiers during the revolution, and political dissidents thereafter.
So Raul is the wildcard, and he has the choice to make to either set his people free, or keep them repressed. If he frees the people, then he will have broken faith with his brother - or has his brother been breaking faith with him? If he frees the people, Sens. Obama and McCain have both suggested that they would ease the embargo, which would be of huge benefit to Cuba. Alternately, he can maintain the repression that the people have been under since the Batista regime. In doing so, he will validate himself as a revolutionary icon, and prove himself deserving of his brother's confidence. He will, in truth and name, be Fidel's successor. He will also see the American trade embargo continue. I don't envy Raul, but this is the choice he has. Which choice he makes is anyone's guess.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
A continuum.
So after my previous post about the Congressional hearing of Roger Clemens, I have to add a little bit more. One way or the other, one side of the equation is true, and only one side of the equation is true. Either Clemens took performance enhancing drugs, or he did not. Let's look at the testimony one at a time.
Brian McNamee:
As the primary accuser in the Clemens case, McNamee is in an interesting position. He openly admitted to injecting Clemens with performance enhancing drugs - and proceeded to flagrantly lie about some of the circumstances surrounding the whole thing. The only reason that McNamee was believable in his statement that he injected Clemens is the coroborration of Clemens' friends and former teammates Andy Pettite and Chuck Knoblauch. This raises only one question - if McNamee was telling the truth about his role in Clemens' alleged HGH and steroid use, why would lie about the circumstances - particularily in light of the physical evidence surrounding some of the issues (ie: the Canseco barbecue which Clemens definitely did not attend).
Roger Clemens:
The only defendant in this issue is the reputation of former major league pitcher, Roger Clemens. Clemens spent his day in court denying all allegations of the use of performance enhancing drugs, and calling McNamee a liar in everything but name. Truthfully, for one short period, Clemens was believable. McNamee's testimony was highly suspect, his credibility doubly so. With the exception of the one significant problem with his deposition that I mentioned and commented on earlier, Clemens was a believable witness. Except for Andy Pettite and his wifes despective depositions.
Andy Pettite:
Clemens' friend and former teammate gave a deposition in which he stated bluntly that Clemens admitted use of performance enhancing drugs to him. Clemens responded by arguing that Pettite had mis-heard him. Mistakes happen, right? Not according to Mrs. Pettite in this case. In her sworn deposition, she said that Andy had told her of his conversations with Clemens which corroborated McNamee's story. So again, I ask what cause Pettite would have to lie to authorities in order to harm Clemens - his friend? Obviously, there is no reason I can see. More damning still is that when posed the same question by Congress, Clemens had no reason either, saying Pettite must have misheard him, or misunderstood, or misremembered. This defense, sadly, the more it is repeated, the less believable it is, as, given the closeness of the friendship between the two, such a conversation would likely have led to others for clarification, or simply continued discussion? Further causing problems for this defense is the deposition of Mrs. Pettite.
Mrs. Pettite:
Has the regrettable role of playing the hangman for Clemens in this issue. Her deposition is simple - that her husband, Andy, had recounted to her conversations with Clemens in which Andy said Clemens admitted to the use of performance enhancing substances. In backing up her husband's deposition, she does, assuming that she's telling the truth, confirm that Pettite believed Clemens said that he personally was taking performance enhancers. The only reason for Mrs. Pettite to lie in this case would be to back up her husband. To lie in a congressional deposition when a simple "I don't know anything" would have been sufficient is beyond stupid, and so there is no reason to assume that she would have done so.
All that taken into consideration, a small part of me wants to believe that Clemens is clean. That said, however, the responsibility of a realist is to take idealistic ideas like that and destroy them. As such, barring further evidence to call into question the depositions of at least one of Andy and Mrs. Pettite, I have no choice but to believe them - meaning that I cannot believe Clemens, no matter how much I would like to be able to. That said, I truly hope that some such evidence comes to light.
Brian McNamee:
As the primary accuser in the Clemens case, McNamee is in an interesting position. He openly admitted to injecting Clemens with performance enhancing drugs - and proceeded to flagrantly lie about some of the circumstances surrounding the whole thing. The only reason that McNamee was believable in his statement that he injected Clemens is the coroborration of Clemens' friends and former teammates Andy Pettite and Chuck Knoblauch. This raises only one question - if McNamee was telling the truth about his role in Clemens' alleged HGH and steroid use, why would lie about the circumstances - particularily in light of the physical evidence surrounding some of the issues (ie: the Canseco barbecue which Clemens definitely did not attend).
Roger Clemens:
The only defendant in this issue is the reputation of former major league pitcher, Roger Clemens. Clemens spent his day in court denying all allegations of the use of performance enhancing drugs, and calling McNamee a liar in everything but name. Truthfully, for one short period, Clemens was believable. McNamee's testimony was highly suspect, his credibility doubly so. With the exception of the one significant problem with his deposition that I mentioned and commented on earlier, Clemens was a believable witness. Except for Andy Pettite and his wifes despective depositions.
Andy Pettite:
Clemens' friend and former teammate gave a deposition in which he stated bluntly that Clemens admitted use of performance enhancing drugs to him. Clemens responded by arguing that Pettite had mis-heard him. Mistakes happen, right? Not according to Mrs. Pettite in this case. In her sworn deposition, she said that Andy had told her of his conversations with Clemens which corroborated McNamee's story. So again, I ask what cause Pettite would have to lie to authorities in order to harm Clemens - his friend? Obviously, there is no reason I can see. More damning still is that when posed the same question by Congress, Clemens had no reason either, saying Pettite must have misheard him, or misunderstood, or misremembered. This defense, sadly, the more it is repeated, the less believable it is, as, given the closeness of the friendship between the two, such a conversation would likely have led to others for clarification, or simply continued discussion? Further causing problems for this defense is the deposition of Mrs. Pettite.
Mrs. Pettite:
Has the regrettable role of playing the hangman for Clemens in this issue. Her deposition is simple - that her husband, Andy, had recounted to her conversations with Clemens in which Andy said Clemens admitted to the use of performance enhancing substances. In backing up her husband's deposition, she does, assuming that she's telling the truth, confirm that Pettite believed Clemens said that he personally was taking performance enhancers. The only reason for Mrs. Pettite to lie in this case would be to back up her husband. To lie in a congressional deposition when a simple "I don't know anything" would have been sufficient is beyond stupid, and so there is no reason to assume that she would have done so.
All that taken into consideration, a small part of me wants to believe that Clemens is clean. That said, however, the responsibility of a realist is to take idealistic ideas like that and destroy them. As such, barring further evidence to call into question the depositions of at least one of Andy and Mrs. Pettite, I have no choice but to believe them - meaning that I cannot believe Clemens, no matter how much I would like to be able to. That said, I truly hope that some such evidence comes to light.
Innocent? Guilty? Juiced? Who cares?
In light of the latest gong-show about to unfold in Washington D.C. later this week, I guess I should give my two cents. First of all, I'm one of the few idealists who actually is prepared to give Roger the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying I think he's innocent, I'm just saying that I don't think he's guilty - at least not because Brian McNamee and Sen. George Mitchell say so.
With this in mind, the stage is set for the Rocket, and his former personal trainer to duke it out on Capitol Hill. Only one of the two will be left standing. The question becomes "whom". On one side is former personal trainer Brian McNamee. He comes to the table bringing mostly strong rhetoric. He said he injected Clemens. Clemens said he was never injected with any performance enhancing drugs. If that was all there was to the issue, then, while it wouldn't necessarily go away, it would certainly not make for very interesting argument. He also claims to have old needles, kept for five years, which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt Clemens' guilt. While I'm prepared to admit that Clemens' DNA may be on the needle, and I'm even prepared to admit that there will be HGH, or some other performance enhancing drug, on the needle somewhere. I'm very suspicious as to why someone would keep a used needle from something like that for as long as Mr. McNamee claims to have kept it. Were that the only evidence that McNamee brought to the table, this trial would be neither compelling, nor would it be anything other than a cake walk. Where this trial gets interesting is with the addition of a deposition from Clemens' close friend and former teammate, Andy Pettite. A deposition which clearly states that Clemens admitted to Pettite using HGH. As far as I know, and, from the words of Clemens as seen on CNN's live coverage of the trial, as far as he knows, Pettite has no reason to lie. Clemens argued that Pettite misunderstood, or misheard him during these conversations. I would like to believe that Clemens is telling the truth. That said, Pettite's wife has also submitted an affidavit affirming that Pettite told her of the conversations with Clemens - conversations affirming what Pettite's deposition said.
On Clemens' side is another interesting twist. A BBQ hosted by Clemens former teammate, Jose Canseco - a barbecue where McNamee allegedly was first approached by Clemens for performance enhancing drugs. A BBQ that Clemens, by every single piece of evidence that has been brought forward, including affidavits from host, Jose Canseco and others, never attended. While McNamee holds by his testimony that he saw Clemens at the barbecue, the evidence seems to disagree with McNamee. Given this, it calls into question both McNamee's credibility, and also where McNamee actually WAS approached by Clemens - if he was at all.
Both Clemens and McNamee have shown some credibility issues. McNamee has lied to investigators, lied to the press and openly lied to congress in light of physical evidence. Clemens changed the story in his official deposition regarding discussions with McNamee about HGH. First he said that he never had discussions with McNamee on the subject, and then said that, upon discovery that his wife had injected HGH, he had conversation with McNamee then. To be fair to Clemens, he isn't a lawyer, and he isn't a politician. Most people, when asked that question, would try to answer truthfully in a personal context - and wouldn't think to answer in the context of dealing with another party - even their wife. In this, I'm prepared to accept Clemens' response to the question from the House Committee on this discrepancy that he was answering the question truthfully, but in context of personal use, and prior to his wife's usage. I do not believe this indicates dishonesty on Clemens' part, but simply his being not used to Congressional questioning.
At this point, the hearing is unfolding before my eyes, and I do not know what will unfold. However I do not believe that conclusive evidence will be put forward proving Clemens' guilt. What saddens me the most is that this small fact is irrelevant. Whether Clemens' guilt is proven or not, or even if he is proven innocent, there is nothing to be done to repair the man's reputation. If he is proven guilty, then this is entirely deserved. If, however, as I expect, Clemens can not be proven guilty one way or the other, the damage has been done. One more celebrity crucifixion in the national media, and in the hearts of fans. I only hope that people will rise above the inclination to condemn without proof of guilt, allow Clemens and others like him to retire, properly recognized for the achievements of their careers. Clemens, and other deserving players should be given their day in Cooperstown. I hope he's innocent. But more than that, I wish it would matter whether he was.
With this in mind, the stage is set for the Rocket, and his former personal trainer to duke it out on Capitol Hill. Only one of the two will be left standing. The question becomes "whom". On one side is former personal trainer Brian McNamee. He comes to the table bringing mostly strong rhetoric. He said he injected Clemens. Clemens said he was never injected with any performance enhancing drugs. If that was all there was to the issue, then, while it wouldn't necessarily go away, it would certainly not make for very interesting argument. He also claims to have old needles, kept for five years, which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt Clemens' guilt. While I'm prepared to admit that Clemens' DNA may be on the needle, and I'm even prepared to admit that there will be HGH, or some other performance enhancing drug, on the needle somewhere. I'm very suspicious as to why someone would keep a used needle from something like that for as long as Mr. McNamee claims to have kept it. Were that the only evidence that McNamee brought to the table, this trial would be neither compelling, nor would it be anything other than a cake walk. Where this trial gets interesting is with the addition of a deposition from Clemens' close friend and former teammate, Andy Pettite. A deposition which clearly states that Clemens admitted to Pettite using HGH. As far as I know, and, from the words of Clemens as seen on CNN's live coverage of the trial, as far as he knows, Pettite has no reason to lie. Clemens argued that Pettite misunderstood, or misheard him during these conversations. I would like to believe that Clemens is telling the truth. That said, Pettite's wife has also submitted an affidavit affirming that Pettite told her of the conversations with Clemens - conversations affirming what Pettite's deposition said.
On Clemens' side is another interesting twist. A BBQ hosted by Clemens former teammate, Jose Canseco - a barbecue where McNamee allegedly was first approached by Clemens for performance enhancing drugs. A BBQ that Clemens, by every single piece of evidence that has been brought forward, including affidavits from host, Jose Canseco and others, never attended. While McNamee holds by his testimony that he saw Clemens at the barbecue, the evidence seems to disagree with McNamee. Given this, it calls into question both McNamee's credibility, and also where McNamee actually WAS approached by Clemens - if he was at all.
Both Clemens and McNamee have shown some credibility issues. McNamee has lied to investigators, lied to the press and openly lied to congress in light of physical evidence. Clemens changed the story in his official deposition regarding discussions with McNamee about HGH. First he said that he never had discussions with McNamee on the subject, and then said that, upon discovery that his wife had injected HGH, he had conversation with McNamee then. To be fair to Clemens, he isn't a lawyer, and he isn't a politician. Most people, when asked that question, would try to answer truthfully in a personal context - and wouldn't think to answer in the context of dealing with another party - even their wife. In this, I'm prepared to accept Clemens' response to the question from the House Committee on this discrepancy that he was answering the question truthfully, but in context of personal use, and prior to his wife's usage. I do not believe this indicates dishonesty on Clemens' part, but simply his being not used to Congressional questioning.
At this point, the hearing is unfolding before my eyes, and I do not know what will unfold. However I do not believe that conclusive evidence will be put forward proving Clemens' guilt. What saddens me the most is that this small fact is irrelevant. Whether Clemens' guilt is proven or not, or even if he is proven innocent, there is nothing to be done to repair the man's reputation. If he is proven guilty, then this is entirely deserved. If, however, as I expect, Clemens can not be proven guilty one way or the other, the damage has been done. One more celebrity crucifixion in the national media, and in the hearts of fans. I only hope that people will rise above the inclination to condemn without proof of guilt, allow Clemens and others like him to retire, properly recognized for the achievements of their careers. Clemens, and other deserving players should be given their day in Cooperstown. I hope he's innocent. But more than that, I wish it would matter whether he was.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
The right to privacy
In the five seconds it's taken you to read so far, someone, somewhere has posted a video on Youtube. Quite likey, this video is enough to make the person in the video look like a jackass. Slightly less likely, this video could be one of the growing number of YouTube series that have seemingly taken over the internet. In all likelihood, the video is harmless. Every so often, though, a video comes across the internet that, while it may not have a darker purpose, may certainly have far darker effects. In the case of one particular video, those effects can cost a man his reputation.
The video I refer to is the short-lived video allegedly depicting Mets superstar Pedro Martinez taking part in a cockfight in his home country of the Dominican Republic. This is not a condemnation of Martinez, nor is a condemnation of cockfighting. There are enough of those floating around the internet that adding one more doesn't make a great degree of sense. Furthermore, I don't condemn Martinez - his life, his time, his decision of how he spends it. Cockfighting is a legal and accepted aspect of Dominican culture - we find it barbaric, but who are we to judge? What I'm here to condemn instead are the people in the media - both the professional journalists, as well as the amateurs like myself who post to blogs, or post to Youtube - for invading the private life of an individual.
Ultimately, whether Martinez participated in a cockfight is immaterial. I don't know whether he did - I wasn't there, I never saw the Youtube video and, to be completely honest, I don't care. That being said, however, there is another, more important question that I have to ask myself: namely, "Is it my business?". The answer, if I look deep into my soul and answer honestly, is no.
So why, then, is it being reported on. Obviously, the professional journalist argues that the public wants to know, and that the public has an innate RIGHT to know. Were this issue to be something that actually has an effect on the population, I would agree with this argument. This is not such an issue. It's a case of one individual using his own time, in his own country, to engage one way or the other in a passtime that is not just legal, but is a cultural norm in that country. This is not the business of the general public.
Furthermore, what of the consequences? Should a man guilty of no crime be punished because of his actions? Most rational men would suggest that such an action would be an abberration of justice - yet this is precisely what some animal rights activist groups are suggesting. Martinez' alleged actions were not illegal, and were not opposed to any sort of code of conduct required from his contract with the New York Mets, and yet it's been suggested by some that a harsh suspension should be enacted against him - on the basis of a Youtube video, and a profession that deems the invasion of privacy to be a valid passtime in the name of filling public curiosity.
The damage to individual's reputations, however, are not the most severe reprecussions of this sort of journalism. This time last year, we saw a different victim of the same: Michael Vick. Again, let me say that I do not speak to Mr. Vick's innocence or guilt, but only of facts. Vick's rights as a defendant in a criminal trial were flagrantly violated the minute that the uproar in the media over his actions began. Every defendant in a criminal trial is guaranteed the right to appear before an unbiased and objective jury of their peers. In many cases, this right results in the sequestration of the jury prior to trial to ensure that the media cannot influence their decisions. In Vick's case, I ask where this was even possible. Every potential juror in the United States had ready access to the facts (and suppositions) of the case, as well as the commentary. Most declared Vick to be guilty before the formality of the trial had even commenced. This isn't a trial by impartial jury, it's a trial by media. A trial as was never envisioned by the Founding Fathers of the United States, nor by the Fathers of Confederation here in Canada. A trial as is not sanctioned by law. A trial that is the equivalent of the gladitorial trials as were done in ancient Rome. A trial that is, definitionally, an abberration of justice.
In conclusion I ask only this - that we remember that our nation is built on foundations of equality of man, human rights (including the right to privacy), and justice for all. Perhaps it's time for our media to remember the same.
The video I refer to is the short-lived video allegedly depicting Mets superstar Pedro Martinez taking part in a cockfight in his home country of the Dominican Republic. This is not a condemnation of Martinez, nor is a condemnation of cockfighting. There are enough of those floating around the internet that adding one more doesn't make a great degree of sense. Furthermore, I don't condemn Martinez - his life, his time, his decision of how he spends it. Cockfighting is a legal and accepted aspect of Dominican culture - we find it barbaric, but who are we to judge? What I'm here to condemn instead are the people in the media - both the professional journalists, as well as the amateurs like myself who post to blogs, or post to Youtube - for invading the private life of an individual.
Ultimately, whether Martinez participated in a cockfight is immaterial. I don't know whether he did - I wasn't there, I never saw the Youtube video and, to be completely honest, I don't care. That being said, however, there is another, more important question that I have to ask myself: namely, "Is it my business?". The answer, if I look deep into my soul and answer honestly, is no.
So why, then, is it being reported on. Obviously, the professional journalist argues that the public wants to know, and that the public has an innate RIGHT to know. Were this issue to be something that actually has an effect on the population, I would agree with this argument. This is not such an issue. It's a case of one individual using his own time, in his own country, to engage one way or the other in a passtime that is not just legal, but is a cultural norm in that country. This is not the business of the general public.
Furthermore, what of the consequences? Should a man guilty of no crime be punished because of his actions? Most rational men would suggest that such an action would be an abberration of justice - yet this is precisely what some animal rights activist groups are suggesting. Martinez' alleged actions were not illegal, and were not opposed to any sort of code of conduct required from his contract with the New York Mets, and yet it's been suggested by some that a harsh suspension should be enacted against him - on the basis of a Youtube video, and a profession that deems the invasion of privacy to be a valid passtime in the name of filling public curiosity.
The damage to individual's reputations, however, are not the most severe reprecussions of this sort of journalism. This time last year, we saw a different victim of the same: Michael Vick. Again, let me say that I do not speak to Mr. Vick's innocence or guilt, but only of facts. Vick's rights as a defendant in a criminal trial were flagrantly violated the minute that the uproar in the media over his actions began. Every defendant in a criminal trial is guaranteed the right to appear before an unbiased and objective jury of their peers. In many cases, this right results in the sequestration of the jury prior to trial to ensure that the media cannot influence their decisions. In Vick's case, I ask where this was even possible. Every potential juror in the United States had ready access to the facts (and suppositions) of the case, as well as the commentary. Most declared Vick to be guilty before the formality of the trial had even commenced. This isn't a trial by impartial jury, it's a trial by media. A trial as was never envisioned by the Founding Fathers of the United States, nor by the Fathers of Confederation here in Canada. A trial as is not sanctioned by law. A trial that is the equivalent of the gladitorial trials as were done in ancient Rome. A trial that is, definitionally, an abberration of justice.
In conclusion I ask only this - that we remember that our nation is built on foundations of equality of man, human rights (including the right to privacy), and justice for all. Perhaps it's time for our media to remember the same.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
In conclusion...
So I've returned to the land of ice, snow, cold, and generally shitty winter weather also known as Canada. I'm safe, sound, disease free, and generally had a good time. That said, there are some lessons that should be passed on:
Beers discovered:
Presidente (Dominican Rep.) - Good the first time. Also good served at minus 5. Otherwise...
Bohemia (Dominican Rep.) - Definitely does NOT to justice to it's namesake - no self respecting Bohemian would drink this swill.
Prestige (Haiti) - First lager I've ever tried that tastes as good luke-warm as it does cold. Just for the record, it tastes good cold.
Liquors Discovered:
Brugal Anejo (Dominican Rep.) - The Dominican Republic's answer to Lambs amber. Tastes about as bad too. This doesn't even go down well with coke.
Brugal Extra Viejo (Domincan Rep.) - A significant upgrade over the Anejo, goes very well with coke, and can be drank straight up as well.
Barbancourt Reserve Speciale (Haiti) - Aged 8 years in oak barrels, quite bluntly, this rum kicks ass - and I don't like rum.
Everything else has already been covered previously. Read it if you want.
Anyhow, that concludes the public version of my trip. Keep checking in, as I'll update as regularily as there's an interesting story to tell, or I feel like voicing my (intelligent, witty, and valuable) opinion on something. Te Salut.
Beers discovered:
Presidente (Dominican Rep.) - Good the first time. Also good served at minus 5. Otherwise...
Bohemia (Dominican Rep.) - Definitely does NOT to justice to it's namesake - no self respecting Bohemian would drink this swill.
Prestige (Haiti) - First lager I've ever tried that tastes as good luke-warm as it does cold. Just for the record, it tastes good cold.
Liquors Discovered:
Brugal Anejo (Dominican Rep.) - The Dominican Republic's answer to Lambs amber. Tastes about as bad too. This doesn't even go down well with coke.
Brugal Extra Viejo (Domincan Rep.) - A significant upgrade over the Anejo, goes very well with coke, and can be drank straight up as well.
Barbancourt Reserve Speciale (Haiti) - Aged 8 years in oak barrels, quite bluntly, this rum kicks ass - and I don't like rum.
Everything else has already been covered previously. Read it if you want.
Anyhow, that concludes the public version of my trip. Keep checking in, as I'll update as regularily as there's an interesting story to tell, or I feel like voicing my (intelligent, witty, and valuable) opinion on something. Te Salut.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Pedernales - beach day
So we begin again. As with Haiti, there are three ways to get from Santo Domingo to Pedernales. You can fly, you can rent a car and drive yourself, or you can take a guagua. A guagua is like a bus, only the air conditioning doesn't work, there are more people than seats and your seat mate might, if you're travelling alone, be a live chicken (actually, that was the seatmate of the guy across and a row ahead of us on the way up). On the plus side, it's relatively cheap.
Seven hours on a bus after leaving Santo Domingo, with a couple stops along the way to eat, piss, and for the cobrador to flirt with some of the girls we drove past, we arrived on the edge of nowhere - the town of Pedernales, DR. Actually, the town itself, while small, isn't uncivilized. There are a couple of hotels - we stayed at the pink one. Specifically, the hotel was called the D'oLeo Mendez, and was was quite comfortable, reasonably priced, and clean. The food in the restaurant was excellent, and the staff took good care of us while we were there.
Bay of Eagles, from about 150 ft up
That being said, the hotel was NOT why we went to Pedernales. The reason we went to Pedernales is a wonder called Bahia de las Aguilas (sp?) - the Bay of Eagles. On the shore of the Caribbean, in the middle of a national park lies one of the most beautiful pieces of virgin wilderness I have ever seen. Water so clear you can see 20 ft to the bottom - from 150 ft in the air, bordering on a pristine white sand beach, marred only by the holes of sand crabs, separating ocean from a desert unique in that it is full of life - both plant and animal. Of particular note are a couple of rare species of iguana, as well as an in-desert wetland home to some 20 species of unique birds.
The desert
The trip from Pedernales to the bay can be done one of two different, equally stunning ways. On one hand, you can take a motoconcho (motorcycle transport) to get a boat to take you over water to the bay. This is the faster method, however the boats are, apparently, somewhat dodgy. Alternately, there is an overland route, which is a couple of hours by motoconcho. We elected to take the overland route, and were thus introduced to Vladimir - a Pedernales local, and also a knowledgeable and entertaining guide. The trip was on the whole uneventful (no accidents) and, simultaneously amazing. We went for 15 km down the highway, and then proceeded down dirt roads and trails, through a couple of villiages and the national park until we got to the bay. On the way, I discovered the perfect location to buy a little bit of land for a beach house. I'm in the process of looking into that. Vladimir gave us the lowdown on the local scenery, as well as some of the wildlife that we passed (including a couple of sightings of one of the rare iguanas).
See. Rare iguana.
That said, there is a sad note. Unfortunately, a French resort firm is looking to expand into this location. I have no objection to resorts, or corporate expansion, however there are some places where it isn't entirely desirable. This is one of those places. Fortunately, action taken by the Dominican government, and backed by a group of locals stopped the French expansion cold in this region. That being said, I still see a future for tourism in this remote slice of paradise - but tourism of a different kind.
Personally, resort-type vacations are not my cup of tea. That's fine, everyone has their preferences. The concept of eco-tourism/adventure tourism has always appealed to me, and this region is ideal for this style of expansion. Between the desert, and it's unique eco-systems, the bay itself, and the local version of the grand canyon (heard about, but sadly, not seen), there is opportunity here for both nature lovers, and adventurers at once. Anyone who knows me knows that spending a day bird-watching doesn't interest me in the slightest. That said, taking a motorbike into the canyon, or doing some mountain climbing/hiking most certainly does. Whats more, these services are all available to those who desire them from locals, and at reasonable prices besides all that. I believe that this island has the space for both resort-style tourism, and an alternative to that - Pedernales and the Bay of Eagles belong in the latter group.
For those of you who don't believe I was on a motorcycle.
Seven hours on a bus after leaving Santo Domingo, with a couple stops along the way to eat, piss, and for the cobrador to flirt with some of the girls we drove past, we arrived on the edge of nowhere - the town of Pedernales, DR. Actually, the town itself, while small, isn't uncivilized. There are a couple of hotels - we stayed at the pink one. Specifically, the hotel was called the D'oLeo Mendez, and was was quite comfortable, reasonably priced, and clean. The food in the restaurant was excellent, and the staff took good care of us while we were there.
Bay of Eagles, from about 150 ft up
That being said, the hotel was NOT why we went to Pedernales. The reason we went to Pedernales is a wonder called Bahia de las Aguilas (sp?) - the Bay of Eagles. On the shore of the Caribbean, in the middle of a national park lies one of the most beautiful pieces of virgin wilderness I have ever seen. Water so clear you can see 20 ft to the bottom - from 150 ft in the air, bordering on a pristine white sand beach, marred only by the holes of sand crabs, separating ocean from a desert unique in that it is full of life - both plant and animal. Of particular note are a couple of rare species of iguana, as well as an in-desert wetland home to some 20 species of unique birds.
The desert
The trip from Pedernales to the bay can be done one of two different, equally stunning ways. On one hand, you can take a motoconcho (motorcycle transport) to get a boat to take you over water to the bay. This is the faster method, however the boats are, apparently, somewhat dodgy. Alternately, there is an overland route, which is a couple of hours by motoconcho. We elected to take the overland route, and were thus introduced to Vladimir - a Pedernales local, and also a knowledgeable and entertaining guide. The trip was on the whole uneventful (no accidents) and, simultaneously amazing. We went for 15 km down the highway, and then proceeded down dirt roads and trails, through a couple of villiages and the national park until we got to the bay. On the way, I discovered the perfect location to buy a little bit of land for a beach house. I'm in the process of looking into that. Vladimir gave us the lowdown on the local scenery, as well as some of the wildlife that we passed (including a couple of sightings of one of the rare iguanas).
See. Rare iguana.
That said, there is a sad note. Unfortunately, a French resort firm is looking to expand into this location. I have no objection to resorts, or corporate expansion, however there are some places where it isn't entirely desirable. This is one of those places. Fortunately, action taken by the Dominican government, and backed by a group of locals stopped the French expansion cold in this region. That being said, I still see a future for tourism in this remote slice of paradise - but tourism of a different kind.
Personally, resort-type vacations are not my cup of tea. That's fine, everyone has their preferences. The concept of eco-tourism/adventure tourism has always appealed to me, and this region is ideal for this style of expansion. Between the desert, and it's unique eco-systems, the bay itself, and the local version of the grand canyon (heard about, but sadly, not seen), there is opportunity here for both nature lovers, and adventurers at once. Anyone who knows me knows that spending a day bird-watching doesn't interest me in the slightest. That said, taking a motorbike into the canyon, or doing some mountain climbing/hiking most certainly does. Whats more, these services are all available to those who desire them from locals, and at reasonable prices besides all that. I believe that this island has the space for both resort-style tourism, and an alternative to that - Pedernales and the Bay of Eagles belong in the latter group.
For those of you who don't believe I was on a motorcycle.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Haiti - the final post
So this is it - the last of my three-part Haiti series. Yes, I know I got back a week ago, but what I saw/did is important enough that I felt it merited three posts. As well, I was on vacation the last couple days somewhere where there isn't any internet access, so I've been unable to finish even if I'd been so inclined.
Taken as we were waiting to meet the Prime Minister.
As I said, the reason why I was in Haiti in the first place had absolutely nothing to do with a vacation - I was there to observe as an NGO called the Batey Relief Alliance engaged in preliminary negotiations to establish a permanent mission in Haiti. The Batey Relief Alliance is an NGO dedicated to providing primary health care in areas passed over by existing national health plans in the Dominican Republic, and now, Haiti. The purpose of this mission is to establish a fully functional clinic in a small border town in south-eastern Haiti called Anse-a-Pitres.
Me, and the Prime Minister of Haiti, Jacques-Edouard Alexis
That being said, it would have been foolish to be in a nation that few people ever go to visit and not take in some of the local colour so to speak. As I said before, Alex and I had exceptionally good luck in our selection of cab driver on the first day in Haiti (although there is something to be said for having a private driver for the remainder lol). Unfortunately, I didn't get as strong an opportunity to see all the sights of Port-au-Prince as I would have liked (as the days were mostly full of meetings with various government officials), however there are a few things I will point out.
First of all - places to stay: there are two that I saw that I would recommend - the first is the Hotel Montana. Based right at the top of Port-au-Prince, this hotel offers guests a stunning view of the entire city, as well as impeccable service and good food. That being said, it's also $150 bucks a night on the low end, and really doesn't allow for the "authentic" feel of the city. The second is the Hotel Prince - which is located near the heart of the city in a gorgeous (if rather hard to find) neighbourhood called Paco. It too is built on the hill, offers excellent food and good service, at a much more affordable price of $90 per night. It was where we stayed, and was quite comfortable, and comes highly recommended for someone who wants greater opportunity to see the city itself.
Just down the street is the Hotel Olaffson. Once Haiti's "Grand Hotel", it now acts as a trendy nightspot in Port-au-Prince. If you're in the city and there is an event here, it is not to be missed. We had the opportunity to see a Haitian band called Ram perform there on Thursday evening, and the event was phenomenal. Taking a plethora of influences from Haitian history to the local Voodoo culture, Ram's many musicians, dancers, and vocalists put on a hugely entertaining performance that had even the most reluctant dancer in the crowd (yes, that would be me) on his feet and moving with everyone else.
Ram, mid concert. Rammstein, they weren't. Great fun none the less.
Of further note: Haiti boasts arguably the best lager in the world, for any beer drinkers amongst my readership - Prestige. Suffice it to say it even tasted good lukewarm - and we all know only ales are supposed to do that. I will also let anyone who reads this know, I have found one (and to this day only one) rum that I like - called Barabancourt, this Haitian rum is, quite frankly, superb. Two restaurants which cross the mind to recommend to any visitors to the Port au Prince area are Cafe Terrace, in downtown Port au Prince, and Coin des Artistes in Petion-ville.
As a final note - the "Tap-tap" mentioned in my previous post is the Haitian version of a public car, brightly painted almost by default. Also, one of the traditional Haitian "street-meats" so to speak, is fresh sugar cane. While questionably sanitary, this is the proverbial "shizznit", and is well worth a try if it happens to be available to you. The correct way to eat it is to bite off a small piece and chew it until the juices are gone, spitting out the remainder. It should not in any way be confused with another local delicacy, the cigar....
Then again, since when have I ever been one to take advice?
Taken as we were waiting to meet the Prime Minister.
As I said, the reason why I was in Haiti in the first place had absolutely nothing to do with a vacation - I was there to observe as an NGO called the Batey Relief Alliance engaged in preliminary negotiations to establish a permanent mission in Haiti. The Batey Relief Alliance is an NGO dedicated to providing primary health care in areas passed over by existing national health plans in the Dominican Republic, and now, Haiti. The purpose of this mission is to establish a fully functional clinic in a small border town in south-eastern Haiti called Anse-a-Pitres.
Me, and the Prime Minister of Haiti, Jacques-Edouard Alexis
That being said, it would have been foolish to be in a nation that few people ever go to visit and not take in some of the local colour so to speak. As I said before, Alex and I had exceptionally good luck in our selection of cab driver on the first day in Haiti (although there is something to be said for having a private driver for the remainder lol). Unfortunately, I didn't get as strong an opportunity to see all the sights of Port-au-Prince as I would have liked (as the days were mostly full of meetings with various government officials), however there are a few things I will point out.
First of all - places to stay: there are two that I saw that I would recommend - the first is the Hotel Montana. Based right at the top of Port-au-Prince, this hotel offers guests a stunning view of the entire city, as well as impeccable service and good food. That being said, it's also $150 bucks a night on the low end, and really doesn't allow for the "authentic" feel of the city. The second is the Hotel Prince - which is located near the heart of the city in a gorgeous (if rather hard to find) neighbourhood called Paco. It too is built on the hill, offers excellent food and good service, at a much more affordable price of $90 per night. It was where we stayed, and was quite comfortable, and comes highly recommended for someone who wants greater opportunity to see the city itself.
Just down the street is the Hotel Olaffson. Once Haiti's "Grand Hotel", it now acts as a trendy nightspot in Port-au-Prince. If you're in the city and there is an event here, it is not to be missed. We had the opportunity to see a Haitian band called Ram perform there on Thursday evening, and the event was phenomenal. Taking a plethora of influences from Haitian history to the local Voodoo culture, Ram's many musicians, dancers, and vocalists put on a hugely entertaining performance that had even the most reluctant dancer in the crowd (yes, that would be me) on his feet and moving with everyone else.
Ram, mid concert. Rammstein, they weren't. Great fun none the less.
Of further note: Haiti boasts arguably the best lager in the world, for any beer drinkers amongst my readership - Prestige. Suffice it to say it even tasted good lukewarm - and we all know only ales are supposed to do that. I will also let anyone who reads this know, I have found one (and to this day only one) rum that I like - called Barabancourt, this Haitian rum is, quite frankly, superb. Two restaurants which cross the mind to recommend to any visitors to the Port au Prince area are Cafe Terrace, in downtown Port au Prince, and Coin des Artistes in Petion-ville.
As a final note - the "Tap-tap" mentioned in my previous post is the Haitian version of a public car, brightly painted almost by default. Also, one of the traditional Haitian "street-meats" so to speak, is fresh sugar cane. While questionably sanitary, this is the proverbial "shizznit", and is well worth a try if it happens to be available to you. The correct way to eat it is to bite off a small piece and chew it until the juices are gone, spitting out the remainder. It should not in any way be confused with another local delicacy, the cigar....
Then again, since when have I ever been one to take advice?
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
A country destroyed - but not without hope.
I closed my last post with the idea of a nation destroyed, the idea of challenge, and the idea of hope. I want to continue to comment on that. Over the course of decades, the country of Haiti has been torn apart by the cruelty of Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, the corruption of Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier, and multiple coup d'etats. Most recently, in 2004, democratically elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide was deposed under circumstances that some say was the result of public outcry over an increasingly corrupt and violent rule. Others argue that he was essentially deposed by a foreign power who saw him as a threat to their security interests. The effects on the infrastructure of the country from this coup can still be seen. Which side is telling the truth is something that I certainly don't know, and will not comment on, however these two disparate sides to the story make for a volatile situation even today.
UN peacekeepers standing post in Port au Prince
That being said, I also spoke of challenges. The greatest challenge that this country faces is the need for the people to accept and embrace the new administration. Since the fall of the Duvalier administration, the Haitian people have become increasingly politically aware, and increasingly vocal in their political ideas. In the words of Rodrick (our cabbie in my last post), "Under [Duvalier], the people had to die in silence. Now they have a voice, and they're screaming." Those screams manifest after years of pent-up resentment, but also as a people coming into the fullness of the knowledge of how to exercise a new-found political will. The sitting administration, headed by Rene Preval (who actually succeeded Aristide in 1996), is seen in as many different lights by the Haitian people as the previous administration under Aristide. Some regard it with a great degree of distrust, while others see them as doing their best in a complicated, difficult political climate. Where both sides agree, however, is that they demand results of this administration - and they need them quickly.
Three guys running a tap-tap on the streets of Port au Prince.
This brings me to the subject of hope. Hope for a nation rebuilt. Hope for a stable, thriving country built on democratic principles. Hope for a brighter future. I already said that the Preval administration has certain demands placed on it by the Haitian people: demands for action. Those demands are slowly but surely being met. Slowly but surely, with the help of foreign aid, the sitting administration is beginning to rebuild the country. Having had the opportunity to spend some time in the halls of power, I was amazed at the effort being put in to finally make things right, and to do the job that the people entrusted them to do. Never before have I seen any governmental officials, certainly not at the ministerial and ambassadorial level working past 6:00 PM except in time of war. Yet, sitting in the Prime Minister's office at roughly this time and seeing the people still at work reveals the dedication of this administration to the task they set out before them. The people have their doubts, yes - but after many years of broken promises and broken faith, who can blame them? Those doubts aside, however, there is a sense of hope in the people - hope expressed in the little things. Construction projects are being undertaken - construction projects that seemed pointless in the face of increasing violence. Perhaps of greater significance is the fact that people are coming back out onto the streets at night, and under the glow of kerosene lanterns, merchants hawk their wares in front of freshly painted houses.
UN peacekeepers standing post in Port au Prince
That being said, I also spoke of challenges. The greatest challenge that this country faces is the need for the people to accept and embrace the new administration. Since the fall of the Duvalier administration, the Haitian people have become increasingly politically aware, and increasingly vocal in their political ideas. In the words of Rodrick (our cabbie in my last post), "Under [Duvalier], the people had to die in silence. Now they have a voice, and they're screaming." Those screams manifest after years of pent-up resentment, but also as a people coming into the fullness of the knowledge of how to exercise a new-found political will. The sitting administration, headed by Rene Preval (who actually succeeded Aristide in 1996), is seen in as many different lights by the Haitian people as the previous administration under Aristide. Some regard it with a great degree of distrust, while others see them as doing their best in a complicated, difficult political climate. Where both sides agree, however, is that they demand results of this administration - and they need them quickly.
Three guys running a tap-tap on the streets of Port au Prince.
This brings me to the subject of hope. Hope for a nation rebuilt. Hope for a stable, thriving country built on democratic principles. Hope for a brighter future. I already said that the Preval administration has certain demands placed on it by the Haitian people: demands for action. Those demands are slowly but surely being met. Slowly but surely, with the help of foreign aid, the sitting administration is beginning to rebuild the country. Having had the opportunity to spend some time in the halls of power, I was amazed at the effort being put in to finally make things right, and to do the job that the people entrusted them to do. Never before have I seen any governmental officials, certainly not at the ministerial and ambassadorial level working past 6:00 PM except in time of war. Yet, sitting in the Prime Minister's office at roughly this time and seeing the people still at work reveals the dedication of this administration to the task they set out before them. The people have their doubts, yes - but after many years of broken promises and broken faith, who can blame them? Those doubts aside, however, there is a sense of hope in the people - hope expressed in the little things. Construction projects are being undertaken - construction projects that seemed pointless in the face of increasing violence. Perhaps of greater significance is the fact that people are coming back out onto the streets at night, and under the glow of kerosene lanterns, merchants hawk their wares in front of freshly painted houses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
