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.

A deadly caricature...

As I read about Kimveer Gill, the gunman at Montreal's Dawson College yesterday, I can't help shaking my head at what a caricature he seems: "Metal and Goth kick ass", the "Trench" handle to go with his coat... And yet we must take him seriously.

My second thought followed on the heels of these three quotes:

Gill is believed to have been carrying at least three weapons: a handgun, a 12-gauge shotgun and a semi-automatic or automatic rifle.

He was armed with three weapons that media reports say were legally registered to him.

Neighbours told CBC Radio that Gill lived with his parents in the house.

His parents were "shocked", meaning they didn't know their son was amassing (and registering!) an arsenal of weapons to rival a Terminator. At least Harper isn't making any knee-jerk commitments; my initial thought is that this isn't a failing of legislation (at least not first): nobody needs that many guns.

Update: September 20: a related interview with the creator of the video game based on the Columbine shootings.

Update: October 2: Andrew Spicer suggested the idea of legislation that allows certain municipalities to ban certain firearms. I don't know whether that would work, but I do like the idea of formally recognizing that rural and urban municipalities have different concerns. I guess it could open us up to the confusion one can face crossing state borders down south, but, still, I feel the concept has merit.

Canada and Afghanistan

In a recent conversation with a friend, I struggled to express my position on Canada's mission in Afghanistan:

[W]hile I still feel that it shouldn't be debated now - waffling is bad for morale, and I don't see how the situation could've changed that much since we first agreed to it, old gov't or not - answering Layton's questions during one or more question periods seems reasonable to me:

* What are the goals and objectives of this mission and how do they meet Canada's foreign policy objectives?
* What is the realistic mandate of the mission and how is it being enforced?
* What are the criteria to measure progress?
* What is the definition of success?
* And what is the clear exit strategy for this mission?

Reading the news this morning, I realized Rex Murphy did a much better job - than Layton, and certainly me - of isolating the major problem, and, very importantly, suggesting a way forward. I particularly liked this passage:

[F]rom the very beginning of this mission, from the long ago days of Mr. Chrétien through Mr. Martin's term as prime minister to this present moment, a clear, full, articulated case for the mission has not been made.

We've had everything else but the full statement of why the mission is important to us as Canadians, how it relates to our national interest and values and a full description of what we hope to see as a result of our troops being there.

Well said, Rex; well said.

The Middle East: Canada's bias

First, let me open by acknowledging that the best of this post benefits from many reasoned opinions that I've heard and read over the past week, including those of many folks at CKCU, and The Train. The cock-ups are all mine, however.

Second, while I haven't explored this to date, the United Nations' role in international affairs seems to have diminished over the years; this, in turn, must affect Canada's role in the arena. I accept this premise, and wish my country would succeed in spite of it.

I think Israel's response under the circumstances has been measured.

With this oft-quoted statement, and others, Stephen Harper expressed our country's bias, even as most of us were still struggling with the bad news.

Days later, seven Canadians were killed in an Israeli attack, and current estimates put the Lebanese, mostly civilian, casualties an order of magnitude above those of Israel. My point is not that Harper could have predicted this, but rather, that by throwing our support behind one side in this conflict, he has spoiled any role we could have played in negotiating some dialogue between the two sides, and cheapened our country's proud history in international affairs.

Subsequent statements by our government "urg[ing] all sides to act with restraint and take all measures possible to protect innocent civilian lives" strike me as obligatory.

On protecting Israelis...

While acknowledging that both the Israelis and Hezbollah are on questionable moral ground right now, the idea that Israel is simply protecting its citizens is ridiculous. Setting aside Israel's significant military advantage - which the U.S. is "rushing" to supply, by the way - Hezbollah's capturing Israeli soldiers needs to be considered in the context of the other prisoner exchanges between the two countries.

It's essential that Hezbollah and Hamas release their Israeli prisoners...

But, again, with this sort of rhetoric, Harper shows our, seemingly uneducated (frankly), bias. I'm not saying I agree with negotiated prisoner exchanges, but if Israel legitimized it in the past, one must acknowledge that it's possible that Hezbollah was simply attempting to start another round of negotiations; again, a possibility that Harper doesn't seem consider, let alone refute.

I'm ashamed of my Prime Minister's position is this conflict, and I sincerely hope that it isn't indicative of future Conservative foreign policy.

Balanced Copyright Reform

Here's a copy of an e-mail message I sent to my MP on the subject:

Hello Mr. Poilievre,

It's come to my attention that draft legislation concerning "copyright reform" could be drafted in coming weeks and months (building on Bill C-60). I suspect you've already received a form letter or two on the subject of "digital rights management" or DRM, so rather than add to that pile, I thought I'd quickly relate a personal experience on the subject, to give you some perspective.

My wife recently bought a number of CDs for a road trip. She'd had her iPod digital music player for a while, but this was to be the first time we took it as our sole source of music for any length of time. With the FM transmitter she'd bought for it, we would be able to play it through the car stereo, the portable stereo of anyone we visited along the way, etc.

However, she quickly became frustrated with the Nickelback CD she bought. She couldn't import it into iTunes (iPod management software), or even play it on her computer. The digital rights management software on the CD prevented it.

It's that DRM software prevents this and other legal uses of the merchandise we purchase that makes it such an important issue. (The fact that it can also open our computers to breaches of privacy and security is a separate, but equally important, issue: Sony-BMG's DRM software is a chilling example of this.)

While the Canadian Coalition for Digital Fair Access has some good information on this issue (as does the more recent Online Rights Canada), it's the "Consumer Technology Bill of Rights" put together by DigitalConsumer.org in the U.S. that succinctly captures what I would like to see in any DRM-related legislation.

I'll just quote the point that's relevant to my story:

2. Users have the right to "space-shift" content that they have legally acquired. This gives you the right to use your content in different places (as long as each use is personal and non-commercial).

(http://www.digitalconsumer.org/bill.html for the complete list.)

Thank you for your time, Mr. Poilievre.

Cheers,

John Jarvis

The politics of confrontation

A friend sent me an article on the Auditor General's gun registry report that was leaked. The tone of these opposition quotes sent me off on a tirade:

It's troublesome given that ethics, accountability, transparency, turning government around, cleaning government up are supposed to be one of the top priorities of the new government, said New Democrat David Christopherson.

And if they had any role whatsoever in leaking this then they're... betraying their pact with the Canadian people.

A Liberal press release offered more of the same:

This unprecedented affront to the office of the Auditor General, Sheila Frasier, makes a mockery of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's promise to operate with a higher ethical standard, said Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

I think the Liberals (and their NDP terrier) are completely undermining the "new party" spin they've been cultivating around their leadership race with this whining and nitpicking - the "Look, they're worse than us!" tripe - that was the previous minority government's daily bread. Nothing has changed: the Liberals have no vision for the country, and no one to truly lead the way once they beg, borrow or steal one.

It hurts me to say that, by the way, because listening to Ignatieff speak around the time of his announcing his run for the party leadership sparked a hope in me that we might get past the bickering for a time; but it means nothing if he still has these petty vermin below him.

If they'd waited 'til the report came out and acknowledged the mistakes it will certainly include - I've read about the software development debacle, so I know I'm not reaching here - I can honestly say that it would've significantly reinforced that hope I mentioned: simply because it would've been so radically different from anything this squabbling mass of glad-hands has done in years.

The cost of these distractions is concisely stated in the following quote I read a few months back:

Institutional rivalry, lack of foreign policy consensus, and increased media coverage combine to create a foreign policy making environment that accentuates the normal advantage held by immediate policy questions and current intelligence over long-range issues. It also favours the politics of confrontation and competition over that of problem solving.

-- Glenn Hastedt, Public Intelligence: Leaks as Policy Instruments - The Case of the Iraq War, Intelligence and National Security, Volume 20, Issue 3, September 2005.

The Prime Ministers: Louis St. Laurent

My correspondence on the CPAC series continues:

Hmmm... This is a strange series. I didn't like this episode either. He was voted our greatest post-war Prime Minister, yet they spent little time explaining why he'd get the vote of so many historians. What truly positive material we did see came from his own family (relevant, but not very surprising, one would think).

This emphasis on the 'Uncle Louis' facade, and, later, his, and his cabinet's, air of entitlement - which seemed to be much worse than the situations that fall under that category today - were not flattering. And whatever the true proportion of these episodes during his entire leadership, by paying lip service to his great achievements and lack of involvement in the PR machine, the producers are passing judgment on the man.

And this isn't the first example of that. I just found this one to be particularly heavy handed. Man, and I thought CPAC was a more balanced alternative to the CBC; guess no one can resist the opportunity to spin.

Later correspondence focused on Byfield's negativity:

Well, he's a journalist, and I have to say, I valued his perspective on St. Laurent more than, say, on Laurier, because Byfield was there covering the '57 election, for example. The fact that he relates how all the old-timers in his profession were unhappy with the government at that time, for example, is fine with me. I want to know. But it's the producer's job to balance that with St. Laurent's earlier success, and give Byfield a chance to reflect on that, if possible (don't know if he was even working then).

And CPAC's spin:

Well, I for one would seize any media source that showed the sort of balance I'm talkin' about; and I wouldn't let 'em go. :-) I know there are other people who feel that way too. There is such a thing as scoopin' and spinnin' yourself to death, I think. You're certainly sentencing your credibility to death, let's say.

La Convivencia

I just finished watching the BBC documentary An Islamic History of Europe. Its stirring depiction of la Convivencia, with Muslims and Christians sharing the best of their cultures in Spain, while hotly contested, got me thinking about these first decades of the 21st century: it may be naïve, but I feel that Canada is well placed to revive this idea of coexistence.

The Prime Ministers: William Lyon Mackenzie King

My correspondence on the CPAC series continues:

Well, in my opinion, the blame for [the seemingly harsh comments of Jack Granatstein and Ted Byfield] falls on the editors of this series; I was actually going to use the adjective 'stupid' in that sentence (take your pick of places; more than one's appropriate), but thought better of it. They are focusing on inconsequential crap, and, given that, I think both Granatstein and Byfield did a good job of relating what we - unfortunately - know about King's private life, in all its strange detail, but without dwelling on it, and then getting on to the "and so what?" of it all. Who cares? Byfield ends a segment with I think his decisions ultimately were always pragmatic. He did his job, in other words.

I [also feel it wasn't write to publish King's diary, instead of burying it with him, as was his wish]. Did his family make that decision? Did they come to regret it, I wonder? People are entitled to their private thoughts; and they're entitled to put them down for later review. You can't keep a life of thoughts in your head, and being able to read them would probably help one sort through a lot of problems. That aside, whatever his reasons for writing, the public doesn't have the right to read it, just because he wrote it.

The Prime Ministers: Wilfrid Laurier: Addendum

In the light of all this nonsense about Harper's waistline - no, I won't even hyperlink to it and give any 'news' site the satisfaction of traffic - I thought this later point in the correspondence was also germane:

... and Chretien made a point of saying the press didn't question [Laurier]. I thought that was fantastic! Imagine knowing no more about your prime minister's private life than, say, your doctor's.

It does not matter, people.

The job they're doing, that's what it's all about.

The Prime Ministers: Wilfrid Laurier

This is the first of a few posts on correspondence I've had re CPAC's The Prime Ministers television series:

When a Quebec supporter complained few immigrants were francophone, Laurier said, We trust in the long run they will come out right true Canadians.

I love this line. That was the highlight of the show, so I thought I'd lead with it. I'll be pullin' that one out in a future conversation with Dad, you can be sure, that, and the “tough” people that made Western Canada under him. (Canadians are English and French... Pffft!) ;-)

I was struck by how strongly people need heroes. The man described for most of the thirty minutes was well beyond his considerable 6' frame. Chretien said he was an institution in his family, and clearly he isn't alone. (I found him very convincing in that moment, by the way; very sincere. I didn't think much of his comments overall, but when he spoke about francophones talking their place after Laurier, I felt the importance of it.)

But clearly he was human. I mean, however reverently it was read, Laurier's thoughts on politics were clearly that the end - his “certain object” - justifies the means, which “could not be approved of”. I don't agree, but acknowledge that I prefer to think in the ideal, and have long since ruled out a career in politics as a result. :-)

Finally, all the comments on Laurier's appearance went over the top, eventually; somewhere around the comment that he probably spent a lot of time in front of a mirror. I certainly wouldn't want to be remembered that way.

Knee-jerk Trade-offs

Speakers more profound than I - including Adam Shostack and Bruce Schneier - have weighed in on the Western approach to terrorism countermeasures, a recent example of which is the searching of bags and packages carried by people entering New York City subway stations.

Countermeasures like this spring up far too quickly. They must be subjected to a more critical process, so, as one of the New Yorkers commented, the terrorists don't simply hit us where we're weak (e.g., shopping malls... before the decade's out, I'd bet). Otherwise, how are we to know whether the trade-offs we've accepted are good ones?

Information and Human Nature

Michael Gorman, president-elect of the American Library Association, created a ripple when he questioned Google's dream of taking over the universe by gathering all the information in the world and creating the electronic equivalent of, in their own modest words, the mind of God. (Search on Google and God's Mind if you don't want to register with the Los Angeles Times.) However, I think Google, Gorman and his detractors are all missing an important point, and it centres around human nature.

While Gorman makes some good points in Google and God's Mind, his notion that only certain books need to be digitized - "massive databases of digitized whole books, especially scholarly books, are expensive exercises in futility" - is really splitting hairs; how they're used afterward is more important, as he implies in his second piece, Revenge of the Blog People: I do not believe [Google Print] will give us anything that comes anywhere near access to the world's knowledge.

It's how the information is used afterward, how knowledge is accumulated, that's really important. I'll use another quote from Google and God's Mind to illustrate my point:

The nub of the matter lies in the distinction between information (data, facts, images, quotes and brief texts that can be used out of context) and recorded knowledge (the cumulative exposition found in scholarly and literary texts and in popular nonfiction). When it comes to information, a snippet from Page 142 might be useful. When it comes to recorded knowledge, a snippet from Page 142 must be understood in the light of pages 1 through 141 or the text was not worth writing and publishing in the first place.

Gorman says must be understood, but really it's up to the reader; if they want to draw their own conclusions from a paragraph on Page 142, that's their prerogative, and this is where my point about human nature comes in.

Morgan Jones talks about convergent and divergent thinking in The Thinker's Toolkit: 14 Powerful Techniques for Problem Solving, and how humans are convergent thinkers at heart. That is, in our reading and research, we are inherently trying to tie it all up and converge on a solution or opinion, if you will; that's the way our brain works. Now, going back to Gorman's example, what the Google Print project will facilitate is the converging of an opinion based on Page 142 of that particular book, and maybe a few pages from some other books, with the reader never having read pages 1 through 141, or the preceding pages of the other books.

But that's like saying guns kill people, John. Yes, you're absolutely right, and I'm not knocking the Google Print project. I say that Google, Gorman and others are missing the responsiblity that these sorts of initiatives place on our education system. As people read fewer books cover to cover, teaching people how to think critically and research becomes all the more important. Given our convergent natures, I can see a time when kids rate their research on the number of sound bites they've skimmed (and, no doubt, how quickly they've done it as well). Educating them on proper research techniques means that they'll be able to make the best use of the most powerful tools as they're developed (like Google Print).

Invisible Darkness turns Deadly

O.K., so the title is misleading: Deadly (2005), the film about Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka’s psychological dance with death and depravity isn't based on the Stephen Williams' book Invisible Darkness; in fact, despite buying the rights to the book in 1994, Director Peter Simpson abandoned the project in the face of public outcry, especially from St. Catherines.

According to the Toronto Star, Deadly "was written through court transcripts and other evidence in the public domain... [and writer Manette Rosen's interviews] with police involved in the [Bernardo and Homolka] case at headquarters, as well as a crown attorney..."

I recently received a copy of the 2001 petition to stop Simpson's Bernardo film. (Whether it had anything to do with Simpson dropping the movie, I don't know.) Of the 70 or so names attached, over half were from St. Catherines, and all but a few were Ontarians. One signatory - at least I assume they signed it... as much as you can sign an electronic document without using a digital signature - included the comment:

Some things are just too important NOT to pass on - I hope you agree.

Of course I agree that some things are important enough to speak out about - some things are important enough to fight for, in my opinion - but I don't agree that the making of this movie qualifies.

Why? Because the story is out of my hands; it's out of everyone's hands. It happened, at least two books tell the story, and people will continue to talk about it, despite the heroic efforts - in scale only; the deliberate destruction of records is despicable and barbaric! - of Danson to wipe what really happened from the face of the earth: again, from The Star:

[Tim] Danson [lawyer for the families of victims Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy] even won an order to have the Ontario attorney-general's office burn the Bernardo-Homolka videos, as well as autopsy photos and other evidence, in a precedent-setting move.

Burn, no less! The bile rises in my throat just thinking about it. Fahrenheit 451 made real! Whatever his motives, that was just wrong! And that gets back to the petition: I'm sure all those people from St. Catherines hoped they were helping the families of Bernardo and Homolka's victims in some small way by signing that petition - heck, maybe some of them even know one of the families - but you know what? It doesn't matter. Period.

The only thing that matters is how those families live each day: if they look to the world to forget what happened to their daughters, sisters, etc. - even for some period of time, because how long is enough? Who can say? - they will continue to be disappointed and hurt; and, no less importantly, they'll be killing those women again, and all they did with their lives. If, however, they look within themselves and to each other for support, nothing, not books, movies, not even tourists (think Jack the Ripper and you know they'll come), will be able to steal more moments of their lives.

Time does not heal all wounds.

"Diamond" "Dimebag" Darrell Abbott, R.I.P.

I just saw a story on CTV Newsnet about a shooting in Ohio, pantera.com confirms it: Dimebag Darrell, of Pantera fame, is dead. I'm shocked.

5 Minutes Alone was an anthem for me in university, and Cowboys From Hell? No one was playin' that stuff then. Whatever the animosity among the band members in recent years, no one can take away the butt that Pantera kicked in the 90's.

R.I.P., Dimebag.

On challenging U.S. copyright law...

LISNews.com is reporting that, unfortunately, Kahle v. Ashcroft has gone the way of Eldred v. Ashcroft.

The Stanford Center for Internet and Society has a great summary of how the two cases differ:

In [Kahle v. Ashcroft], two archives [the Internet Archive and the Prelinger Archive] ask the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to hold that statutes that extended copyright terms unconditionally - the Copyright Renewal Act and the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) - are unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, and that the Copyright Renewal Act and CTEA together create an effectively perpetual term with respect to works first published after January 1, 1964 and before January 1, 1978, in violation of the Constitution's Limited Times and Promote...Progress Clauses.

Isn’t [Kahle v. Ashcroft] just Eldred v. Ashcroft all over again?

No... Eldred v. Ashcroft involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), which extended the term of both existing and future copyrights by 20 years. In 2003, the Supreme Court rejected these challenges. Eldred focused narrowly on the constitutionality of the CTEA’s extension of the term of subsisting copyrights; the Court held that these extensions did not violate the First Amendment or the Progress Clause.

Kernighan, debugging and assurance

I read a great Kernighan quote at Marquee de Sells today. For those who aren't familiar with Kernighan, he helped design the awk programming language and coauthored the first book on the C programming language.

I was struck by the security implications of programmers writing computer programs that they aren't smart enough to debug. The analysis and testing that makes up a security evaluation is comparable to debugging, and yet many of the evaluators I've worked with are not as smart as many of the programmers I know. My experience with evaluator qualifications states that a college or university degree in engineering or computer science, plus a few years apprenticing, is sufficient for evaluating source code. Is this realistic?

Thinking about debugging and security brought me to the concept of a reference monitor: a reference monitor enforces the authorized access relationships (i.e., the policy) between the subjects and the objects of a system.[1]

One implementation of the reference monitor concept was called a reference validation mechanism. Early examples of reference validation mechanisms were called security kernels, or that combination of hardware, firmware and software which implements the reference monitor concept.[2] Three design requirements of these reference validation mechanisms (and security kernels) were: 1) It must be tamper proof, 2) it must always be invoked, and 3) it must be small enough to analyze and test with complete assurance.[3]

It would seem to me that Kernighan's point speaks to a caveat on the third requirement: it must be small and simple enough to analyze and test with complete assurance.

Footnotes

1. Anderson, J. P., Computer Security Technology Planning Study, ESD-TR-73-51, vol. I, ESD/AFSC, Hanscom AFB, Bedford, Mass., October 1972 (NTIS AD-758 206).

2. Computer Security Technology Planning Study.

3. U.S. Department of Defense, Department of Defense Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria, December 1985.