Canadian Musings

So Mr. Martin says that this election is supposed to be about asking Canadians to decide what their view is of Canada. Presumably he's not referring to the status quo as corrupt, money-grubbing, and power-hungry.

My view is that cities should be locally funded: that they can afford to impose a particular tax regime because the federal government is not overtaxing Canadians. And homelessness is addressed locally, not by imposing solutions from Ottawa.

My take on Canada has a military which is capable of delivering on the requests being made of it, instead of being starved and underfunded so that we can't ask them to do what needs to be done. Not that those in the military aren't committed: they certainly are, and have done wonders considering how poorly they have been treated.

Healthcare dollars should be spent treating disease and providing medical services, not handed over to run janitorial services and parking lots.

Caught Shrek 2 over the weekend, and I recommend the movie. I think the message is that dragons are ugly because they don't fly quite quick enough. Or something like that. Watch the movie and let me know if you agree.

Apparently, the reason so many Canadians are stupidly anti-American is that they were confused about the name of the place: they thought it was You *ss, Eh!

I have never found much reason to love Rogers Media. Specifically, Rogers Cable have infuriated me often. Today, the Indianapolis 500 runs long so the braintrust decide to cut the ABC channel away from the ABC feed with about two laps to go.

Kinda like cutting away from Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals when it's tied with one minute to go in the third.

This is incompetence. The blame must also be shared by the CRTC, who force operators to show Canadian commercials when a Canadian channel is carrying the same show, while not punishing anyone when the operators override a channel when different shows are on.

I just came across the Conservative Punk Canuck's blog. The analysis of Skerry as Lurch is dead-on.

Colby Cosh writes about a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision which restricts advertising by third parties during Canadian elections.

While it is easy to see how terrible this decision is, I wonder how active - or balanced - its enforcement will actually be.

For example, will Elections Canada, under the direction of the current Liberal government or on its own initiative, prosecute the John Kerry campaign which is associated with ads with slogans such as "Proud to be a Liberal", ads which spill over into Canada.

The CRTC has decided that we cannot watch American ads during such major events as the Superbowl.

Surely elections are more important than a football game.

Somehow, though, perhaps because these ads are aligned with a popular view, I doubt we'll actually see the law enforced.

Since it's suspected that the two Canadian citizens who have been named among seven most-wanted by the FBI aren't even in Canada currently, one is left to ask why they acquired Canadian citizenship.

How many naturalized Canadian citizens are living abroad? How many are simply using their newly-acquired citizenship abroad? Perhaps there needs to be some consideration that citizenship should be given to people who actually want to live here.

If anyone has acquired their citizenship fraudulently, then the government must act to protect all Canadian citizens.

Data from theimo.com:
Current Market Demand: 15,388 MW
Current Hourly Price (HOEP): $12.98 /MWh (1.30¢/kWh)
at 02:00 a.m. EST May 27

By comparison, one day earlier saw a slightly lower demand and prices of 3¢/kWh. This is not a mark of a well-behaved, open energy market.

John Kerry assumes we are all stupid. He makes a campaign pitch that only he should be allowed to make security into a photo-op. He has to announce that he has decided against breaking campaign finance laws, as if this somehow makes him a saint among liberals.

John Kerry is an idiot.

Fair warning: this blog carries a variety of subjects; this particular post is highly technical and discusses ways to combat spam. Most folk will just want to scroll down and read my unapologetic arrogance on other topics.

To keep this short, I'll assume some familiarity with how email works: oversimplfied, a user agent (UA) passes mail to a mail transfer agent (MTA), which hands it out to the various destination MTAs, who hold it for the target UA (in which it is read ...). Typically, the connection between the UA and MTA is authenticated, but the links among MTAs are not.

There have been suggestions that administrators add DNS records which specify what hosts may send mail for their domain (see spf.pobox.com). Then, mail can be accepted, failed, etc from hosts which differ from these sites.

But, as an alternative, how 'bout simply having each MTA connection authenticate itself with an appropriate certificate. The certificates could be signed by a recognized certificate authority (CA) (as is typically done with web-based transactions), or perhaps self-signed certificates could be allowed by a DNS entry citing the corresponding CA.

Then, authenticated email could be segregated (either marked appropriately, or placed into a separate mailbox) from unauthenticated email.

It seems to me this is a more natural fit with DNS than pre-identifying all of my originating MTAs.

Back to the thoughts on how to characterize (small-l) liberals and (small-c) conservatives.

I read a confirmation online that Omarosa (she who was caught-lying-on-camera on the show, The Apprentice) was doing advance work for the Democrats.

Kinda aligns with some of the mindset I was discussing below.

I haven't posted about energy prices in at least a day or two.

And there are at least three sides to it, now. The election is discussed well-enough.

The price of gas will be quick enough: global demand is growing. It may surprise people to learn just how much and how quickly China has been developing, and with that growth comes new demand. Sure, there are other factors, but most of the price increase has nothing to do with instability. Another day we'll come back to the foolishness of "self-sufficiency" as if the price would somehow, magically, not be market prices.

Right now, the market price for electricity in Ontario is 6.27 cents per kilowatt hour, for a demand of 19,781 MW. For the same demand, we have also seen prices as high as 10 cents or as low as 3 cents. This is nuts.

If we are going to open more of the subscriber base to market prices, then we need much more transparency to how these numbers are built: nuclear plants do not double in cost based on time of day. Wind generation is either online or offline. Hydro plants and solar generation have limited variable costs.

Sure, the prices reflect what the market will bear. But this cannot be an excuse for gouging. We must know what facilities have bid to come online at what demand, and what price they are asking in the market. We must be able to punish any operators who choose to take cost-effective capacity offline simply to provide an opportunity to raise prices.

The Fiberal government in Ontario must demand these reforms before forcing residential customers to pay whatever the companies choose to demand.

I absolutely do not understand how the NDP mind works.

Watching the replay of today's Lowell Green show on CPAC, and an NDP candidate called in acknowledging a promise to shut down all the private health clinics in the country and replace them with public alternatives.

So ... one must assume that the people providing the healthcare services will be the same. Which means that the only real difference will be that the government will spend tax dollars, earmarked for healthcare, on buying buildings and paying the staff who keep it clean.

One can expect that this will be a boon for the industry: as unionized employees, the custodial costs of public facilities are generally much higher than the equivalent private facilities.

Amazing.

I'm old enough to remember when reporters read the news, and people formed opinions.

Then the newsmedia decided that their news should tell a story, and the politicians used spinmasters to put their favoured construction on the current events.

Now the media have learned how to minimize that spin ... by spinning the stories themselves.

How many times have you listened to some talking head and been infuriated by them injecting personal opinions in the middle of what is supposed to be factual reporting? Or, more often, by focusing on certain facts which support their story and ignoring other facts which would otherwise provide a balance.

There are, of course, exceptions. I have been impressed (on the whole) with the approach taken by CPAC: the tendency is to moderate, not to interject. And to create a balanced panel of informed experts.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is the CBC: while claiming to present a balanced panel, some members are allowed to put out absolute nonsense with impunity, forcing others (who are supposedly there to present their own viewpoint) to spend their discussion time correcting the errors instead. And the audiences in their open forums are often clearly selected for their biases.

What can be done to correct this problem?

"Paul Martin has a new plan for the 2010 Olympics: Instead of having the athletes compete, he will simply appoint the medalists."
- Jack Layton.

A couple more thoughts regarding the liberal versus conservative ideology in today's world.

First, I should remind everyone that we're talking more about stereotypes than anything else; there is no way to actually apply these labels directly to any specific individuals and draw any valid conclusions about them. And in the current context, we're talking about politicians more than the population at large, even though the terms apply to those who align themselves with certain politicians.

Then, a further thought, just as controversial and no more applicable: conservatives are more likely to cheat, while liberals are more likely to not consider the same behaviour cheating (at least, not when they do it themselves).

Again, the approaches taken by modern conservative and liberal movements do not seem to be well-described by classification into the "Left" and the "Right": the behaviours and attitudes almost seem orthogonal at times.

Okay, so today has been about politics. And this blog is about more than just that.

So here's my recipe for an easy French Onion Soup.

Take a can of Beef Broth and a medium-sized onion (or more, as desired), chopped into large pieces. Boil until the onions have reached the desired consistency (probably at least 15 minutes), adding as much water as needed to keep the volume up.

For croutons, cut a slice (or two) of fresh toast into pieces. Add to a bowl of soup, and top with a slice of process cheese (or, better, use fresh grated cheddar).

I never put it under the broiler (for a few minutes, to "crust" the cheese), but that would be an option, I guess.

Should make two bowls of soup, per can.

O Canada!

Our Canada. Your Canada. Oh my, Canada.

Mr. Martin has decided to fight his election around the idea of What Canada do you Want. Interesting. A challenge to a real debate.

The Liberals have spent the last decade destroying all manner of societal norms: they have actively worked to undermine co-operation in favour of self-aggrandisement. Me first. Me, me, me. Ask not what you can do for your country, just pay your taxes 'cuz it's all about Me.

Nothing demonstrates this better than the Adscam affairs: putting tax dollars into hidden schemes through Liberal-friendly ad firms.

And what have we gotten for this attitude? And where will this attitude lead?

There is no end to the human appetite for greed. There is not enough money in the world to satisfy all the demands which we place on government, if it has to feed all of our wants and desires.

But the Liberals have promised to try to take all that money, if they can: during his speech announcing the election call, Mr. Martin said that he will increase taxes dramatically. Of course, you have to speak political BS to have heard it: the actual quote was something about having to go to the people for a mandate, if he's going to ask them for all the resources he needs to fund health care for the next decade. But the only resources a government has are what it takes out of the pockets of its people. Tax and spend.

Much better we find people who are willing to work towards better solutions. People who think that managing our tax dollars means something more than skimming their percentage while moving our money into the hands of their friends. As a nation, we can do better than to vote for greed.

I know this blog hasn't yet attracted much readership. But maybe those who have found it can give some thought to a question that's been bugging many Canadians: how do we characterize the differences between Conservatives and Liberals? For now, we'll probably leave the NDP, Bloc, and Green parties out of this.

Historically, there was a lineation of ideology and we could understand the Liberals as being Left of Centre, and the Conservatives as being Right of Centre.

More recently, the press have had to talk about Liberals as being Fiscal Conservatives, because many of their recent policies dealing with finances were really to the right of centre. And various Conservative policies are similarly described as centrist, or even left of centre. It seems that two major parties have more or less collided on the political spectrum, and everyone is left scratching their head trying to figure out what to make of it.

But in the States, a clearer delineation has started to emerge: small-'l' liberals there are now being associated with the view that the end justifies the means, and that any policy they agree with is worth doing anything it takes to win. Small-'c' conservatives are being associated with a clean-cut image, even if too easily misled. For the liberal, it's all about Me, the Country, and you. For the conservative, it's all about The Country, you, and me.

Of course, since the liberals don't mind lying ("I did not have sexual relations with that girl"; hereafter IDNHSR) to achieve their goals, they'll throw whatever mud they can. And the conservatives, not willing to let the whole thing go down to such tactics will fight back in kind.

Here in Canada, it's clear the Liberals are willing to spread a few of our dollars around if it helps them hold on to power. And, with the fiascoes at the Public Accounts Committee, I wouldn't be surprised if they tell out and out lies to try to win. (Saying they've told plenty of little white lies isn't even controversial anymore; everybody expects politicians to distort the truth -- some call it spin -- to smooth their ride.)

Any thoughts on how we codify this new political landscape?

And so it begins.

I've watched too much of the coverage of today's event. Maybe next week they'll show the grass growing (It'll be mowed Next Week! Watch the weeds!)

Paul Wells (www.macleans.ca/paulwells) reports the response to Mr. Harper having quoted the CBC reporter: in his press conference, Mr. Harper allowed that the CBC had suggested that it was possible for the Conservatives to win this election. The reporter's response, "Don't do that!"

Still, somebody has to remind Mr. Harper that it's great to joke with the reporters, but if possible to not mess up the media clips in doing so: there were a number of moments which would have made for great airtime, but which couldn't be used very easily because he included a joke with the in-room reporters.

And now, CPAC's continuing coverage (from drop of writ to close of polls, interviewing every voter - twice!) has a call-in show which suggests that nobody will admit to plans to vote Liberal. Well, maybe Mr. Mahoney. Then again, if he were nobody ...

There's been more, better debate about finally bringing Canada forward and creating a Republic. Elect the head of government (administration) separately from the legislators.

UPDATE: finally, a caller saying he'll vote for Martin. Except that he couldn't remember Peter MacKay's name and thought Mr. MacKay was in collusion with the NDP. So he doesn't know why he doesn't trust Mr. Harper, but he says he doesn't. Good sign of a healthy democracy. Heck, I don't know, maybe the caller was the Liberal candidate.

It was mid-December and Mr. Martin picked up the reins of power handed to him by Mr. Chretien: he finally had what he had lusted after for so long.

But what has he done with it? For nearly half of a year, all the Federal Government seemed to do was to duck from questions about the Sponsorship Program. And just when the Public Accounts Committee seemed to be getting close to getting some answers from the senior political leadership who may be guilty, the Liarbulls on the committee used their majority to shut it down.

And now, Mr. Martin has accomplished what he set out to do: to call an election. Yes, an objective observer will agree that the single greatest accomplishment of Mr. Martin's administration has been to dissolve the 37th Parliament of Canada.

Good luck to all the candidates.

It's been said before. I'll add my half-cent. The Liarbull government in Ontario has added multiple new taxes in its latest budget, in order to siphon off more public money to their friends in various areas around the province.

And now they say that I have to use my credit card for health care, after I've paid all these taxes. (Yes, eye exams are a health care service.)

This government must be replaced, and at the earliest possible opportunity.

The writ hasn't been dropped yet, but most pundits expect that we'll be into a federal election campaign within a matter of days.

In the meantime, would someone please tell Mr. Harper that he's the leader of the Conservative Party, not of the Alliance? There are reporters dogging him with various Alliance policies which are not policies of the New Conservative Party, and he's forgetting to point out the most obvious: it's a new party.

And still, Mr. Martin is hiding the facts about the Sponsorship debacle. (Let's follow the crowd and call it Adscam.) His lead attack dog on the Public Accounts Committee, Ms. Jennings claims to know where the money went, and who gave direction. But the rest of us are still trying to find out the facts. Over the weekend, another Fiberal MP admitted that there was direction from the Government Minister, and from the Prime Minister's Office. But the Liarbulls used their majority on the committee to shut down further testimony before the expected election call. Mr. Martin is clearly trying hard to bury the facts before they become publicly known: this government must not be re-elected.

More for the world to be outraged at, again in Iraq, with the murder of the head of the Iraqi Governing Council.

At times such as these, it is useful to reflect on our reactions: many have spoken against the U.S. actions in Iraq and use such terrible deeds as this murder to justify their position. But when we reflect on that, we must ask ourselves, "What would happen if the U.S. hadn't acted?"

Would a few Iraqis have not been embarrassed at Abu Ghraib prison? Many would have been tortured and murdered by Saddam Hussein.

Would these insurgents be acting to advance the cause of freedom for every Iraqi?

The world's resolve should be strengthened against such terrible acts!

And now, it is revealed that a mustard gas shell was found in Iraq about ten days ago, and a suspected sarin gas shell was exploded beside a road (which limited the effects of the poison) just a couple days ago. But are the Democrats highlighting this fact after months of claiming such weapons did not exist? No, because they're still trying to score political points by using the Iraqis as pawns in their little games.

And Republicans should not follow into that pit, either.

It's bad enough that Hans Blix, who was supposed to ensure such weapons did not exist in Iraq, is now making excuses for Hussein.

The whole world is right to be outraged by the recent revelations of the treatment of Iraqi prisoners in the Iraqi prison. Such treatment is unacceptable, and should never have happened.

But there will always be problems to be corrected. The wailing of the liberal left, and the way in which Democrats in the U.S. are using this for political gain, must also be stopped. It, too, is unacceptable. Last week, one Democratic Senator suggested that it was worse than the 9/11 attacks on the U.S.: ridiculous. (I believe his quote was that this was the most atrocious thing he's seen in his life. And he is more than three years old. I take him at his word.)

And now some have suggested that somehow murdering an innocent civilian is 'payback' for embarrasing prisoners. The entirety of the civilized world must express their outrage at this, making it clear that murder is not acceptable retribution. Yet some idiots somehow find it in their heart to blame others for these heinous crimes.

Shame on all of them!

Recently, Mr. McGuinty as Premier of Ontario announced a plan to waste approximately $800 Million of taxpayers dollars in an effort to force electricity users to save a few extra dollars a year in energy costs.

This is ridiculous, and will be ridiculed here. I expect that I'll return to this several times over the weeks and months to come, but let's start with a few basic facts.

For years now, Ontario has had two pricing mechanisms for electricity in the province. Small users pay a fixed rate (previously 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour, now 4.7 cents for the first 750 kWh) while large users pay market rates.

Recent reports issued by the Independent Market Operator (theimo.com) indicate that approximately 50% of the energy sold is currently subject to market pricing, and that the energy demand reductions are approximately the same as a one-degree decrease in summer temperatures. That is, in the summer heat when prices are highest, market prices reduce demand to what it would be were the temperatures one degree lower.

So it's clear that market prices do not create the sort of reductions in demand that the theorists would like us to believe.

Another time, we'll consider the overall growth in demand (due to population growth as well as increased penetration of air conditioners in homes), and the proposals to shut down coal generation in the province (in order, one must presume, to create an energy crisis in the province).

It's also worth noting that the Liberals tried to shut down the Sponsorship Inquiry shortly before Easter, but as the polling numbers showed softening support for the Liberal party they apparently decided to wait a few more weeks before calling the election, so they also let up their efforts to silence the investigation at that time.

I've been quiet for far too long, so now there will be a few things I have to say. Let's start with today's news that the Federal Liberals have used their majority on the Public Accounts Committee (which is investigating the Adscam scandal) to shut down testimony, probably forever.

It hasn't been that long since Prime Minister Martin vowed to get to the bottom of things, and now the Liberals (e.g. yesterday, Ms. Jennings claimed on television that she now knew where the money went, and who was involved) seem to be shutting things up before everyone else knows those facts.

This is shameful, and the Liberals must be held to account for their mismanagement of our tax dollars.