Thursday, January 31, 2008
I go on the blog when Wolf Blitzer starts talking....
Here's an endorsement of Obama by an editor of The Nation, and it's pretty much exactly the reason that I prefer him to Clinton.
Ahhhh, Communism.
You know what would be an awesome job? Head of Weather Manipulation for the Beijing Meteorological Bureau.
UPDATED: I forgot the link before. This is a real job.
UPDATED: I forgot the link before. This is a real job.
Obama Black?
Many who know me know I spent my teenage years living in Black neighborhoods and in majority Black schools. By no means do I think I "know" Black people--Indiana was still too segregated for me to ever truly know what moves and shakes even my Black friends--but I do think that if it weren't for the media pressing the point of Obama's colour, I don't think any one from the Near East Side of Indianapolis--if they REALLY knew about the man--would call Obama "Black." I think they'd call him a poser.
That said, give a listen to this very interesting broadcast of "Talk of the Nation" on location at Morgan State University on Barack's Blackness. It's good listening.
My favorite question: "What are you gonna do for us once you're elected?" one man asks Obama.
That said, give a listen to this very interesting broadcast of "Talk of the Nation" on location at Morgan State University on Barack's Blackness. It's good listening.
My favorite question: "What are you gonna do for us once you're elected?" one man asks Obama.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
let's focus on the important issues
Environmental law? Constitutional reform? The legality of torture?
Why isn't anyone posting about the real important law stuff, like Wesley Snipes' tax fraud trial?
Obviously no one here is a fan of tax law, or Demolition Man.
Seriously though, how do you go about filing for $12 million in illegal refunds? I made less than that pushup-doing shirtless subway Santa Claus motherfucker last year, and after all the fake deductions I could think of making, I still owed the government money.
Why isn't anyone posting about the real important law stuff, like Wesley Snipes' tax fraud trial?
Obviously no one here is a fan of tax law, or Demolition Man.
Seriously though, how do you go about filing for $12 million in illegal refunds? I made less than that pushup-doing shirtless subway Santa Claus motherfucker last year, and after all the fake deductions I could think of making, I still owed the government money.
"Black" schools in Toronto
So the Toronto school board has voted to move forward with a "black focused" school. It's obviously super-controversial, but the reaction in the city is kind of all over the place....not at all divided based on demographics or politics or whatever. I think both sides of the issue have some valid arguments......what's everyone think?
Maureen Dowd
Why the fuck is she a New York Times columnist? Seriously. Because no other pre-teen from the gossipy cool-kids table was available?
Tasers
Nova Scotia court harshly rebukes police for torturing 17-year old child in her bedroom with a Taser.
Monday, January 28, 2008
$Prezzie$ Envy
Ezra Klein's reaction to the NY Times piece today that asserts that Prez-Prezzy Bush has prezzzided over an economy worthy of "envy" (the fact of which, goes the Times' argument, has been overshadowed by the war in Iraq, thus stealing from him the credit he so richly deserves) has inspired a hilaryous forum discussion. Check it out. (I agree on the point that the chart Ezra has made as a reaction to Krugger's less-readable chart needs to indicate "the average fiscal deficit/surplus in %GDP (better still would be the rate of change of the deficit, to account for what they inherited from the guy before).")
Kruggers Right Again
Paul Krugman does a good job of forewarning us Dems of what the future post-election holds: a bitterly cold war against the Conservative hate machine that wishes to obfuscate the very issues that brought a Dem to the presidency in the first place. They'll declare war on John Edwards populism, Obama's change and Hillary's pragmatism. They'll try to tell us the country is ruined and its failed economy a fault of the bleeding hearts. They'll ruin us for our patriotism and tell us we're all terrorists. Such are the desperate acts of meglamaniacs who see dollar signs in the eyes or babies.
Universal health care? "A socialist idea deserving not of the American patience," the Conservatives will insist. John Edwards's unemployment insurance will be likened to the froggy French (gasp!). Higher taxes on the rich--a conspiracy on Christians! Stronger environmental regs? Anti-competition and anti-creationist.
But why? Why do they hate poor people so much? Why are they so set on being divisive, un-human, and indeed--yes, I'll say it--un-Christian? Alternately, why do Dems allow this? Do we really have to even entertain such cruelty? No we don't, but the very nature of Liberals--who believe everyone deserves a voice, has a right to differing opinions and should be allowed an audience (i.e., the fundementals of a democracy)--necessarily makes them good targets for bully Conservatives--who believe in competition, selfishness and heirarchy--as they crusade to privatize every aspect of Public life in order that they may profit off human necessity. Charter schools, privatised health care, toll roads--they rationalize their greed by exhibiting a cripled government (created by a mired political process of bought votes and commercial tv news) that need only be unburdened of such responsibilities as the good of the people. Illiteracy, widespread diabetes and potholes are left in the wake--and poor people from the east, west and south sides of Indianapolis are brainwashed by their Republican-owned newspaper into thinking that less taxes are the answer. Then they vote out the one leader who has ever improved the neighborhoods and their quality of life (yes, I miss you, Bart Peterson); they vote out reason and humanity; they vote out good public schools, the arts; they vote out paved roads, healthy school lunches and programs for active living. And then the infrastructure declines, drop out rates increase, and big business plays the part of the charletan carpet bagger and sell us on private schools and two-tier medical coverage. And the money, oh the money, it comes a-pouring into the grubby hands of the Corporation, who then convinces government it needs incentives to continue selling us its fantasy. The taxpayer money that could have gone to buying me a textbook when I was 11 is then routed toward corporate taxbreaks and credits.
I wish we had a Conservative blogger amongst us who could convince me otherwise that neo-Conservatives are 21st century Nazis.
Universal health care? "A socialist idea deserving not of the American patience," the Conservatives will insist. John Edwards's unemployment insurance will be likened to the froggy French (gasp!). Higher taxes on the rich--a conspiracy on Christians! Stronger environmental regs? Anti-competition and anti-creationist.
But why? Why do they hate poor people so much? Why are they so set on being divisive, un-human, and indeed--yes, I'll say it--un-Christian? Alternately, why do Dems allow this? Do we really have to even entertain such cruelty? No we don't, but the very nature of Liberals--who believe everyone deserves a voice, has a right to differing opinions and should be allowed an audience (i.e., the fundementals of a democracy)--necessarily makes them good targets for bully Conservatives--who believe in competition, selfishness and heirarchy--as they crusade to privatize every aspect of Public life in order that they may profit off human necessity. Charter schools, privatised health care, toll roads--they rationalize their greed by exhibiting a cripled government (created by a mired political process of bought votes and commercial tv news) that need only be unburdened of such responsibilities as the good of the people. Illiteracy, widespread diabetes and potholes are left in the wake--and poor people from the east, west and south sides of Indianapolis are brainwashed by their Republican-owned newspaper into thinking that less taxes are the answer. Then they vote out the one leader who has ever improved the neighborhoods and their quality of life (yes, I miss you, Bart Peterson); they vote out reason and humanity; they vote out good public schools, the arts; they vote out paved roads, healthy school lunches and programs for active living. And then the infrastructure declines, drop out rates increase, and big business plays the part of the charletan carpet bagger and sell us on private schools and two-tier medical coverage. And the money, oh the money, it comes a-pouring into the grubby hands of the Corporation, who then convinces government it needs incentives to continue selling us its fantasy. The taxpayer money that could have gone to buying me a textbook when I was 11 is then routed toward corporate taxbreaks and credits.
I wish we had a Conservative blogger amongst us who could convince me otherwise that neo-Conservatives are 21st century Nazis.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Boniferro Mill Works ULC v. Ontario
First, I was wrong in the comment before that the Residual Value Charge (RVC) was struck down on federalist grounds, as it sounded from that article. It was struck down because it was categorized as a tax, as opposed to a royalty, and the enabling statue, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, did not authorize the Minister of Natural Resources to levy a tax through forestry leases.
The reasoning requires 2 steps:
1) The classification of the RVC as a tax or a royalty.
2) An analysis of s. 31 of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act to determine if the provision authorizes a tax.
The relationshp between the Province and Boniferro Mill Works is a private lessor-lessee relationship, with the Province as proprietary owner of lumber resources in Ontario, and Boniferro Mill Works leasing that property from the Crown. The relevant term of the lease was s. 2.4, requiring the company to pay prices as determined by the Minister under s. 31 of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. Section 31 states that the Minister may determine the "price at which forest resources may be harvested or used for a designated purpose under a Forest Resource License."
The RVC was to be determined in relation to the market value of the post-processed lumber resources. The test for determination of whether the charge is a tax is as follows:
1) Is the levy enforceable by law?
2) Is the levy imposed under the authority of the legislature?
3) Is the levy imposed by a public body?
4) Is the levy for a public purpose?
The answer to (2) and (3) is an obvious yes. The answer to (1) was also found to be yes by virtue of the fact that the Crown Forest Sustainability Act creates a statutory enforcement regime that exists above and beyond the private contractual relationship between the Crown and the company. Fair enough.
My concern in this decision is with (4). The court found, with little analysis, that the fact that revenue raised through the RVC was directed into the general revenue stream of the Province to be determinative of whether the charge was for a public purpose. It seems to me that an analysis of the purpose of the levy requires more than looking at whether the revenue is directed to some dedicated fund or the Province's general revenue stream. Such an analysis should look at the purpose of applying the charge rather than the purpose to which the revenue will be directed. The charge here is, at least arguably, for the purpose of capturing the full proprietary value of the lumber to the Province - which is not a public purpose, but a purpose driven by the Province's private ownership of the resources. However, the Crown did not argue this and in fact conceded this point to the complainants... so maybe there is jurisprudence to suggest that this part of the analysis is suppose to look only at the purpose to which the revenue is to be applied, rather than the purpose of imposing the charge in the first place.
The second step of the analysis looks at whether s. 31 authorizes taxation. An argument could be made that s. 31 provides an implied authorization to apply taxation - but unfortunately for the government, legislation requires an express authorization for an administrative agency to levy taxation. Which it clearly does not do.
So, on the merits of the case... I have that one concern. Though its possible it would become less of a concern if I read more on what is meant by "public purpose". But I don't really want to devote the time to find out, so I'll leave it at that.
Looking at the decision more broadly, I have 2 general comments. First, expect the Province to appeal as far as possible. It is at least debatable whether the charge is a tax or royalty as it has characteristics of both. The Court of Appeal may come to a different conclusion (although the standard of review for an appellate court on questions of mixed fact and law is reasonableness - so the characterization of the charge as a tax by the trial court does not have to be correct, it just has to be reasonable). And the Province is not about to give up on $100 million of revenue.
Second, this is a bad decision from the point of view of otherwise uninterested citizens in Ontario. It just means that the Province will have a $100 million revenue shortfall due to the sloppy drafting of the enabling statue. $100 million of proprietary value in lumber resources will have been lost to the private sector. The effect really would have been the same had the Province determined the value of lumber, and then summarily discounted private lumber companies $100 million.
The reasoning requires 2 steps:
1) The classification of the RVC as a tax or a royalty.
2) An analysis of s. 31 of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act to determine if the provision authorizes a tax.
The relationshp between the Province and Boniferro Mill Works is a private lessor-lessee relationship, with the Province as proprietary owner of lumber resources in Ontario, and Boniferro Mill Works leasing that property from the Crown. The relevant term of the lease was s. 2.4, requiring the company to pay prices as determined by the Minister under s. 31 of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. Section 31 states that the Minister may determine the "price at which forest resources may be harvested or used for a designated purpose under a Forest Resource License."
The RVC was to be determined in relation to the market value of the post-processed lumber resources. The test for determination of whether the charge is a tax is as follows:
1) Is the levy enforceable by law?
2) Is the levy imposed under the authority of the legislature?
3) Is the levy imposed by a public body?
4) Is the levy for a public purpose?
The answer to (2) and (3) is an obvious yes. The answer to (1) was also found to be yes by virtue of the fact that the Crown Forest Sustainability Act creates a statutory enforcement regime that exists above and beyond the private contractual relationship between the Crown and the company. Fair enough.
My concern in this decision is with (4). The court found, with little analysis, that the fact that revenue raised through the RVC was directed into the general revenue stream of the Province to be determinative of whether the charge was for a public purpose. It seems to me that an analysis of the purpose of the levy requires more than looking at whether the revenue is directed to some dedicated fund or the Province's general revenue stream. Such an analysis should look at the purpose of applying the charge rather than the purpose to which the revenue will be directed. The charge here is, at least arguably, for the purpose of capturing the full proprietary value of the lumber to the Province - which is not a public purpose, but a purpose driven by the Province's private ownership of the resources. However, the Crown did not argue this and in fact conceded this point to the complainants... so maybe there is jurisprudence to suggest that this part of the analysis is suppose to look only at the purpose to which the revenue is to be applied, rather than the purpose of imposing the charge in the first place.
The second step of the analysis looks at whether s. 31 authorizes taxation. An argument could be made that s. 31 provides an implied authorization to apply taxation - but unfortunately for the government, legislation requires an express authorization for an administrative agency to levy taxation. Which it clearly does not do.
So, on the merits of the case... I have that one concern. Though its possible it would become less of a concern if I read more on what is meant by "public purpose". But I don't really want to devote the time to find out, so I'll leave it at that.
Looking at the decision more broadly, I have 2 general comments. First, expect the Province to appeal as far as possible. It is at least debatable whether the charge is a tax or royalty as it has characteristics of both. The Court of Appeal may come to a different conclusion (although the standard of review for an appellate court on questions of mixed fact and law is reasonableness - so the characterization of the charge as a tax by the trial court does not have to be correct, it just has to be reasonable). And the Province is not about to give up on $100 million of revenue.
Second, this is a bad decision from the point of view of otherwise uninterested citizens in Ontario. It just means that the Province will have a $100 million revenue shortfall due to the sloppy drafting of the enabling statue. $100 million of proprietary value in lumber resources will have been lost to the private sector. The effect really would have been the same had the Province determined the value of lumber, and then summarily discounted private lumber companies $100 million.
More Torture
Down with Baby Boomers!
This was originally going to be a comment to Indiana's post a while back about John Edwards. I was going to say that he's a good candidate but you can't deny that his record isn't anywhere near as progressive as his campaign rhetoric. And while his intentions are good and usually right-on-target, it remains to be seen if he actually has what it takes to get anything done.
My original point was going to be that I think all the Democratic presidential candidates are pretty much the same in terms of their policy ideas, with only minor differences that probably wouldn't see the light of day with the barriers any government faces. The main difference between Edwards, Clinton, and Obama is the way they would each approach governing.
And that is why I would probably vote for Obama if I was an American. I won't give all the Cliched reasons, although I probably fall victim to some of them. I do believe, as many have said, that an Obama presidency would be a huge foreign policy victory for the US. But the main somewhat-cliched reason that I'd vote for Obama is this: I'm really, really sick of baby boomers.
I think that today's political climate, the current political coalitions that exist, and what are generally perceived to be the "issues of the day" are all intrinsically linked to the baby boomer generation. The last 4 presidential elections have been about the exact same things. Ridiculous coalitions have formed (e.g. social and economic conservatives) that are nothing more than power alliances. There are issues that are treated as legitimate topics for debate (global warming, gay rights, etc.) in the DEMOCRATIC party that would only have fringe opposition if all the voters were under 40. So what are we waiting for? Baby Boomers have had their turn, and now it's time for them to retire and cash in their social security cheques while their kids figure out how to clean up the mess they left by trying to approach things differently.
It's not that the baby boomer generation didn't accomplish good things. They did, and I'm happy for that. But man, do they love themselves for it or what? Baby Boomers just need to relax.
Also, the Beatles were good, but there was a lot of shit music in the 60's as well. Eat it boomers!!
My original point was going to be that I think all the Democratic presidential candidates are pretty much the same in terms of their policy ideas, with only minor differences that probably wouldn't see the light of day with the barriers any government faces. The main difference between Edwards, Clinton, and Obama is the way they would each approach governing.
And that is why I would probably vote for Obama if I was an American. I won't give all the Cliched reasons, although I probably fall victim to some of them. I do believe, as many have said, that an Obama presidency would be a huge foreign policy victory for the US. But the main somewhat-cliched reason that I'd vote for Obama is this: I'm really, really sick of baby boomers.
I think that today's political climate, the current political coalitions that exist, and what are generally perceived to be the "issues of the day" are all intrinsically linked to the baby boomer generation. The last 4 presidential elections have been about the exact same things. Ridiculous coalitions have formed (e.g. social and economic conservatives) that are nothing more than power alliances. There are issues that are treated as legitimate topics for debate (global warming, gay rights, etc.) in the DEMOCRATIC party that would only have fringe opposition if all the voters were under 40. So what are we waiting for? Baby Boomers have had their turn, and now it's time for them to retire and cash in their social security cheques while their kids figure out how to clean up the mess they left by trying to approach things differently.
It's not that the baby boomer generation didn't accomplish good things. They did, and I'm happy for that. But man, do they love themselves for it or what? Baby Boomers just need to relax.
Also, the Beatles were good, but there was a lot of shit music in the 60's as well. Eat it boomers!!
Trains
This is really a follow-up to my comment in the previous post. I just wanted to illustrate what it looks like when public transit is a real priority for an area. This is train map of the Tokyo area:
There is no place in the greater Tokyo area that cannot be reached by a 10 minute walk from a train station. People take trains everywhere. There is absolutely no reason to have a car there. In stark contrast, lets take a look at Toronto's subway system:
That's pretty pathetic.
There is no place in the greater Tokyo area that cannot be reached by a 10 minute walk from a train station. People take trains everywhere. There is absolutely no reason to have a car there. In stark contrast, lets take a look at Toronto's subway system:
That's pretty pathetic.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Get out of my dreams. Get into my car.
From the age of 5 to 13 bicycles were my sole means of independent travel outside of walking and the occasional bus ride. My friends and I would cruise the neighborhood, making obligatory stops at Becker's for Coke slurpies and Big League Chew, then onwards to the local ravine where we'd scavenge for discarded porno magazines. Times were good. The bike was cool, an accessory no respectable boy would be without.
Then I became a teenager.
As I edged closer to legal driving age, the bicycle's role in my life became increasingly fuzzy. By the age of 19, I hadn't owned—let alone sat on—a bike for 3 years. Although I wouldn't admit it at the time, I had come to regard the bicycle as a embarrassment; something only DUI cases and "poor people" used. Twisted thinking, I know, but not entirely unexpected considering I was knee deep in suburbia attending one of the wealthiest high schools in the municipality. Try not driving when 1 out of 3 peers has a car. To my insecure, malformed teenage brain, the automobile seemed the only choice. Goodbye bike!
It wasn't until I moved out of the burbs did I rediscover my love of two-wheeled travel. First it was simply a cheap way to get from a-to-b. Soon, my utilitarian interest developed into a full blown obsession. Riding was always the first choice. Groceries? Take the bike. School? Take the bike. Work? Take the bike. Transit was there for stormy days or the unforgiving cold of Toronto winters; otherwise, it was the bike every time. Riding in Toronto restored my faith in the bicycle, and thankfully, opened my eyes to a life without complete car-dependency. Over the years I've come to believe that more and more Canadians living in high-density areas have made the same transition, and that the car-centric lifestyle is slowly eroding.
That's why I find this new report from StatsCan so disturbing. Despite growing concern over GHG emissions and fuel costs, Canadians on average drive more now than we did 10 years ago. I fully realize that the automobile is a necessity for many Canadians. That being said, there are too many people in urbanized areas, even on the fringes of cities, with viable alternatives that still insist on driving everywhere. Fine, you need it to get to work or to hockey practice. But is it absolutely necessary you drive that half kilometer to Blockbuster? I live in Burnaby, and though technically a suburb, it has a fully functional transit system and bicycle network. Even with these options, I see very few people walking in my neighbourhood, and even fewer cyclists. Granted, the buses get heavy use, but when you look at the age make-up of the riders it's often the young and the elderly.
Not surprisingly, Edmonton and Calgary are rated the most car-dependent cities in Canada; with Montrealer's being the least likely to hop behind the wheel. To add insult to injury, the report notes that while car dependency has risen, people are walking and cycling less than before.
Put on your Ray Bans, the future is looking bright.
subliminal cobra
Does anyone else see a cobra shape in those clouds? I've outlined it in orange to show you what I mean.
I'm having trouble loading a full-quality image, which is a shame because I really wish you could read this guy's hat. It's a toque that says 'vagina warrior'. (I found it by typing "vagina hat" into Google.)
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The Law of Torture
Good article on John Yoo, the guy who wrote the memos supporting the legality of torture while working in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice.
The Boniferros vs. The Government
Those of you interested in law might like this one. My uncle owns a hardwood sawmill in Sault Ste Marie. Last August, he filed a lawsuit against the Ministry of Natural Resources in Ontario, claiming that he was being taxed illegally. You can read about the case itself here.
Today the Ontario Superior Court ruled in his favour, and the government owes him a million and change back from the taxes/charges/whatever it was that he paid.
This case was a nail-biter for my family not only because my uncle Jim's company was the plaintiff, but because my uncle Paul (a labour lawyer) and his firm were representing them.
I'm curious to know what others think of both the merits of the case and the judge's...er...judgement.
And as an aside, I hope you enjoy the unintentional hokeyness of the small-town Northern Ontario media that never fails to entertain.
Today the Ontario Superior Court ruled in his favour, and the government owes him a million and change back from the taxes/charges/whatever it was that he paid.
This case was a nail-biter for my family not only because my uncle Jim's company was the plaintiff, but because my uncle Paul (a labour lawyer) and his firm were representing them.
I'm curious to know what others think of both the merits of the case and the judge's...er...judgement.
And as an aside, I hope you enjoy the unintentional hokeyness of the small-town Northern Ontario media that never fails to entertain.
New look?
I like procrastination. Instead of writing cover letters (snore) I made a fly-ass new banner for LBID. What do you think? I could throw the 'Coz in if you'd like. If it gets full support, I'll toss this bad boy up there.
VP?
With calls for "Cos for Pres" reaching a fevered pitch from all corners of the blogosphere, I think its an appropriate time to begin speculation on a Vice Presidential nominee.
Now, I know many people feel that the VP selection is a good opportunity for ticket-balancing: geographically, ideologically, by age, by gender, by race, etc. So with Cos being somewhat moderate, and from Philly, we might be tempted to pick a young, liberal, female, Governor from the south or west.
But I say fuck that. Keep it in the family. I think this would be a great opportunity to teach some good old fashioned responsibility to floundering family members. So I would nominate Theo.
Theo for VP!!!
But don't stop there. There is a whole cabinet that needs appointing:
Now, I know many people feel that the VP selection is a good opportunity for ticket-balancing: geographically, ideologically, by age, by gender, by race, etc. So with Cos being somewhat moderate, and from Philly, we might be tempted to pick a young, liberal, female, Governor from the south or west.
But I say fuck that. Keep it in the family. I think this would be a great opportunity to teach some good old fashioned responsibility to floundering family members. So I would nominate Theo.
Theo for VP!!!
But don't stop there. There is a whole cabinet that needs appointing:
The Blackest of the First Black Presidents
The other night on CNN, in keeping with the kind of hard-hitting policy questions that power political debate these days, it was asked of the Democratic candidates whether or not they believed it fair to call Bill Clinton the "first black president" (an assertion originally made by author Toni Morrison). Since the man did appear on Aresenio Hall, I suppose there's an argument to be made. But I think, before bestowing such a significant title, it's important to consider some of the other contenders:
1. David Palmer. Surely everyone can agree that President Palmer was the picture of presidential composure throughout the nine hundred-odd national crises he weathered on 24. That he is fictional should make little difference, given the questionable reality of the current president.
2. Fela Kuti. The king of Afrobeat was occasionally known among his fans as the Black President. Given Mr. Obama's thoughtful response to the question of presidential blackness, which raised the issue of dance moves, it can be assumed that Fela would be overqualified to assume the title. He could kick Clinton's ass in a sax-off. And, he was once married to 27 women, which makes a little Oval Offical oral action look pretty limp.
3. Abraham Lincoln. Dude. The style. The flow. The freeing the slaves. How black can you get?
And, of course, if we rule out Mr. Bill and Obama doesn't get it this time around, there's always this guy.
1. David Palmer. Surely everyone can agree that President Palmer was the picture of presidential composure throughout the nine hundred-odd national crises he weathered on 24. That he is fictional should make little difference, given the questionable reality of the current president.
2. Fela Kuti. The king of Afrobeat was occasionally known among his fans as the Black President. Given Mr. Obama's thoughtful response to the question of presidential blackness, which raised the issue of dance moves, it can be assumed that Fela would be overqualified to assume the title. He could kick Clinton's ass in a sax-off. And, he was once married to 27 women, which makes a little Oval Offical oral action look pretty limp.
3. Abraham Lincoln. Dude. The style. The flow. The freeing the slaves. How black can you get?
And, of course, if we rule out Mr. Bill and Obama doesn't get it this time around, there's always this guy.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
John Edwards for President
I haven't had a hero in a long time. That is, until recently. John Edwards, with his egalitarian message and sharp, on-point oratory style, speaks to me--deep within me. And coincides with my original hero, my mom, who's mandates in life are championing poor people's issues, respect, integrity and accountability--all in the light of peace. I believe John Edwards has the same priorities, and I believe he has the gumption to actually make a difference on these fronts.
The CNN debate (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=273552) last night only confirmed all this, while also confirming that, while Hillary Clinton (and to a lesser degree Barack Obama) would make a good president, John Edwards would be the consummate president--a president for the ages.
I heart John Edwards.
Monday, January 21, 2008
The Economy
So this seems like pretty big news:
Having been a student my whole life, I've never really been personally affected by downturns in the economy. The job market has always been more of an abstraction. A lack of jobs isn't much of a concern to someone who is looking at 3 more years of school, or whatever. But now, I'm set to enter the job market when it looks like the economy might tank. When considering this possibility before, I kind of thought that lawyers might be fairly insulated from recessions. Like, when the economy is good, the corporate group is active, and when it's bad, the insolvency group. But I'm not so sure anymore. I feel like, to some degree, associate recruitment will slow down at a time when I'm vying for an associate position. So then I think maybe the utilities sector would stay strong - people still use electricity no matter what, right? But notice that it's energy and mining stocks down too. Two large sectors of B.C.'s economy.
So yeah. I'm not too worried or anything... just wanted to give a view of what the economy looks like from my perspective.
In Canada, markets that had been skidding for several days fell off a cliff, with the S&P/TSX composite index tumbling 605 points or 4.75 per cent. In the past week, the index has shrunk by more than 1,500 points, or 11.4 per cent. Energy and mining stocks, buoyed in recent months by high commodity prices, fell the furthest Monday.
Having been a student my whole life, I've never really been personally affected by downturns in the economy. The job market has always been more of an abstraction. A lack of jobs isn't much of a concern to someone who is looking at 3 more years of school, or whatever. But now, I'm set to enter the job market when it looks like the economy might tank. When considering this possibility before, I kind of thought that lawyers might be fairly insulated from recessions. Like, when the economy is good, the corporate group is active, and when it's bad, the insolvency group. But I'm not so sure anymore. I feel like, to some degree, associate recruitment will slow down at a time when I'm vying for an associate position. So then I think maybe the utilities sector would stay strong - people still use electricity no matter what, right? But notice that it's energy and mining stocks down too. Two large sectors of B.C.'s economy.
So yeah. I'm not too worried or anything... just wanted to give a view of what the economy looks like from my perspective.
Seattle
So I'm probably headed to Seattle this weekend with H, who is working the boat show there. While she is working 8 hours per day Thurs - Sun, I'll need to keep occupied. So if anyone has been to Seattle and has something to recommend to keep me busy, let me know. I will have a car.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Lonestar Salsa
Due to popular demand. This recipe is the real shit, yo. It will change your life.
1 (28 ounce) can diced tomatoes
1 (5 1/2 ounce) can tomato paste
2 small jalapeno peppers (seeded and chopped)
2 minced fresh garlic cloves
2 tablespoons fresh cilantro (chopped)
2 teaspoons salt
1 teaspoon garlic powder (optional)
3 tablespoons olive oil
1/2-3/4 red onion, chopped (the amount you use is up to you)
To easily peel tomatoes, cut an X into the top or bottom of the tomato and place in boiling water for a few minutes. remove, let cool slightly and remove skin.
Dice tomatoes, place in food processor / blender and add tomato paste, chopped peppers, minced garlic, cilantro, salt, onions and oil. Process until mixed.
(Experiment with this step....I don't have a real blender so I borrow derbis's hand blender and do all the blending in a giant bowl.)
At this point the salsa is ready to serve, but if left to sit in refrigerator for a few hours the salsa will thicken and the flavours will intensify.
Enjoy and write in the comments section about how successful you are. My advice would be to do the blending a bit at a time, and closely monitor the consistency. It's not supposed to be chunky but you don't want to turn it into a puree either.
Enjoy!
PS. The real reason this salsa is the best is that they don't use green peppers. Brilliant.
1 (28 ounce) can diced tomatoes
1 (5 1/2 ounce) can tomato paste
2 small jalapeno peppers (seeded and chopped)
2 minced fresh garlic cloves
2 tablespoons fresh cilantro (chopped)
2 teaspoons salt
1 teaspoon garlic powder (optional)
3 tablespoons olive oil
1/2-3/4 red onion, chopped (the amount you use is up to you)
To easily peel tomatoes, cut an X into the top or bottom of the tomato and place in boiling water for a few minutes. remove, let cool slightly and remove skin.
Dice tomatoes, place in food processor / blender and add tomato paste, chopped peppers, minced garlic, cilantro, salt, onions and oil. Process until mixed.
(Experiment with this step....I don't have a real blender so I borrow derbis's hand blender and do all the blending in a giant bowl.)
At this point the salsa is ready to serve, but if left to sit in refrigerator for a few hours the salsa will thicken and the flavours will intensify.
Enjoy and write in the comments section about how successful you are. My advice would be to do the blending a bit at a time, and closely monitor the consistency. It's not supposed to be chunky but you don't want to turn it into a puree either.
Enjoy!
PS. The real reason this salsa is the best is that they don't use green peppers. Brilliant.
Protect yo shit
Looking for a tasteful way to protect the hitch on your new F150? I suggest shufflin' on over to Truck Nuts and grab yourself a pair of replica testicles for the low, low price of $24.95. They come in many styles—flesh coloured for the traditionalist, shiny brass for the more sophisticated shopper—and offer endless laughs for the whole family.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Chutney, Yo
I don't blog about food enough considering how into cooking I am these days. So here is a hype mango chutney recipe I've been into lately.
Mango Chutney:
1 1/2 tsp. pumpkin (or olive) oil
2 clove garlic, crushed
1 jalapeño pepper
1/4 tsp. cumin seeds
2 large sweet mango, cut into 1/2-inch cubes
1/4 tsp. ground coriander
4 Tbsp. apple cider vinegar
4 Tbsp. raw sugar
1/4 tsp. salt
Heat the oil in a small saucepan on medium-low heat. Add the garlic, chili, and cumin seeds and sauté until light golden.
Add the rest of the ingredients and simmer for 10-15 minutes, stirring from time to time to prevent sticking.
Word. Beat it honkeys.
Mango Chutney:
1 1/2 tsp. pumpkin (or olive) oil
2 clove garlic, crushed
1 jalapeño pepper
1/4 tsp. cumin seeds
2 large sweet mango, cut into 1/2-inch cubes
1/4 tsp. ground coriander
4 Tbsp. apple cider vinegar
4 Tbsp. raw sugar
1/4 tsp. salt
Heat the oil in a small saucepan on medium-low heat. Add the garlic, chili, and cumin seeds and sauté until light golden.
Add the rest of the ingredients and simmer for 10-15 minutes, stirring from time to time to prevent sticking.
Word. Beat it honkeys.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
pussaaaaaaay!!
My first few posts on this blog were politically oriented, and whether intelligent or not, they were at least noble in intent.
Then I got into posting about pop culture, personal anecdotes, and random inconsequential-yet-interesting tidbits.
Now, in an effort to further diminish the gravitas of this blog, I present to you all a post about vaginas.
Then I got into posting about pop culture, personal anecdotes, and random inconsequential-yet-interesting tidbits.
Now, in an effort to further diminish the gravitas of this blog, I present to you all a post about vaginas.
And now for something a little trashy...
For your enjoyment, here's a video of 50 Cent being caught very obviously snorting cocaine.
It happens about 1 minute in.
It happens about 1 minute in.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Constitutional Amendment
This one has been making it's way around the liberal blogosphere. I think a lot of people would be appalled to hear that Huckabee is proposing amending the Constitution so that it reflects God's word, or whatever it is he is planning exactly. Personally, I think we should see more of this kind of talk. Not amending the Constitution so that it reflects the bible, but talk about Constitutional amendment generally. Constitutions are made to be amended. They have amending formulas built into them. The proper structure of Constitutional government is to have courts interpret the Constitution, and legislatures respond to judicial interpretations, if so desired. Constitutional amendments usually require something like a super-majority vote of a legislature (67%), and/or ratification by a certain number of states/provinces/etc that make up the federation. Since changing the Constitution is a change in the fundamental legal structure of the country, it should require such an onerous level of political support to achieve.
Constitutional amendment is, in my opinion, a far more appropriate mechanism for responding to Constitutional interpretation by the judiciary than the method recently used by American conservatives: which is trying to overturn undesirable outcomes by changing the composition of the Supreme Court. And changing the composition to include judges who simply don't believe in stare decisis.
So campaigning for a Constitutional amendment to ban, say, abortion and gay marriage is a far more open, transparent, democratic and Constitutional method of achieving those aims than having to use code words like "strict constructionist" judges to signal one's attempt to achieve those same aims by other means.
But Mike D loves code words, so maybe he disagrees.
Constitutional amendment is, in my opinion, a far more appropriate mechanism for responding to Constitutional interpretation by the judiciary than the method recently used by American conservatives: which is trying to overturn undesirable outcomes by changing the composition of the Supreme Court. And changing the composition to include judges who simply don't believe in stare decisis.
So campaigning for a Constitutional amendment to ban, say, abortion and gay marriage is a far more open, transparent, democratic and Constitutional method of achieving those aims than having to use code words like "strict constructionist" judges to signal one's attempt to achieve those same aims by other means.
But Mike D loves code words, so maybe he disagrees.
The Bullshit Argument of "Judicial Activism"
Glenn Greenwald on "judicial activism". It seems we have similar pet peeves.
When I say "U.S.', you say A! U.S.! A! U.S.! A!
So the US Military is requesting proposals for a good rock band.
Who's in??
I think we have all the criteria covered except for maybe Factor 4: Celebrity Status of the proposed artists. So we need a frontman who's an internationally recognized celebrity, or at the very least, a "member who may be recognizable within a certain metropolitan community, although not nationally or internationally". (This would get us a score of "adequate" in this category.)
Any ideas? I know a couple people who are on City TV news?
Between all of us well-connected urbanites, we must be able to find at least one famous-ish person who will be willing to join us and form an army-rock band!! I will even offer that person a quick getaway to Dubai, while on our tour, that will put all previous notions of "a night with the guys in Vegas" to shame.
Also - shotgun drums.
Who's in??
I think we have all the criteria covered except for maybe Factor 4: Celebrity Status of the proposed artists. So we need a frontman who's an internationally recognized celebrity, or at the very least, a "member who may be recognizable within a certain metropolitan community, although not nationally or internationally". (This would get us a score of "adequate" in this category.)
Any ideas? I know a couple people who are on City TV news?
Between all of us well-connected urbanites, we must be able to find at least one famous-ish person who will be willing to join us and form an army-rock band!! I will even offer that person a quick getaway to Dubai, while on our tour, that will put all previous notions of "a night with the guys in Vegas" to shame.
Also - shotgun drums.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Aquilini Wins Canucks
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
We are sad
Another article about how sad I am going to be in my chosen profession. I guess I just won't be happy until I'm showered with the prestige and social standing I so deserve.
Code Words
If you've listened to anything Mike Huckabee's been saying lately, you've probably heard his whole routine on how he's done with the "horizontal" politics of the left and right and promises a new kind of "vertical" politics that bring the country together and make it better. Seems to be nothing more than innocent (and empty) rhetoric. But apparently many people are convinced that "vertical" is in fact a code word for evangelicals.
All I can think about is how awesome it would be if I belonged to a group that had candidates for the presidency speaking to them in code words. Let's see...I'm a vegetarian, and I'm sure that the majority of US voters would be uncomfortable with their leaders explicitly endorsing vegetarianism. So I would like to see a presidential candidate speak to me IN CODE to say that they support my lifestyle....maybe they can say that in foreign policy they're more likely to offer carrots than sticks? Something like that? But seriously....how lucky are Christians to get their own code language???
Cos '12
All I can think about is how awesome it would be if I belonged to a group that had candidates for the presidency speaking to them in code words. Let's see...I'm a vegetarian, and I'm sure that the majority of US voters would be uncomfortable with their leaders explicitly endorsing vegetarianism. So I would like to see a presidential candidate speak to me IN CODE to say that they support my lifestyle....maybe they can say that in foreign policy they're more likely to offer carrots than sticks? Something like that? But seriously....how lucky are Christians to get their own code language???
Cos '12
Cos and Effect
I like the Bams. And I'm glad that levels of Bamarama seem to be on the rise. But I'm not ashamed to admit that I still have a hard time imagining the US electing a black president, and I expect that many Americans - Republican, Democrat, black, white, asian, cro-asian - share my doubt. Bams has some momentum: he won in Iowa and it seems he'll win by a narrow margin in New Hampshire today, but there's still plenty of time for Democrats to think "hey, he's black", and still plenty of time to cloak that sentiment in the more acceptable argument, "hey, he's only 46." (Thanks Hill.)
So I've been thinking: is there a black man that America would accept as president this half-century? And the answer came quite naturally: Bill Cosby. I don't know anything about Cosby's political views or aspirations, but I don't think that particularly matters, because he's Cosby.
Cosby '12. (I'm admittedly quite ignorant of the caucus/nomination process, other than that it apparently involves a lot of yelling and maltreatment of immigrants - can a candidate win the nomination after missing two primaries? If so, Cosby '08.)
Maybe Americans aren't ready for Obams, but they might be ready for a black man that they've already invited in to their homes on many an occasion. Remember the time that Theo threw a party that got out of hand, and Cosby made him work at a homeless mission? What about the time he single-handedly brought stability and Jello products to North Korea, paradoxically defrosting political relations with the icy cool refreshingness of Pudding Pops? Let's create some magical new memories together. And Cosby isn't just the candidate for those of us who are old enough to remember all of his Cosby Show antics - he's a ubiquitous pop-culture reference, frequently lampooned on comedy shows for all demographics and impersonated by hack comedians of all ages (second only to Christopher Walken in this regard). He also recently and unwittingly starred in the internet-exclusive sitcom House of Cosbys (the first half of the first episode is pretty funny). In short, Cosby is everywhere, and he appeals to audiences young and old. Widespread familiarity/celebrity: it's an easy and guaranteed way to get into politics. Just ask former President Reagan, future President Schwarzenegger, Jesse "The Body" Ventura, Jerry Springer, Gary Coleman, and droopy-faced Republican hopeful Fred Thompson.
The US is going through some tough economic times right now. And for the past little while, it's been going through some tough "totally scared of everything and ready to kick its ass at a moment's notice" times. Having a leader who's convinced the world is going to end in a blaze of hellfire probably won't help to improve anyone's outlook (nor would a leader who starts and ends every sentence with "911"). Granted, Bams, things like "hope" and "change" are a bit more positive. But you know what could really help? Some hilarity. Some good old family-appropriate humour.
George Bush thinks he's hilarious. He's constantly ending a (tragic) sentence with a slight chuckle in his voice, then smirking, leaning forward over the podium and waiting for laughs. Imagine if he was actually as funny as he thinks he is? Well, I know someone who's even funnier than that. Cos has the goods. Instead of the painfully unstructured, fragmented speech-barfs or stone-faced "no-comments" we're used to, we could be regaled with rollicking anecdotes, funny voices, and bug-eyed silly-faces. Politics would be fun again, or rather, for the first time. And think about how much more engaged with government the general public would be - a scary amount of people have little or no interest in the political issues that shape their country and affect their lives, but we all love to be entertained. And apparently voters are willing to settle for jokes of the calibre of "economic girly-men"; wait until they're faced with a candidate who's got some real material.
Many of the aforementioned "no-comments", especially in the last 7 years, have been elicited by requests for an explanation of government policy. This is always very frustrating. Instead of just having a Decider, how about an Explainer? I know a certain gentleman who could sit you down on his knee, and explain the most complicated of issues in a straightforward fashion. He's done it countless times before (in about 201 separate episodes). Why are Cosby explanations so effective, you may ask? Because he starts pretty much every sentence with the words "You see: ". He'll make you see. Cosby '12.
Cosby's ready to handle the hot-button issues. Abortion? No problem. Who better to tackle such a sensitive subject than Dr. Heathcliff Huxtable, OBGYN? The Cosby Show ran from 1984 to 1992, that's 8 years of invaluable experience. And while we're on the subject of his medical credentials, who better to address the issue of national health care than a (TV) doctor? Furthermore, who better to address America's growing obesity epidemic than someone who has a proven track record of turning obesity into laughter, over a backdrop of groovy funk guitar? Hey hey hey.
Gay marriage? My 3 minutes of exhaustive Google research in preparation for this post reveals that there was an episode of Cosby where Cosby accidentally signs up for a gay baseball team. That seems like enough experience to tackle this nationally divisive issue.
"But Derbis," you say, "you're confusing Bill Cosby with the character that he played, Cliff Huxtable." Does it matter? Aren't all politicians playing a role (beside the fact that an increasing number seem to be actors by trade)? I think so; look at "regular guy" Bush, "war hero" Kerry, "hometown hero" Giuliani, "charismatic" Al Gore. "Lady with testicles" Clinton. If I haven't won you over with my Cosby argument, would you go for Huxtable '12? I'm ready for a Cosby/Huxtable ticket.
Besides, the US isn't a dictatorship. Decisions rarely begin or end with the president, a fact that has become blatantly obvious during the current administration. So just elect Cosby for some wacky fun times at press conferences and state of the union addresses, and this time find an impresario who's less similar - in appearance, demeanour, and deed - to the Penguin from Batman Returns. (Am i referring to Cheney or Rove here? Both, I guess.)
Now, I don't want to appear overly judgmental of US politics and its relation to race. First of all, Bams' campaign for candidacy is going well, and hopefully it'll continue to do so. And second, as far as I know, there has never been a black candidate for Prime Minister of Canada. Best of luck to Obams, but if he doesn't make it, let's get Cosby in there. Then maybe Canada will follow suit, once we've had a friendly old funny black neighbour.
In conclusion: sorry to pollute this serious blog with something so ridiculous. Also:
"Cosby '12. You see: it's time for change, Theo. Heh heh."
So I've been thinking: is there a black man that America would accept as president this half-century? And the answer came quite naturally: Bill Cosby. I don't know anything about Cosby's political views or aspirations, but I don't think that particularly matters, because he's Cosby.
Cosby '12. (I'm admittedly quite ignorant of the caucus/nomination process, other than that it apparently involves a lot of yelling and maltreatment of immigrants - can a candidate win the nomination after missing two primaries? If so, Cosby '08.)
Maybe Americans aren't ready for Obams, but they might be ready for a black man that they've already invited in to their homes on many an occasion. Remember the time that Theo threw a party that got out of hand, and Cosby made him work at a homeless mission? What about the time he single-handedly brought stability and Jello products to North Korea, paradoxically defrosting political relations with the icy cool refreshingness of Pudding Pops? Let's create some magical new memories together. And Cosby isn't just the candidate for those of us who are old enough to remember all of his Cosby Show antics - he's a ubiquitous pop-culture reference, frequently lampooned on comedy shows for all demographics and impersonated by hack comedians of all ages (second only to Christopher Walken in this regard). He also recently and unwittingly starred in the internet-exclusive sitcom House of Cosbys (the first half of the first episode is pretty funny). In short, Cosby is everywhere, and he appeals to audiences young and old. Widespread familiarity/celebrity: it's an easy and guaranteed way to get into politics. Just ask former President Reagan, future President Schwarzenegger, Jesse "The Body" Ventura, Jerry Springer, Gary Coleman, and droopy-faced Republican hopeful Fred Thompson.
The US is going through some tough economic times right now. And for the past little while, it's been going through some tough "totally scared of everything and ready to kick its ass at a moment's notice" times. Having a leader who's convinced the world is going to end in a blaze of hellfire probably won't help to improve anyone's outlook (nor would a leader who starts and ends every sentence with "911"). Granted, Bams, things like "hope" and "change" are a bit more positive. But you know what could really help? Some hilarity. Some good old family-appropriate humour.
George Bush thinks he's hilarious. He's constantly ending a (tragic) sentence with a slight chuckle in his voice, then smirking, leaning forward over the podium and waiting for laughs. Imagine if he was actually as funny as he thinks he is? Well, I know someone who's even funnier than that. Cos has the goods. Instead of the painfully unstructured, fragmented speech-barfs or stone-faced "no-comments" we're used to, we could be regaled with rollicking anecdotes, funny voices, and bug-eyed silly-faces. Politics would be fun again, or rather, for the first time. And think about how much more engaged with government the general public would be - a scary amount of people have little or no interest in the political issues that shape their country and affect their lives, but we all love to be entertained. And apparently voters are willing to settle for jokes of the calibre of "economic girly-men"; wait until they're faced with a candidate who's got some real material.
Many of the aforementioned "no-comments", especially in the last 7 years, have been elicited by requests for an explanation of government policy. This is always very frustrating. Instead of just having a Decider, how about an Explainer? I know a certain gentleman who could sit you down on his knee, and explain the most complicated of issues in a straightforward fashion. He's done it countless times before (in about 201 separate episodes). Why are Cosby explanations so effective, you may ask? Because he starts pretty much every sentence with the words "You see: ". He'll make you see. Cosby '12.
Cosby's ready to handle the hot-button issues. Abortion? No problem. Who better to tackle such a sensitive subject than Dr. Heathcliff Huxtable, OBGYN? The Cosby Show ran from 1984 to 1992, that's 8 years of invaluable experience. And while we're on the subject of his medical credentials, who better to address the issue of national health care than a (TV) doctor? Furthermore, who better to address America's growing obesity epidemic than someone who has a proven track record of turning obesity into laughter, over a backdrop of groovy funk guitar? Hey hey hey.
Gay marriage? My 3 minutes of exhaustive Google research in preparation for this post reveals that there was an episode of Cosby where Cosby accidentally signs up for a gay baseball team. That seems like enough experience to tackle this nationally divisive issue.
"But Derbis," you say, "you're confusing Bill Cosby with the character that he played, Cliff Huxtable." Does it matter? Aren't all politicians playing a role (beside the fact that an increasing number seem to be actors by trade)? I think so; look at "regular guy" Bush, "war hero" Kerry, "hometown hero" Giuliani, "charismatic" Al Gore. "Lady with testicles" Clinton. If I haven't won you over with my Cosby argument, would you go for Huxtable '12? I'm ready for a Cosby/Huxtable ticket.
Besides, the US isn't a dictatorship. Decisions rarely begin or end with the president, a fact that has become blatantly obvious during the current administration. So just elect Cosby for some wacky fun times at press conferences and state of the union addresses, and this time find an impresario who's less similar - in appearance, demeanour, and deed - to the Penguin from Batman Returns. (Am i referring to Cheney or Rove here? Both, I guess.)
Now, I don't want to appear overly judgmental of US politics and its relation to race. First of all, Bams' campaign for candidacy is going well, and hopefully it'll continue to do so. And second, as far as I know, there has never been a black candidate for Prime Minister of Canada. Best of luck to Obams, but if he doesn't make it, let's get Cosby in there. Then maybe Canada will follow suit, once we've had a friendly old funny black neighbour.
In conclusion: sorry to pollute this serious blog with something so ridiculous. Also:
"Cosby '12. You see: it's time for change, Theo. Heh heh."
Monday, January 7, 2008
Carbon Tax
The National Round Table on the Environment and Economy released a report today advising on Canada's response to climate change. The reactions among people whose opinions should be respected have been quite favourable. They strongly advised either a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade system, or both:
Significantly, they also said that there would be little harm to the economy if such measures were implemented. And this group consists mainly of industry representatives. Contrast this analysis with John Baird's hysterical rantings on the consequences of implementing Kyoto:
The current government's climate change plan includes an intensity-based cap-and-trade plan, or alternatively a $15-20 contribution to a Clean Technology fund per tonne of GHG emitted. In order to really make the desired reduction to GHG emission, we need to move to an absolute cap-and-trade system, or a carbon tax in the neighbourhood of $100 per tonne (which could easily be established as dedicated revenue for clean energy development).
Implement a strong, clear, consistent and certain GHG emission price signal across the entire Canadian economy as soon as possible in order to successfully shift Canada to a lower GHG emissions pathway, achieve the targeted reductions for 2020 and 2050, avoid higher emission prices that a delay would entail and reduce cumulative emissions released to the atmosphere.
Institute a market-based policy that takes the form of an emission tax or a cap-and-trade system or a combination of the two.
Develop complementary regulatory policies, in conjunction with the emission price signal, to address sectors of the Canadian economy that do not respond effectively to such a price signal or where market failures exist. Complementary policies should also provide support for research, development and demonstration of technologies, as well as strategic investments in infrastructure.
Establish a Canada-wide plan, in the earliest possible time frame, that leads to better coordination of complementary federal, provincial and territorial GHG emission reduction policies aimed at common or shared targets, time frames and actions.
Apply GHG emission reduction policies that incorporate adaptive management practices and have built-in monitoring and assessment mechanisms to allow for regular reviews to ensure efficiency and effectiveness. This approach will ensure that progress is monitored, compliance issues are addressed, and policies are adjusted to match the required level of abatement effort, and will minimize and mitigate unanticipated adverse outcomes.
Significantly, they also said that there would be little harm to the economy if such measures were implemented. And this group consists mainly of industry representatives. Contrast this analysis with John Baird's hysterical rantings on the consequences of implementing Kyoto:
The Government's analysis, broadly endorsed by some of Canada's leading economists, indicates that Canadian Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would decline by more than 6.5% relative to current projections in 2008 as a result of strict adherence to the Kyoto Protocol's emission reduction target for Canada. This would imply a deep recession in 2008, with a one-year net loss of national economic activity in the range of $51 billion relative to 2007 levels. By way of comparison, the most severe recession in the post-World War II period for Canada, as measured by the fall in real GDP, was in 1981-1982. Real GDP fell 4.9% between the second quarter of 1981 and the fourth quarter of 1982.
The current government's climate change plan includes an intensity-based cap-and-trade plan, or alternatively a $15-20 contribution to a Clean Technology fund per tonne of GHG emitted. In order to really make the desired reduction to GHG emission, we need to move to an absolute cap-and-trade system, or a carbon tax in the neighbourhood of $100 per tonne (which could easily be established as dedicated revenue for clean energy development).
New Hampshire predictions
- 'Bama cleans up (10+ point win)
-McCain wins but just barely, and Huckabee is not over as quick as I originally thought (I'm guessing Huckabee and Obama will win South Carolina)
Anyone else?
-McCain wins but just barely, and Huckabee is not over as quick as I originally thought (I'm guessing Huckabee and Obama will win South Carolina)
Anyone else?
Sunday, January 6, 2008
A Close Up Look at the Iowa Caucuses
Doesn't sound like the most ideal way to pick a presidential nominee.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Unlucky names
So this new guy just started at my office today and his name is Jack Bauer. That's pretty awesome no matter how you slice it. But still, it must get annoying to him. I bet that AT LEAST once a day the poor guy has to deal with someone going crazy when he says his name. And days like today, when he has to meet dozens of people in a matter of hours, must be a complete nightmare. But still.....I'd be lying if I said I wasn't mildly entertained.
Other people I've met who Jack Bauer could probably relate to:
-Michael Douglas
-Michael Jackson
-Dave Matthews
-George Bell
-John Stewart (although spelled "Stuart")
-Lincoln Parker (close enough, eh?)
Other people I've met who Jack Bauer could probably relate to:
-Michael Douglas
-Michael Jackson
-Dave Matthews
-George Bell
-John Stewart (although spelled "Stuart")
-Lincoln Parker (close enough, eh?)
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Iowa
So Obams and Huck take it. And both are bigger wins then expected. I can't think of anything original to say about this that isn't being said on CNN right now, but here's what I think will happen next:
Democrats: Obama has at least a 50% chance of winning New Hampshire. I'm gonna guess that the next poll will show him & Clinton at least as tied. If he wins it, even by a small margin, Hillary is in trouble. I think 'bams has some serious momentum going right now. And although this is a "sensitive" topic, I don't think one can understate the importance of his momentum. For some reason, I have a strong feeling that African Americans haven't been that fired up on Obama because they have a deep-rooted belief that a black man will never be President. But I think the symbolism of his win tonight is huge and it'll make a lot of people believe that a black man has a really, really good chance of being the next president. And if that's the case, just watch what happens. Although I have no facts to base this on, I really think that Obama is an easy bandwagon to jump on and once it starts it'll become a huge machine.
Republicans: Harder to say. Because of Romney's loss in Iowa I still think McCain will win New Hampshire, but he's not helped by the fact that Thompson looks like he's going to beat him tonight. McCain also looks like he just made a gaffe, saying that he'd be happy to stay in Iraq for 100 years. Oops! I'm can't figure out whether or not I'm cheering for McCain. On one hand, he's the only guy on the republican side who I would consider a fundamentally decent human being. But on the other hand, he's the only guy on the republican side who has a chance of winning in November. As for Huckabee, I would like to shake his hand personally for keeping the republicans in a messy state for the next little while.
Democrats: Obama has at least a 50% chance of winning New Hampshire. I'm gonna guess that the next poll will show him & Clinton at least as tied. If he wins it, even by a small margin, Hillary is in trouble. I think 'bams has some serious momentum going right now. And although this is a "sensitive" topic, I don't think one can understate the importance of his momentum. For some reason, I have a strong feeling that African Americans haven't been that fired up on Obama because they have a deep-rooted belief that a black man will never be President. But I think the symbolism of his win tonight is huge and it'll make a lot of people believe that a black man has a really, really good chance of being the next president. And if that's the case, just watch what happens. Although I have no facts to base this on, I really think that Obama is an easy bandwagon to jump on and once it starts it'll become a huge machine.
Republicans: Harder to say. Because of Romney's loss in Iowa I still think McCain will win New Hampshire, but he's not helped by the fact that Thompson looks like he's going to beat him tonight. McCain also looks like he just made a gaffe, saying that he'd be happy to stay in Iraq for 100 years. Oops! I'm can't figure out whether or not I'm cheering for McCain. On one hand, he's the only guy on the republican side who I would consider a fundamentally decent human being. But on the other hand, he's the only guy on the republican side who has a chance of winning in November. As for Huckabee, I would like to shake his hand personally for keeping the republicans in a messy state for the next little while.
The Corporation
The Corporation is a hype documentary. It was written by a Constitutional law professor at UBC named Joel Bakan. It's also rumored that Joel Bakan wrote the Oakes test, probably the most important test in Canadian Constitutional law, while clerking for then Chief Justice Brian Dickson.
That's a pretty good top 5 list. I would add Crumb.
That's a pretty good top 5 list. I would add Crumb.
Documentaries
A couple nights ago I watched that "Dixie Chicks: Shut Up And Sing" documentary and it was actually really good. Wouldn't make it into, say, my top 5 documentaries list, but I'd still definitely recommend it.
What's that smokestack? It's time for a top 5 documentaries list? Alright!
5) Gimme Shelter
4) Planet Earth (yes it's technically a mini-series, but where else are you going to see footage of snakes and fish forming hunting alliances? Eat it, I'm putting it in.)
3) Jesus Camp
2) Dig!
1) The Corporation
If you haven't seen all of these, you now have plans for this week.
What's that smokestack? It's time for a top 5 documentaries list? Alright!
5) Gimme Shelter
4) Planet Earth (yes it's technically a mini-series, but where else are you going to see footage of snakes and fish forming hunting alliances? Eat it, I'm putting it in.)
3) Jesus Camp
2) Dig!
1) The Corporation
If you haven't seen all of these, you now have plans for this week.
Music for white people
A couple months ago I read a really interesting article in the New Yorker about how indie rock music has really gone downhill ("lost it's soul"), mainly due to the fact that there is pretty much no racial or ethnic or cultural diversity whatsoever in the genre. I found this article through Tom Breihan's blog...he's a writer for the Village Voice and has an entertaining blog even though his posts are 75% about hip hop (which, as you'll see, makes his contributions to this discussion really interesting).
I'm sure I've made my disdain for the current state of "indie rock" no secret. But for me, it's more the culture surrounding the genre that turns me off than the actual music. Let's be honest - there are still lots of great indie bands out there. Most of my favourite artists would probably fall into this category. But most of them have also been around for at least a few years. Where are all the new bands?? What happened to the "good ole' days" of 2001-2003, when all these new bands were coming out doing interesting and fresh stuff? To me, the indie rock scene has suffered much the same fate as the rave scene and hardcore scene - it got too big. The original "scenesters" - the people who cared about their art and culture and made it noteworthy in the first place - were joined by the mainstream as more people picked up on the fact that they had a good thing going. All that is innocent enough. But with that comes the inevitable infiltration of less-than-sincere (or even just less-than-talented) new members of the scene. This drives away the purists and drives in the ad agencies who see the dollar signs, and the next thing you know, the whole movement pretty much becomes a parody of its former self. And the art at the centre of the culture (in this case music) really starts to suck.
So that, in my opinion, is why we've lost Mogwai to Metric. The Get Up Kids to Fall Out Boy. Broken Social Scene to Broken Social Scene Presents: Kevin Drew.
But wait, back to my original point. It's not as much the music itself as the culture that surrounds it. And (as the New Yorker article discusses) it's of course that culture that determines how the actual music sounds. This is where I'm the most opinionated. "Indie" culture is the worst!! True, it's the scene that's probably the most in line with all of our cultural ideals, aesthetics, values, and even political opinions and stuff like that. But it's also appallingly arrogant, naive, and smug. I'd also add "annoying" to that list. The indie hipsters may be more intelligent, more aware of the world, and have better taste in just about everything than, say, a country music fan or even just some middle aged mom who likes Michael Buble. But why is it so important to continually assert that?? What's up with the obsessive desire to keep up on all the bad music and bad movies and bad haircuts out there only to have the ability to trash them? (I won't even get into the whole "liking things ironically" phenomenon). I should probably mention at this point that I'm just as guilty as anyone, so this is a self-critique as much as anything. But it does seem to be getting worse and a little bit ridiculous...just go to that Stilepost messageboard and see for yourself.
I guess my point is that it's fun to make fun of (for example) Nickleback and all the people who listen to them. We actually SHOULD do this to a point, as this music is all terrible and clearly deserves to be made fun of. But when it becomes an obsession, it seems like we're the fools. Whenever you find yourself amongst people who are really different from you, watch closely and you'll probably realize 2 things: A) They have really bad taste in everything, and B) They don't really care, which somehow makes them cooler than us.
Wow, this whole rant just because I wanted to post a link to an article about how white people are bad at drums.
I'm sure I've made my disdain for the current state of "indie rock" no secret. But for me, it's more the culture surrounding the genre that turns me off than the actual music. Let's be honest - there are still lots of great indie bands out there. Most of my favourite artists would probably fall into this category. But most of them have also been around for at least a few years. Where are all the new bands?? What happened to the "good ole' days" of 2001-2003, when all these new bands were coming out doing interesting and fresh stuff? To me, the indie rock scene has suffered much the same fate as the rave scene and hardcore scene - it got too big. The original "scenesters" - the people who cared about their art and culture and made it noteworthy in the first place - were joined by the mainstream as more people picked up on the fact that they had a good thing going. All that is innocent enough. But with that comes the inevitable infiltration of less-than-sincere (or even just less-than-talented) new members of the scene. This drives away the purists and drives in the ad agencies who see the dollar signs, and the next thing you know, the whole movement pretty much becomes a parody of its former self. And the art at the centre of the culture (in this case music) really starts to suck.
So that, in my opinion, is why we've lost Mogwai to Metric. The Get Up Kids to Fall Out Boy. Broken Social Scene to Broken Social Scene Presents: Kevin Drew.
But wait, back to my original point. It's not as much the music itself as the culture that surrounds it. And (as the New Yorker article discusses) it's of course that culture that determines how the actual music sounds. This is where I'm the most opinionated. "Indie" culture is the worst!! True, it's the scene that's probably the most in line with all of our cultural ideals, aesthetics, values, and even political opinions and stuff like that. But it's also appallingly arrogant, naive, and smug. I'd also add "annoying" to that list. The indie hipsters may be more intelligent, more aware of the world, and have better taste in just about everything than, say, a country music fan or even just some middle aged mom who likes Michael Buble. But why is it so important to continually assert that?? What's up with the obsessive desire to keep up on all the bad music and bad movies and bad haircuts out there only to have the ability to trash them? (I won't even get into the whole "liking things ironically" phenomenon). I should probably mention at this point that I'm just as guilty as anyone, so this is a self-critique as much as anything. But it does seem to be getting worse and a little bit ridiculous...just go to that Stilepost messageboard and see for yourself.
I guess my point is that it's fun to make fun of (for example) Nickleback and all the people who listen to them. We actually SHOULD do this to a point, as this music is all terrible and clearly deserves to be made fun of. But when it becomes an obsession, it seems like we're the fools. Whenever you find yourself amongst people who are really different from you, watch closely and you'll probably realize 2 things: A) They have really bad taste in everything, and B) They don't really care, which somehow makes them cooler than us.
Wow, this whole rant just because I wanted to post a link to an article about how white people are bad at drums.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
The Fun of Pakistani Politics
You know who I would pick to lead one of the major political parties in a volatile nuclear state after the previous leader had been assassinated?
A 19-year old poly-sci freshman who doesn't speak the language of the country. I bet there are professors out there that have nightmares about this scenario.
A 19-year old poly-sci freshman who doesn't speak the language of the country. I bet there are professors out there that have nightmares about this scenario.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)