Facebook news?

The CBC is now keeping me apprised of where Canada ranks in Facebook. I hope this isn't the extent of their plan for engaging the "Facebook generation".

On space colonization

When I read Charlie Stross's essay on the impracticality of space colonization, mankind's imperative to survive came to mind as a good counterpoint. As I mulled this over, however, I realized that I was equating life on Earth as we know it now (e.g., suitable atmosphere, large swathes untouched, etc.) with survival; taken more generally, things could get pretty bad on Earth (e.g., mass extinctions, pandemics, a large rise in sea levels globally, etc.) and mankind would still survive, in some form.

That's when I realized that Stross's argument held up: it would likely be more practical to build entire artificial environments on, and possibly orbiting, the Earth than to colonize space (given the technology that's feasible today, as Stross states).

That said, I decided to write about this after reading John Tierney's article in the New York Times on Dr. J. Richard Gott III's theory regarding the survival imperative. Initially, I wondered whether Dr. Gott covered points I hadn't considered. Unfortunately, however, he makes a simplistic leap from our survival to space colonization; if it is based on logic, as opposed to the popular talk on space, it isn't clear in the article. For example, Stross outlined why basing arguments for space colonization on our history of colonization on Earth is flawed.

Also, while the idea that all of our 'eggs', so to speak, are in the single basket called Earth intuitively compels us to colonize space - as I readily admitted above - Gott's seizing on Mars as a solution doesn't stand closer scrutiny: the biggest threats to Earth may also be threats to Mars (e.g., to be very optimistic, the lifespan of the Sun), so we certainly couldn't stop there. Which brings me back to my earlier point: while spreading ourselves out makes sense, for reasons outlined by Stross, things would probably have to get really bad on Earth before space colonization was considered practical.

Bill Moyers' interview with journalist Christian Parenti

I've read some disturbing news about the current situation in Afghanistan - I often share it and other information of interest in the frame to the left, incidentally - and Bill Moyers' interview with Christian Parenti last month (and the subsequent questions from the public that he answered) continues that trend.

As a caveat, let me add that I'm often skeptical of press reporting on Afghanistan, and North American press reporting in particular; however, Parenti seems to bring an informed opinion to the table, and, of course, the fact that he's sitting across that table from Moyers says a lot about him.

Godwin's Law

I hadn't heard of Godwin's Law before reading today's xkcd strip, and while the law specifies on-line discussions, a follow-on point attributed to Godwin got me thinking. First, the law:

As an on-line discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that overuse of the Nazi/Hitler comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

I'm going to make another leap and say that the same logic applies to Neville Chamberlain comparisons. And I know I'm a bit late on this one, but, even after the public disaster, I don't think Elizabeth May gets that. Yes, she was sorry the day before, but, ooo, ooo! They did it too!

I'm sorry, if she couldn't do without the glass-houses comment, at least reiterate that it was a mistake. And I did laugh at the CBC radio news bit that played Layton's "I would never..." followed by his very own - deeply disgusted, I might add - Chamberlain reference in parliament a few years ago. So, no, I'm not claiming that no one should've pointed out this double standard. I just get this... smugness from the Green party site that seems to miss the point.

Conservatives propose to extend voting period

Two thoughts come to mind: 1) Has the government determined that a significant portion of the people who aren't voting cite polling booth hours when asked why they don't? And 2) Have they considered how this will change the polling booth security environment?

On the first point, I believe government employees are guaranteed a break to vote if their shift spans the polling booth hours. Can anyone confirm this? Or shed light on any private-sector policies?

On the second point, the longer they have to ensure the integrity of those ballot boxes, the greater their vulnerability.

Finally, if the answer to the first question is no, then the government could be wasting a lot of money, in areas related to the second question and beyond.

The U.S. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

Sharon Terry, president of the Genetic Alliance:

The American public can now access genetic tests, feel safe about their genetic information not being misused and participate in research that involves genetic information.

This is certainly a step down that path, but there are still many to go: there are many uses for genetic information beyond screening related to employment and insurance. And the bigger problem is collecting, using and retaining these data properly.

NASA ponders death

A NASA document on crew health shows how the agency is pondering some of the ethical questions raised by deep space exploration. I was again reminded of Heinlein's Stranger In A Strange Land as I read that sex would be dealt with separately: the book opens with, oddly enough, a look at a manned mission to Mars and the associated, seemingly-thorough screening process to select the crew. The mission ends in tragedy because of... you guessed it: sex.

I'm not suggesting that NASA will overlook this - the article suggests that sex will be considered under the category of behavioural issues. This is just one of those top-of-the-head posts.

The CBC's Office of the Ombudsman

Since the "Lawand report" last year, there have been a few CBC stories that have bothered me and others (via CanuckJack). It got to the point where I was seriously questioning the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's integrity; an upsetting position, given that they're publicly funded.

In reading the CBC Ombudsman's latest annual report, and his findings regarding the "Lawand report" (including his further observations), I do sense a commitment to principled journalism. However, I can't help but wish that the Office of the Ombudsman had more teeth. For example, the following review of a complaint is from his annual report:

GEOFFREY POUNDER
Program: The World At Six, CBC Radio
Mr. Pounder complained about a CBC Radio report about Venezuela. Chavez may or may not be the villain the CBC makes him out to be. But the CBC's presentation is so dubious that it is impossible for listeners to form their own judgment.
...
Review ([David] Bazay)
While it is true that program balance can and should be best determined over time, and while I found overall coverage to be pretty well balanced, I did agree that there was some merit to Mr. Pounder's complaint. The report gave voice to one of President Chavez's supporters and to two of his critics, including the priest/sociologist cited at the very end of the item who described President Chavez as a tropical Milosovec, and accused him of destroying Venezuela's democracy. I shared Mr. Pounder's view that in fairness the president or one of his supporters should have had the opportunity to respond.

I wonder whether that's enough; whether, in the event that this sort of reporting was shown to be systematic, anything could be done about it. Again, it's my money we're talking about here.

I suppose the 43 466 complaints regarding the Green Party's exclusion from the televised leaders' debate last year support the notion that the CBC would be held to account for such actions; well, that they would draw significant ire anyway. And with the Ombudsman recommending greater public access to the Office in his annual report, one can hope that there wouldn't be a shortage of publicly-available evidence.

Update: May 9: The Auditor General also evaluates the CBC periodically.

Rory Stewart on The Agenda

If you haven't heard Rory Stewart speak, do yourself a favour and watch or listen to Steve Paikin's interview with him on The Agenda.

Green Party policy and nonviolence

The Green Party has announced that Kevin Potvin will not be allowed to run as their Vancouver-Kingsway candidate in the next election because his views are antithetical to Green Party values. The press release opens with the claim that Potvin [expressed] approval for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and that [n]on-violence is one of the Green Party's fundamental principles, so the party's position is clear.

I would hope that May read Potvin's article from 2002 before coming to that conclusion. And even if she did, I find such an unequivocal conclusion to be a bit of a stretch: after all, as Potvin clearly stated in the article, and in his rebuttal to the recent criticism, he was stating his feelings at the time, not advancing a violent ideology or some such. Besides, he was a journalist at the time. While such a statement from an elected representative of a country that must work closely with the United States might raise some eyebrows and ruffle some feathers, that's exactly what journalists are supposed to do.

Now maybe May had a telephone conversation with Potvin prior to issuing the press release. Maybe he said something to her that was aberrant to the rebuttal he posted. If so, I think it should've been included in the release, because the party's position seems flimsy as it stands; another example of the excessive caution in Canadian politics.

To take a theory such as nonviolence and apply it so broadly to everything representatives (and would-be representatives) of your party say and write is to invite disaster: if they manage to navigate that minefield at each and every press conference, you can be certain of what will be first and foremost on their minds at all times, and, by extension, of the chances of anything remotely illuminating being said.

And how did nonviolence get so high up in the party's platform anyway? When I hear antithetical and the Green Party, big oil and clear-cutting come to mind, but not violence. Not that I think violence solves anything, but it has about as much to do with environmental protection as womens' rights, or abortion. Let's stay on message here, people; at least 'til we get a bleedin' seat anyway.

The Minister of Industry responds...

I sent my MP a message last May regarding Bill C-60 (an Act to amend the Copyright Act). I got a copy of the Minister of Industry's response to him in the mail a week or so ago. The letter is dated March 1, 2007 and reads:

Mr. Pierre Poilievre, M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Dear Colleague:

Thank you for forwarding copies of recent letters from several of your constituents regarding possible amendments to the Copyright Act (the Act).

In my view, the Act must continue to be supportive of innovation and research while reflecting current technological and legal realities. To this end, a balance between adequate protection for copyright holders and reasonable access to copyrighted material is critical.

With this in mind, I am working closely with my colleague, the Honourable Bev Oda, Minister of Canadian Heritage, to determine the appropriate next steps with respect to copyright reform.

Please be assured that I am very mindful of the concerns expressed by your constituents, and will take these into consideration as we move forward.

Sincerely,

Maxime Bernier

c.c. The Honourable Bev Oda, P.C., M.P.

I'm pleased. It isn't practical to expect more from a politician, I would suggest. Notice that he used the word 'balance' to describe his view on the matter. I would go so far as to call that encouraging, save that it's only words at this point.

Chimps: Hauser vs. Heinlein

The brain has a genetically shaped mechanism for acquiring moral rules, similar to the neural machinery for learning language, according to Harvard evolutionary biologist Marc Hauser... Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others.

That's a very different picture from the pivotal scene in Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, where Valentine Michael Smith finally groks (fully understands) humour as he witnesses chimps in a zoo being cruel to one another.

That's the first thing I thought of as I read the article, and it isn't noteworthy for any other reason.

Dion, The Consummate Politician

Dion said it was parliamentary tradition for MPs to follow party line on confidence votes such as budgets.

"A vote on the budget, like a vote on a throne speech, is a vote of confidence. You cannot vote against the caucus on it."

Spouting tripe about traditions, party lines and what MPs cannot do is no way for a former academic to argue his position. Comuzzi's position - that he was supporting his constituents - wins hands down.

Indoor air pollution

Coincidentally, I was reading Michael LeGault's Think!: Why Crucial Decisions Can't Be Made in the Blink of an Eye when a story about air pollution in Canadian ice rinks hit the press. According to LeGault, this sort of thing is quite serious:

Fear causes flaws in our perceptions, which leads to erroneous thinking and conclusions. For instance, a study conducted by the EPA found that the public's top environmentally related health concerns included radioactive waste, radiation from nuclear accidents, industrial pollution of waterways, and hazardous waste sites. Yet, when the EPA polled its own experts it got an entirely different list of concerns. Radioactive waste and radiation from nuclear accidents were not even ranked, and some of the public's lowest concerns, for example indoor air pollution, were ranked "high" by experts...

Toward objective journalism

It seems that every other day I'm reading overtly biased reporting in Canadian newspapers (e.g., coverage of Fredericton MP Andy Scott's resignation and our work in Afghanistan). However, the subject interview gives me some hope for the future, as Jooneed Khan has been writing about the facts for about as long as I've been breathing. Of course, you could look at it as a last bastion, but I'm feeling optimistic today. Here are some highlights from the interview (the emphasis is mine):

My concern has always been that before one can form an opinion, one needs facts--as wide a spectrum of facts as possible. I’ve found that mainstream media selects the facts to bring people to think and look in a certain way; and that was not only incomplete, but a disservice to the reader... I’ve tried to bring those facts which were selected out, and put them together in a coherent way...

[A] very recent example is Lebanon. The hue and cry in the western media... that Hezbollah is radical, that it’s a proxy for Syria and Iran, that it’s threatening Israel, threatening Lebanese democracy. The statements that I’ve heard out of the White House, from Ottawa and Paris constantly reiterate democracy, democracy. I thought, this is a totally artificial debate, which can have dangerous consequences, so I did a piece last week, called the “Democractic Deficit in Lebanon.” I just brought the facts to show that when you have a dictated arrangement--dictated by the US and Saudi Arabia--on the Tyre Agreement, where they have allotted 64 seats to Muslims, 64 seats to Christians on a sectarian basis and you haven’t had a census in the country for 75 years... [E]veryone who has done estimates based on the official figures has come to the conclusion that the Christians today are about 35 per cent of the population. Even the sectarian democracy that they’ve imposed does not reflect the true sectarian makeup of the society...

I wrote about Palestinian rights and Palestinian suffering at the same time as I wrote about South African [a]partheid, and the legitimate rights of the South African majority. I suppose the South African consulate in those days did call my editors once in a while, but since I could not be silenced on my facts, what the paper did was allow colleagues of mine to peddle the official line. So on one page--mostly in the business section--articles [there] were praising the [apartheid] system as a free economy and a bulwark against Communism and an outpost of the free world[, while] I was writing about the Freedom Charter... about exclusion, which was also part of the reality. So you had in the same paper... two views. And I appreciate that. I think newspapers in a free society should reflect the diversity of views.

His anecdote about reporting from Iraq is less hopeful, but doesn't take away from the fact that La Presse's policies do more to promote objective journalism than any other paper's that I've read about.

Human beings and abstraction

I am often amazed at people's proclivity for abstraction. While the following comparison may be unfair, it does show how people can ignore certain obvious, and sometimes horrific, aspects of their surroundings:

Bertschinger explained that [in Mekele, Ethiopia in 1984] there was enough dried milk, sugar, oil, bread, and rice to feed about 500 people. Then she confessed to Buerk — and the camera — her terrible responsibility. Every few days, several dozen children would graduate from the feeding regimen Bertschinger had helped to establish, and she could replace them with new patients. She would step outside, where more than a thousand people sat waiting in the sun. When she appeared, there would be murmurs and cries, but the migrants remained seated in orderly rows. Bertschinger would examine children sitting alone or held aloft by a pleading parent. She would grasp their biceps to feel bones wrapped in leathery skin. Most importantly, she would search the children’s eyes for a spark of life. If she didn’t see that glint she passed on by — there was no point wasting food on a child who would soon be dead.

See this month's Walrus for Stars Above Africa. What follows are a few reports on the North American release of Sony's Playstation 3:

Police used pepper balls to contain a crowd waiting for the Circuit City... to open Friday morning... The crowd of 200... was waiting in line for the new Playstation 3. [WTOP Radio]

A scene straight out of Lord of the Flies started around 5 a.m. Thursday in front of the Best Buy. [Lawrence.com - thought you'd like that one, Bruce :-)]

A man goes to the hospital after slamming into a metal flagpole during a stampede at a... Wal-mart. [Joystiq.com]

The age-old story of income inequality

In another of those coincidences I do so enjoy, I happened upon this article by Wheelan as I'm reading Status Anxiety by Alain de Botton. Where I would normally tend to side with Wheelan's argument regarding income inequality, de Botton reminds me of just how old not only the gap between the rich and the poor is, but also the very idea of taking responsibility for one's station in life. Wheelan says:

If the gap between rich and poor gets too large, and if those at the bottom feel they have no meaningful route to the riches at the top, then the fabric of society will fray, or even come unraveled entirely.

Utter hyperbole. As Smith and Hume said well over 200 years ago (in their backhanded fashion), it's the rich that provide the greatest service to society, fueling economies with their desires and silly whims.

Wheelan does temper his thoughts as he goes along, though, and raises many of the same points as de Botton, such as our peers wielding more influence on how we view our station than absolute figures, while acknowledging that television can distort one's peer group (it's almost like I *know* Tomkat, ya know). :-)

Freedom of religion: veil threats

A story in today's Independent about the veil debate in Britain got my hackles up - what about piercings? They make people uncomfortable! - with the first few paragraphs - as was the point, I'm sure. However, as I read further, I realized that Blair's comments were closer to that fine line than the story initially implied. And, setting aside whether he should be commenting on a case before the courts - ah, no! - he's right to watch his words: integration and multiculturalism, and their fallout, have long been divisive subjects, despite the everything-is-new flavour they have in the wake of September 11, 2001.

And Canada is no different, as the arrests of eighteen men in Toronto over the summer have shown. We're still trying to get the right balance: even Bernard Ostry, the pen behind our country's multiculturalism initiative of the 70s, has questioned whether these policies can work. As opposed to getting sidetracked by how much of our population will be made up of visible minorities in the future, however, I prefer John Ralston Saul's focus on citizenship being tied to responsibilities and obligations - engaging the immigrant, in other words, to express themselves and contribute, and celebrate the freedoms laid out in our Charter.

Which leads to Blair's comments, and the freedom of religion (deemed fundamental in our Charter, incidentally). Veils, kippahs, turbans, etc. have been in the news for years. Britons have worried about integration long before the attacks in London on July 7, 2005. The article goes on to describe how many European countries have attempted to address this problem; while it presents the U.S. as enlightened in this area, I think at least part of the reasoning behind the argument is flawed:

"We want to show our minorities that they are protected by their own people," Sheriff Bacca emphasized.

This emphasizing our differences is counterproductive, as I see it; distracting from the root causes of all sorts of problems, when people of that combative cant decide to boil it down to the 'real' issue of ethnicity, religion, etc.

I don't like reading about early experiences in my country like Baltej Singh Dhillon's, but I do feel that Canada is getting it right, with his case, and with acknowledging our immigration mistakes of the past, as two examples.

Vote for the little guy!

Voting for the little guy just got a whole lot easier (in my books, anyway). As many of you know, I've been voting for the Green Party for years simply because I wanted to see more parties in Parliament, but didn't want to throw my vote away, as it were - that is, on a party that would never get 2% of the vote, and therefore wouldn't get my $1.75 for their next campaign.

Well, an Ontario Superior Court judge struck that law down today! And, in case you think we're talking about a pittance here, the seven parties that were affected by that law in 2004 now get to share approximately $500000! Better than a kick in the pants, as they say.

Campaigning and the 'net

Cheney likes what this Washington Post article called the "new media":

"Sometimes it's pretty trashy," he said of new media's rise. "But I guess I'd put the proposition that there's more time and opportunity for policy discussions and debate than there used to be."

As I read the article - which was worth reading, incidentally - I kept thinking that whether a candidate can use the 'net to their advantage or not is really beside the point; the entire process seems to be falling further away from what's really important: how will you run the country?

And then the article ends with that Cheney quote, voicing and marginalizing my thought simultaneously. I guess I don't see it that way. It seems that, maybe in an effort to get more done, or maybe for far more base reasons, policy sound bites - to say nothing of the trash - have taken the place of any discussion on the campaign trail. After all, the power of the 'net is such that lively and informed debate is probably going on in the shadow of this "new media".

To bring this back to my country, I am holding out some hope that Michael Ignatieff will prove an exception to this rule.