With all the recent elections and the money involved in running campaigns, I began to wonder just what it was we were spending all this money on, especially in the middle of a world-wide recession. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKdyEPGiM7o. This strikes me as a monumental waste of money, and as vaguely undemocratic.
Our society is based around government for the people, by the people. In Canada, parties are only allowed to spend so much nationally and per riding, which allows all political parties to have an equal voice in each area of the country, meaning that voters are able to decide based on the merits of each candidate. Third party groups are also heavily restricted in order to ensure this equality in each view getting aired.
In America though, there aren't as many limits, the living proof being in the above video clip and the campaign of Barack Obama, who saturated an entire country with his policies and his positions for two years during both the primary and general election campaigns. Between President Obama, Senator McCain and Secretary of State Clinton, over one BILLION dollars was raised and spent to run advertisements, affix lawn signs and generally spread their messages to voters in order to persuade the electorate to vote for them. This kind of extreme spending prevents other points of view from being disseminated, and thus the voters don't get the whole story and cannot really make an objective decision on which person best reflects their views.
Perhaps this difference between the American and Canadian systems of election advertising is due to the systems of governance that each country has chosen to partake. Canada's multi party parliamentary system almost requires that people be allowed to see all options clearly and equally, as cooperation between the parties is more likely and outright majorities in Parliament are less common. Whereas in the American two-party system, there is a greater need for one party to reduce the other into a deep minority status, as it is guaranteed that at each level of Congress, there will be one party that controls a 50%+1 majority in each house, and larger majorities mean that less compromise with the opposition is required.
We have a choice; to allow freedom for ALL views to be heard, or to allow third parties and the wealthy to control who hears what information.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Blood banks lack blood, sanity
It seems that equality is not yet something that we can all take for a given, at least not when it comes to giving the gift of life.
First off, I am gay. I intend to have sex with my partner, whoever he ends up being. I don't do drugs, I believe in monogamous relationships and refuse to have sex with anyone who may even have a slight risk of being an STI carrier. I will not be allowed to donate either my blood or my organs when I die under the current rules. Why? Heterosexuals far less safe than myself don't even get a temporary deferral, and yet I will have a lifetime ban placed upon donations simply because of who I am and who I will share my bed with.
Statistics from both stats Canada and other sources show that male-male sexual activity only accounts for 35% of all new HIV infections, with heterosexual sexual contact also accounting for 35% and IV drug use approaching 10%. Neither IV drug users nor high-risk heterosexual persons are given lifetime deferrals, yet statistics taken by the very people in control of the blood donation laws show that those two groups present high risks of infection per capita, especially within the IV drug user community.
Its more than just a safety issue, I can understand safety. Its still discriminatory, particularly in light of facts brought to us by the US Center for Disease Control, showing that a staggering FIFTY-ONE percent of new HIV infections were among black people in America. Yet there's no ban on black people donating blood, holy hell would be unleashed if discrimination was enacted as law there. To recap, and this is using stats from the US CDC and not my own writings, it is ok to discriminate against an act (and sadly, a group) that provides 44% of HIV infections, but not one that provides 51% of new infections. There's something inherantly wrong with this, someone explain to me how one minority that constitutes approximately 10% of the population is discriminated against, but a different minority group with the same population size and a LARGER infection rate is allowed to do as it pleases with blood.
As a final statement, I would like to point out that many heterosexual men willingly partake in MSM activities, and that not all MSM people are homosexual. What would the rates of infection be if only homosexual or bisexual men in same-sex relationships were surveyed instead of all men who have MSM? Or do we all think that the MSM heterosexuals are being safe and bringing the infection rates down for that group?
Cited sources: http://www.avert.org/canstatg.htm, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5521a2.htm
First off, I am gay. I intend to have sex with my partner, whoever he ends up being. I don't do drugs, I believe in monogamous relationships and refuse to have sex with anyone who may even have a slight risk of being an STI carrier. I will not be allowed to donate either my blood or my organs when I die under the current rules. Why? Heterosexuals far less safe than myself don't even get a temporary deferral, and yet I will have a lifetime ban placed upon donations simply because of who I am and who I will share my bed with.
Statistics from both stats Canada and other sources show that male-male sexual activity only accounts for 35% of all new HIV infections, with heterosexual sexual contact also accounting for 35% and IV drug use approaching 10%. Neither IV drug users nor high-risk heterosexual persons are given lifetime deferrals, yet statistics taken by the very people in control of the blood donation laws show that those two groups present high risks of infection per capita, especially within the IV drug user community.
Its more than just a safety issue, I can understand safety. Its still discriminatory, particularly in light of facts brought to us by the US Center for Disease Control, showing that a staggering FIFTY-ONE percent of new HIV infections were among black people in America. Yet there's no ban on black people donating blood, holy hell would be unleashed if discrimination was enacted as law there. To recap, and this is using stats from the US CDC and not my own writings, it is ok to discriminate against an act (and sadly, a group) that provides 44% of HIV infections, but not one that provides 51% of new infections. There's something inherantly wrong with this, someone explain to me how one minority that constitutes approximately 10% of the population is discriminated against, but a different minority group with the same population size and a LARGER infection rate is allowed to do as it pleases with blood.
As a final statement, I would like to point out that many heterosexual men willingly partake in MSM activities, and that not all MSM people are homosexual. What would the rates of infection be if only homosexual or bisexual men in same-sex relationships were surveyed instead of all men who have MSM? Or do we all think that the MSM heterosexuals are being safe and bringing the infection rates down for that group?
Cited sources: http://www.avert.org/canstatg.htm, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5521a2.htm
Monday, March 30, 2009
Educational discourse
The system of education that we currently reside in is a farce. Students are sent through the system, obstentably to learn the skills necessary to survive in the working world. And yet we don’t, not really. We get taught how to prepare for university, that golden hall in which we shall all meet our professional fate and become the automatons we were destined to be. The problem is that its not working, people still drop out of our “free” education system and admission rates to university and college is going down, not up. The reason? Because there’s no flexibility in our system. Our system of education is completely designed so that everyone gets the same education, so that there can be no complaints of differential treatment between different people. But its become a hindrance, not a benefit. We need to accept that there really is a difference in the skills and interests of our students, and thus the high schools need to start offering more courses that exist outside the typical realm of academia. In a perfect world, we could all become lawyers or doctors or whatever we thought we would be when we were little kids, but in reality there needs to be people who build houses or fix cars or pick up the garbage or any other thing like that which precious few people in the world ever wish to be. There needs to be more incentive for people to want to enter the trades and to inform our young people that university is not the only way to a future of wealth.
The best way to start this is right in the schools. Courses need to be added to the technical and artistic parts of the system, and rather than being expelled to the fringe as “elective” courses, it should be required that people take at least one course from both tech education and home economics. Also important is the financial incentive; many people who do want to take a trade and learn that trade are unable to because there is no way to finance their training. Rather than obsessing over getting scholarships to university bound academic students, schools and governments should actively aid young people who do wish to be carpenters or mechanics or any other labour intensive career.
This isn’t to say that I want to abandon financing for university students. Quite the contrary, I believe that governments should ensure that anyone who wishes to go to a post secondary institute be given the funding needed, as people with university degrees earn more money and thus pay more taxes, and are also less likely to be on government welfare due to their specialized skills. Once again, too many people are being left behind due to an inability to pay for their future, and thus people who otherwise have the necessary skills are stuck in life doing something that is a waste of their potential.
There have been estimates made that it would cost less to finance every single student going to university than it would to continue funding our engagement in Afghanistan. It seems like a small price to pay for future success and material wealth in Canada.
The best way to start this is right in the schools. Courses need to be added to the technical and artistic parts of the system, and rather than being expelled to the fringe as “elective” courses, it should be required that people take at least one course from both tech education and home economics. Also important is the financial incentive; many people who do want to take a trade and learn that trade are unable to because there is no way to finance their training. Rather than obsessing over getting scholarships to university bound academic students, schools and governments should actively aid young people who do wish to be carpenters or mechanics or any other labour intensive career.
This isn’t to say that I want to abandon financing for university students. Quite the contrary, I believe that governments should ensure that anyone who wishes to go to a post secondary institute be given the funding needed, as people with university degrees earn more money and thus pay more taxes, and are also less likely to be on government welfare due to their specialized skills. Once again, too many people are being left behind due to an inability to pay for their future, and thus people who otherwise have the necessary skills are stuck in life doing something that is a waste of their potential.
There have been estimates made that it would cost less to finance every single student going to university than it would to continue funding our engagement in Afghanistan. It seems like a small price to pay for future success and material wealth in Canada.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Energy Policy (mine)
We're facing an energy crisis. Not just Canada, not just North America. The whole world is facing an energy crisis in the face of climate change and the increasing price of fossil fuels. But what is being done? In America, China and India, the three biggest producers of carbon emissions, efforts are either being stonewalled by the legislative process or is simply non-existant. This is unacceptable, as the costs both financially and in terms of damage to our environment and our health is becoming too high, and cannot be paid for at our rate of consumption indefinately.
Firstly, and rightly so, we must begin to curb our appetite for energy and decrease our rates of consumption. In twenty-nine years, Canada has managed to double its energy consumption rates, and annually produces enough energy to run the Montreal subway system for almost 8,000 years. This kind of reckless consumption has only one cause and no justification; a lazy society that would rather a machine do what we would ourselves do in earlier generations. Reducing our energy needs starts right at home, simple things such as just turning off lights and appliances that aren't being used saves hundreds of dollars in energy bills every year, and it reduces our need on dirty energy sources to power our everyday lives. More than just using less energy, we need to use smarter energy. Everyday things like changing lightbulbs to the new flourescent bulbs or ensuring good tire pressure can reduce the need for oil in our cars and electricity in our homes, both of which can save money and reduce our carbon emissions.
Naturally, reducing our need for energy is an important way of reducing our carbon footprint, but the fact remains that we will still need to consume some energy unless we revert to a pre-industrial society. Rather than continuing to pour money into a solution that is growing both more expensive to maintain and more dangerous to the environment, we must begin prioritizing research and development of alternative fuel and energy sources. Our country is greatly varied in geography, and sadly there is no one form of "alternative" energy that we can use and apply to the nation as a whole, but that is how it should be anyways. The people in each province know their homes; the innovative Canadian spirit in every corner of the land can and should be tasked with finding solutions to the energy crisis that work best for that area of the nation, not something that would have widespread, ineffectual use. We must develop all energy sources that can prove themselves to be clean and affordable. This means looking not just at hydro power, but solar, wind, tidal and geo-thermal energy.
Many of these energy sources are already being developed, but without further funding we risk losing our chance to become leaders in the fields and profiting from the innovations and new technologies. Switching to these technologies should no longer be viewed as an attack on entrenched interests, but instead as a business opportunity to expand into new markets and obtain a greater profit in areas with less competition. And there will be competiton, nations around the world are beginning to come together and find the technology, perfect it, and produce it in order to better serve their own nation. We have a choice in this; we can either be the seller of new technology and reap the rewards of it, or we can be purchasing that technology and forever be left behind as a minor nation. What will you decide as an individual?
Firstly, and rightly so, we must begin to curb our appetite for energy and decrease our rates of consumption. In twenty-nine years, Canada has managed to double its energy consumption rates, and annually produces enough energy to run the Montreal subway system for almost 8,000 years. This kind of reckless consumption has only one cause and no justification; a lazy society that would rather a machine do what we would ourselves do in earlier generations. Reducing our energy needs starts right at home, simple things such as just turning off lights and appliances that aren't being used saves hundreds of dollars in energy bills every year, and it reduces our need on dirty energy sources to power our everyday lives. More than just using less energy, we need to use smarter energy. Everyday things like changing lightbulbs to the new flourescent bulbs or ensuring good tire pressure can reduce the need for oil in our cars and electricity in our homes, both of which can save money and reduce our carbon emissions.
Naturally, reducing our need for energy is an important way of reducing our carbon footprint, but the fact remains that we will still need to consume some energy unless we revert to a pre-industrial society. Rather than continuing to pour money into a solution that is growing both more expensive to maintain and more dangerous to the environment, we must begin prioritizing research and development of alternative fuel and energy sources. Our country is greatly varied in geography, and sadly there is no one form of "alternative" energy that we can use and apply to the nation as a whole, but that is how it should be anyways. The people in each province know their homes; the innovative Canadian spirit in every corner of the land can and should be tasked with finding solutions to the energy crisis that work best for that area of the nation, not something that would have widespread, ineffectual use. We must develop all energy sources that can prove themselves to be clean and affordable. This means looking not just at hydro power, but solar, wind, tidal and geo-thermal energy.
Many of these energy sources are already being developed, but without further funding we risk losing our chance to become leaders in the fields and profiting from the innovations and new technologies. Switching to these technologies should no longer be viewed as an attack on entrenched interests, but instead as a business opportunity to expand into new markets and obtain a greater profit in areas with less competition. And there will be competiton, nations around the world are beginning to come together and find the technology, perfect it, and produce it in order to better serve their own nation. We have a choice in this; we can either be the seller of new technology and reap the rewards of it, or we can be purchasing that technology and forever be left behind as a minor nation. What will you decide as an individual?
Afghanistan; Vietnam redux?
So its time to talk about everyone's favourite war that no one likes to talk about. I mean Afghanistan. Recently, Fox News decided to pay tribute to Canada and its service in protecting the world from terrorism with THIS poorly received, ignorantly created and downright meanspirited segment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVKlFT58Zwc
Thankfully, the host of the show in question has made a public apology and rescinded those comments, which were timed to coincide with the return of four dead Canadian soldiers to their homeland. While the nation has moved on and accepted the apology for such a crass attack on our people, the segment has become the catalyst for (more) Canadians to question our involvement in Afghanistan.
So, why are we there exactly? Most of our forces are in the Kandahar region, one of the most violent and vicious in the nation. Our purpose has been both to provide security for the Afghani populace, a task that grows ever more impossible with every attack by the Taliban Insurgency, and our other mission is to provide humanitarian aid and begin, for lack of better term, modernizing the nation through improved infrastructure and greater equality between the sexes. In this, we are also hampered by the Taliban attacks, but NATO forces are beginning to see obvious success in their efforts. This is where the debate is centered; is the improvement of life for Afghani citizens worth the lives of Canadian soldiers and aid workers?
I say it is; we have long claimed in Canada that we are a peacekeeping nation. What peace will there be in Afghanistan if our soldiers and aid workers leave and all our progress is erased? We'd be condemning a nation to civil war as the current government and the Taliban fight for supremacy. Millions of innocent people would have their lives ruined or simply be killed; as a peacekeeping nation we should abhor the idea of it and proudly stand to prevent such an event. I realize that the death toll has become unnerving to many Canadians, I'm one of them too. But we have to look at more than just ourselves; we need to look at how our actions would affect not just ourselves, but a whole nation and even a whole region of the world. A stable Afghanistan could bring peace to a whole war-torn region of the earth, how can we as a peacekeeping nation afford to stand aside and say that we've grown too squemish to protect something like that?
Thankfully, the host of the show in question has made a public apology and rescinded those comments, which were timed to coincide with the return of four dead Canadian soldiers to their homeland. While the nation has moved on and accepted the apology for such a crass attack on our people, the segment has become the catalyst for (more) Canadians to question our involvement in Afghanistan.
So, why are we there exactly? Most of our forces are in the Kandahar region, one of the most violent and vicious in the nation. Our purpose has been both to provide security for the Afghani populace, a task that grows ever more impossible with every attack by the Taliban Insurgency, and our other mission is to provide humanitarian aid and begin, for lack of better term, modernizing the nation through improved infrastructure and greater equality between the sexes. In this, we are also hampered by the Taliban attacks, but NATO forces are beginning to see obvious success in their efforts. This is where the debate is centered; is the improvement of life for Afghani citizens worth the lives of Canadian soldiers and aid workers?
I say it is; we have long claimed in Canada that we are a peacekeeping nation. What peace will there be in Afghanistan if our soldiers and aid workers leave and all our progress is erased? We'd be condemning a nation to civil war as the current government and the Taliban fight for supremacy. Millions of innocent people would have their lives ruined or simply be killed; as a peacekeeping nation we should abhor the idea of it and proudly stand to prevent such an event. I realize that the death toll has become unnerving to many Canadians, I'm one of them too. But we have to look at more than just ourselves; we need to look at how our actions would affect not just ourselves, but a whole nation and even a whole region of the world. A stable Afghanistan could bring peace to a whole war-torn region of the earth, how can we as a peacekeeping nation afford to stand aside and say that we've grown too squemish to protect something like that?
Dirty Fuel
Lets have a look at the oil sands, one of the crowning jewels of the Alberta Oil Industry. According to the oilsands website (how corporate), oilsands are "naturally occurring mixtures of sand or clay, water and a thick, heavy substance called bitumen." The mixture is removed from the earth in two different ways, either through traditional drilling or bi in situ (in place) drilling. This mixture is separated with hot water to free the bitumen, which can then be sold on the market as a form of crude oil.
There are supposedly over 170 billion barrels of crude oil that can be extracted through these oilsands, but there are a few causes for concern.
First and foremost; it is STILL oil. You can call it anything you want, but its still oil and its still polluting our air and contributing to climate change. The Alberta Government says that there are stringent measures in place to protect the environment, yet greenhouse gas emissions from the oilsands continues to increase, not decrease.
Second; both in situ and traditional drilling practices do considerable damage to the ground and environment that is being drilled upon. What is being done to protect and regenerate the environment after drilling has taken place? Not much. All that needs to be done is that the land is "reclaimed" and left alone. More importantly, water from the Athabasca River is used to separate the bitumen from the rest of the oilsand. Where does this now-polluted water go? Right back in the river, downstream of where it was taken out and used.
A better solution, both economically and environmentally, would be to stop developing these oilsands and demand more investment in alternative fuel sources. Right here in Vancouver we are pioneering new fuel sources everyday, sources that have zero carbon emissions and are cheaper to produce than current fuels.
Translink, the entity in charge of public transportation in Metro Vancouver, has been experimenting with many new fuel sources, including nitrogen, natural gas and hydrogen fuels. Furthermore, the city has been a leader in the use of electric buses, with almost the entirety of the downtown core equipped with electrical wiring designed for the buses' use. These technologies, with additional funding and support, could quickly and cheaply be a replacement for the fuel sources of the past. We have an opportunity to innovate and lead the world in finding clean, cheap, profitable energy sources for our vehicles, but instead we continue to defend these oilsands because its easier and its a known commodity. No more oil, no more destruction, just clean simple fuels.
There are supposedly over 170 billion barrels of crude oil that can be extracted through these oilsands, but there are a few causes for concern.
First and foremost; it is STILL oil. You can call it anything you want, but its still oil and its still polluting our air and contributing to climate change. The Alberta Government says that there are stringent measures in place to protect the environment, yet greenhouse gas emissions from the oilsands continues to increase, not decrease.
Second; both in situ and traditional drilling practices do considerable damage to the ground and environment that is being drilled upon. What is being done to protect and regenerate the environment after drilling has taken place? Not much. All that needs to be done is that the land is "reclaimed" and left alone. More importantly, water from the Athabasca River is used to separate the bitumen from the rest of the oilsand. Where does this now-polluted water go? Right back in the river, downstream of where it was taken out and used.
A better solution, both economically and environmentally, would be to stop developing these oilsands and demand more investment in alternative fuel sources. Right here in Vancouver we are pioneering new fuel sources everyday, sources that have zero carbon emissions and are cheaper to produce than current fuels.
Translink, the entity in charge of public transportation in Metro Vancouver, has been experimenting with many new fuel sources, including nitrogen, natural gas and hydrogen fuels. Furthermore, the city has been a leader in the use of electric buses, with almost the entirety of the downtown core equipped with electrical wiring designed for the buses' use. These technologies, with additional funding and support, could quickly and cheaply be a replacement for the fuel sources of the past. We have an opportunity to innovate and lead the world in finding clean, cheap, profitable energy sources for our vehicles, but instead we continue to defend these oilsands because its easier and its a known commodity. No more oil, no more destruction, just clean simple fuels.
Opting out of Common Sense
So, we have a bit of Canadian Content for once, its good to finally comment on things happening within my own country, gives me perspective into how bizarre we all can act and that silliness has no nationality. http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=1434770&sponsor=Compliments%20of%20TD%20Waterhouse
This really is silly, and I'm not even talking about the same-sex protections clause. You mean to tell me that in this day and age, people can still remove their children from a provincially certified, secular, part of an educational curriculum because it clashes with one's religion? This is not acceptable; schools are provided to teach ALL students the necessary facts to make them productive human beings, no parent has the right to remove their child from that situation because of their own beliefs, especially here since it is removing the child from important facts about life. The example mentioned in the article, of preventing children from learning about sexual education, is simply shocking. In the United States, states that do not teach sexual education or use abstinence-only education have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation, with both Alaska and Texas topping the list. Why, exactly, would something of this importance be something that could be forbidden to a child because of their parents religion?
This is more than just bad politicking, this is an attempt to harm our children and contribute to our increasing health care costs with unwanted pregnancies, increased abortions and the spread of sexually transmitted infections due to plain lack of knowledge. Alberta has a chance here to prevent that, but the Culture Minister seems to want no part in the fight to protect our youth and keep our education system free of outside influences.
This really is silly, and I'm not even talking about the same-sex protections clause. You mean to tell me that in this day and age, people can still remove their children from a provincially certified, secular, part of an educational curriculum because it clashes with one's religion? This is not acceptable; schools are provided to teach ALL students the necessary facts to make them productive human beings, no parent has the right to remove their child from that situation because of their own beliefs, especially here since it is removing the child from important facts about life. The example mentioned in the article, of preventing children from learning about sexual education, is simply shocking. In the United States, states that do not teach sexual education or use abstinence-only education have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation, with both Alaska and Texas topping the list. Why, exactly, would something of this importance be something that could be forbidden to a child because of their parents religion?
This is more than just bad politicking, this is an attempt to harm our children and contribute to our increasing health care costs with unwanted pregnancies, increased abortions and the spread of sexually transmitted infections due to plain lack of knowledge. Alberta has a chance here to prevent that, but the Culture Minister seems to want no part in the fight to protect our youth and keep our education system free of outside influences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)