quod scripsi, scripsi

2007-03-27T02:09:00.000-04:00

Idiots! Idiots!
Canadian "Renewable Fuels" Association
Ethos [sic] Water

I don't know what to be more worried about...that people can be so money-grubbingly self-serving as to mislead people on such a scale...or that people are likely to be so misled.

You may have noticed that the brand of water (imagine: a brand of water!) that Starbucks is carrying lately is Ethos [ha!] Water. You may also have noticed obnoxious television ads talking about "Stephen Harper's promise", which apparently has something to do with ethanol. How are these related to each other? Let me tell you....

Both of these endeavours, these businesses, are doing things that on the surface are actually good. The one is using profits to work on clean-water projects in the Third World. The other is replacing a more noxious polluter with a less noxious one. Who wouldn't support these things?

The answer: anyone who gives the matter any thought at all.

Let's look at an analogous situation. My friend Tom has several times told me about Richard Dawkins's opinion of religious moderates. I'm no fan of Richard Dawkins, but his point on this matter is not useless. He argues (so I've been told) that religious moderates create and reënforce the situation that allows religious extremists to flourish. How? Because they are unwilling to say that religion can be dangerous. Religion is something they have a stake in - however half-heartedly - and so the occasional churchgoer, the person who's only in it for the high holidays, or the weddings, or the sunday babysitting, speaks up on behalf of the religious rights of the person who wants creationism taught in public schools.

Now back to the water and the fuel.

Commodification of nature (calling parts of systems "resources" and then selling those parts) is the prelude to destroying nature. Using petroleum to make plastic bottles to contain water, and using more petroleum to transport that bottle of water to me, does not help the situation of water pollution. If we would simply leave our water systems alone, they'd be drinkable and happy. More industrialization and capitalization can't help the water. Ethos Water might be sending 10 cents per bottle sold to clean-water projects. But my used bottle is going to go to a landfill, where it will turn into sketchy chemicals for someone else to drink....

Likewise, growing fuel for cars is a bad plan. Cars are made out of plastic and steel, in huge polluting factories. Ethanol is made out of industrial farming, which relies on chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and diversion of water for irrigation. Sure, exhaust from ethanol-fueled cars might be 10% less climate-altering than other fuel, or whatever, but the idea that cars will ever be really environmentally friendly is absurd. Communities that rely on cars can't be environmentally friendly.

The ideas of car-lite and "friendly" bottled water prey upon both our First-World bleeding hearts and our laziness of thought and action. We get to feel good about driving our SUVs around because they aren't as bad as they were a decade ago. We get to feel good about commodifying water and enclosing it in chemical containers because it's for a good cause. We get to feel like ecological Anglicans, all condoms and the-bible-as-metaphor and gay, while our actions support the environmental equivalents of Evangelical crazies who think that the Rapture will happen sometime next week.

Idiots! Idiots!

2007-02-15T14:56:00.000-05:00

the Night Has a Thousand Eyes
...and a thousand eyes can't help but see...
Toronto Police Services Board

So, I finally read the Toronto Public Space Committee's February newsletter, and I'm glad I did. It told me a bit about the already-decided-upon plan to introduce closed-curcuit television cameras onto Toronto's streets.

There are public consultations on this topic being held this week and next, but I'm busy during them, so to voice my opposition to this programme, I wrote to the Mayor and my City Councillor.

If you want to know what's going on, please follow the police link above and read about the CCTV programme. Proponents of this surveillance will tell you that it shouldn't matter to those not doing anything wrong. Opponents, like me, will tell you that it's another step towards living in a panopticon.

Here's the letter I'm sending out to the Mayor:

Dear Mayor Miller,

I am writing to you to express my opposition to the introduction of closed-curcuit television cameras onto our City's streets.

I understand that the intention of this programme is to increase the safety of the public in the affected areas. I understand that the areas chosen to be monitored will be areas that are unresponsive to traditional policing. I understand that the cameras will be clearly marked and will only survey open, public spaces. And I don't care.

It is my opinion that the introduction of CCTV cameras onto city streets oversteps the legitimate scope of the government.

It is my opinion that the introduction of CCTV cameras onto the streets tramples upon my rights.

I would rather have a corrupt city council and a useless, expensive and destructive fixed link to an ill-placed airport, than live in a police state.

It is my opinion that politicians who do not oppose CCTV cameras necessarily oppose freedom.

I would welcome any information you could send me about your views on this matter.

With thanks for your time,

Andrew

2007-02-14T19:20:00.000-05:00

Laws upon Laws
...upon Laws upon Laws...
Opposition MPs Pass Kyoto Bill...

A strange, wacky, and perhaps amazing thing happened in Parliament today. The opposition parties got together and passed a bill that says that it's illegal for the Government to not have a plan for meeting Kyoto-Accord commitments.

The bill is expected to breeze through the Upper House, and we expect that Her Excellency Madame Jean will be so gracious as to sign it into Law soon.

The big question is: what then? Mr Harper's government has made it pretty clear that it won't take steps to meet its Kyoto targets.

Whatever happens, I don't see any easy way out of this for the Conservatives. Which means it's a good thing. Either they do come up with a plan, in which case they will have a) backed down from their position, and b) done something good for the planet (everyone wins!), or they don't come up with a plan, in which case they will a) look like the bad guys (legislators who ignore legislation!?!), and b) set the stage for an election.

2007-02-13T12:24:00.000-05:00

Liquor License Issues

The other day, my city councillor, Joe Pantalone, emailed me (and a bunch of other people) out of the blue.

He emailed me to let me know that the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario had pushed back a public hearing from February to April. The hearing was to be about a bar called West Side BBQ, and whether it should keep its liquor license.

Why did my councillor email me about this? What's up with West Side BBQ, a bar that - apparently - is not too far from my house? Why was the hearing being pushed back? Why does my city councillor - who is very possibly the city councillor for the patrons and owners of West Side BBQ too - want to ruin their business? These were the questions I had. So I emailed back:

Dear Councillor Pantalone,

Thank you for keeping me up-to-date with this. I very much appreciate that you want to keep your constituents in the loop.

I would welcome any emails on any other initiatives you are taking part in or leading.

Nevertheless, I do not in principle support the regulation of alcohol sales, thus would like to speak against the revocation of any liquor license at any time.

I am not sure what the background issues are in this particular case, and would be happy to better inform myself if you would be so kind as to forward me more information.

With thanks,

-Andrew

His assistant wrote back promptly. He said that West Side BBQ was "a hotspot for criminal activity". He noted that this activity has included "violence, prostitution, [and] drug dealing". He then mentioned that "Over the years the bar has also violated the terms of its liquor license many times".

He wrote that "the situation at West Side BBQ is out of control".

This was how I responded:

Dear [assistant] and Councillor Pantalone,

Thank you for this response; I was so glad that you got back to me with useful and pertinent information (as an aside - I write to politicians often, and I find that you and your fellow Toronto city councillors are always the most prompt and helpful - the Prime Minister's Office could learn from you!).

I suspected that there were other issues at play aside from liquor license violations.

I would still argue that using liquor license violations as a means to shut down a bar that is problematic for other reasons is not ok. That is how police have historically harrassed the queer community in this city: shut down "undesirable" businesses by over-enforcing Ontario's (rather puritan) liquor laws. Definitely not ok.

I don't know what kind of drug dealing and prostitution are going on there, but many of Canada's drug prohibitions are unnecessary and counterproductive. Likewise, prostitution itself is not inherently problematic. By criminalizing prosititutes and recreational drug users, we create a socio-economic situation that breeds violence and "undesirable" businesses. These are the problems, and attacking these problems by harping on liquor license violations is like getting Al Capone for tax evasion: you just redistribute the problem to the next bar, the next "criminal", or the next neighbourhood. And that isn't very neighbourly.

Thank you for taking the time to hear my views; I hope that you will take them into account in the way you pursue this matter.

Yours,

-Andrew

I'll let you know when I get a response.

2007-01-04T16:39:00.000-05:00

Hooray for the Family!
in case you haven't heard...

This week an Ontario court ruled that a child had three parents: his two moms and his biological dad. Of course, the "family" values crowd are rather upset by this because they only value one kind of family.

There are calls for an appeal. Of course, just as with equal marriage, there are those who feel that this is the end of Society As We Know It. Alarmists are doing their best to convince the public that the courts will be assigning every child dozens of parents starting next week. Some are pointing out that this could make custody battles very complicated (up until now, apparently, custody battles have all been very straightforward...). Different kinds of families are the handbasket that'll carry us to Hell.

As you might have guessed, I welcome any changes to family law that help strengthen the loving relationships Ontarians have with one another. So, I wrote to my MPP:

Dear Rosario Marchese,

I am writing to you in response to an Ontario Court's recognition this week of the fact that children can have more than two parents. I am delighted and encouraged to hear that Ontario is recognizing that families come in different shapes and sizes.

I am also writing to express to you the importance I place on this, as your constituent. There is talk that the ruling may be appealed. I believe that, on the contrary, the ruling should be celebrated.

I am interested to know what work you and your party are doing to ensure that no "definition" of family impedes the happiness and love shared by any set of Ontarians. If you could send me information about your stand on this matter, I would greatly appreciate it.

With thanks for your work and attention,

-Andrew

Canada Still in the Club

2006-12-07T17:22:00.000-05:00

Let's Review what just went on:

1. Equal marriage has always been a right. It was a right that was suppressed by our governments for a long time.

2. In 2003, Ontarian courts realized that we all had the right to get married.

3. 2005, and the issue has hit Parliament. Although then-Prime-Minister Paul Martin spoke in favour of upholding Charter rights, he was callous enough to allow his party (save Cabinet) to vote freely on the issue (the Conservative party had a likewise free vote). Thanks, Paul, for leaving my rights to be decided at the whims of your backbenchers. Taking a stand isn't taking a stand unless you take a stand.

By 2005, 28 million Canadians already lived in jurisdictions where their rights to equal marriage were acknowledged legally. In the Summer of that year, Parliament acknowledged that all 31 million of us had the same marital rights, and the Queen, through her Governor General, was gracious enough to agree.

4. In 2006, now-Prime-Minister Stephen Harper's party introduces a wishy-washy motion to revisit the issue. It is widely acknowledged that the motion won't carry. It is also widely acknowledged that Mr Harper isn't interested in the motion; it's merely a nod to the frightening bigots who elected him. The last thing the Conservatives want in their imminent campaigning is talk of the Gays.

So, if he introduces the motion, it looks like he cares about the bigoted craziness his supporters care about. And if he loses the motion, he gets to wash his hands of the whole thing.

5. Stéphane Dion, new leader of the Liberals, follows in Mr Martin's footsteps and allows his MPs to vote freely. He says that the Conservatives are "attacking" the Charter, but he doesn't seem to interested in rising to its defence. See above re.: stand-taking. He says that it's clear the motion won't carry, so he might as well let the backbenchers try to trample on rights if they feel like it.

6. The motion doesn't carry. Was this a waste of time? Not looked at like this: it's more and more clear to all of us now, how disingenuous and uncaring Canada's two major right-wing parties (i.e.: the Liberals and the Conservatives) are.

South Africa Joins the Club

2006-12-02T01:50:00.000-05:00

South Africa became the fifth nation in the world to legislate marriage equality today! I was going to post up the still-new-ish South African flag to dress up this brief post, but Blogger's giving me grief.

Instead, this link is as fancy as this post is going to get.

PS a couple of days later, and Blogger's stopped giving me grief.

Towards a Queer Nation

2006-11-29T03:28:00.000-05:00

I've been interested for a while in writing a short work of satirical fiction based on the idea of the establishment of a Queer nation-state.

Not only would this offer the opportunity for some fun and fantastical self-satirizing, but it would also provide a means by which to comment on the idea of the nation-state in general. I'm particularly interested in calling into question racial, religious, and even cultural bases of contemporary nations. As someone who grew up in a multicultural situation, the idea that one generally has to be Japanese (ethnically) to be Japanese (legally), for example, is almost absurd. That brand-new contemporary nation-states were established in the twentieth century based on what I would consider antiquated notions of culture and ethnicity is all the more bizarre to me.

I do not think that nation-states are good, but if that's the system we've got, I don't see why homosexuals the world over couldn't get together and build the most fabulous country of all. And I'm not the first person who's thought of this.

So I did some research a little while back, and I might get around to writing my little amusing anecdote one day. But why am I telling you this? Well...

This week our Prime Minister decided to recognize a nation within Canada. This delighted many separtists, and many federalists. It also pissed off many federalists. And it sure annoyed many First Nations leaders, who feel, apparently and unsurprisingly, that parliamentary recognition might be good for them too.

The fact that this parliamentary recognition amounts to pretty much nothing, of course, is beside the point. The House of Commons, in an uncharacteristic and dubious step, has decided that nations are not necessarily always or only polities. They might also be collections of people who themselves identify as a nation.

Does this recognition work against multiculturalism? Probably. Is it likely to bring diverse groups within Canada together? Probably not. I suppose time will tell. Meanwhile, I think it's safe to say that this whole episode is rather strange.

In any case, I almost feel like abandoning the fiction in favour of this utterly strange reality. "Dear Mr Harper," I'll write, "Homosexual culture and art predate the Canadian nation-state and the Québécois nation. Queer Canadians represent a cultural, sexual and political majority in a small (but distinct!) area of downtown Toronto. We've got a flag and a holiday...." and so on. I'm pretty sure I've got a case.

it must be pointed out...

2006-08-19T03:11:00.000-04:00

What the government thinks about young people:

1. They're too young to handle the responsibility of fornication.

2. They have to take responsibility for their actions, and should be taken to court.

I was away for a few days and this news is pretty cold, so here's a link to another blog that noticed the same thing: Age of ... What?.

Note also that the Tories have not taken the opportunity presented by their general fiddling with Canada's sex laws to equalize the age of consent for anal sex (which is 18 years, the oldest for any sex act in Canada - see Section 159 of the Criminal Code).

Endgame

2006-07-28T17:45:00.000-04:00

I'm reading something really challenging right now (and really anger-making).

It's Derrick Jensen's Endgame Volume One: the Problem of Civilization. I'm not in the habit of writing about books before I finish them (heck - I'm barely in the habit of writing about books once I have finished them...), but this one is taking a while and requires a lot of thought along the way.

Jensen contends, as far as I can tell, that civilization is inherently violent and ecologically unsustainable. Sounds crazy - especially to a committed urbanite such as myself. But I'm coming around to his way of thinking.

I just thought I'd throw out this idea of his, and see if any of you have any comments. Is his contention silly? Obvious? Let me know.

In case of emergency...

2006-07-19T23:33:00.000-04:00

Maybe everyone else doesn't play out the same kinds of scenarios in their heads that I do. Not a day goes by that I don't consider what would happen if Canada suffered a takeover by Handmaid's-Tale style wackos (wait - did that happen already...?). Or if all the electricity where cut off for longer than a couple of days, such that Toronto would run out of clean drinking water. Some days I imagine Toronto in a situation à la Camus' La Peste. Some days it's Saramago's Blindness.

Maybe I should just avoid dystopic fiction?

Or maybe it's good that I'm prepared.

No one in Beirut had a relaxing week this week, I expect. But the Canadians stuck in Lebanon, witnessing first-hand (and, in some cases, dying from) the violence that their own Prime Minister condones, received not-quite-enough help from their embassy.

Have a look at these reports:

Pregnant Canadian Woman Awaiting Evacuation Turned Away at Beirut Port

MPs Squabble over Cost of Saving Dual Citizens

Evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon to Start Wednesday

In a rare show of sense, Mr Harper had his own airbus diverted from Europe to Cyprus to pick up evacuees. Horribly, however, both Conservative and Liberal MPs took time to argue about whether all Canadians are Canadian enough to be saved from bombs.

My passport tells me that I can go to Canadian Embassies abroad for help if I need it. Just as I am good at imagining disasters, likewise had I imagined that such help, if needed, would be swift and effective. This week we all learned that Canada can't evacuate you from a war zone quickly, even if you're pregnant. Apparently we have no standing plan for dealing with this sort of thing.

Maybe Mr Harper needs to read more dystopic fiction.

Kyrie eleison

2006-07-19T16:17:00.000-04:00

I haven't been following things too closely, so please correct me if I'm wrong:

1. An anti-Israel group (that is not the government of Lebanon) kidnapped two Israelis.

2. Israel, believing that the government of Lebanon permits this anti-Israel group to operate, began attacking Lebanon.

3. While this anti-Israel group has been shooting rockets at Israel, Israel has been conducting air strikes against Lebanon.

4. Seven Canadians have died in the Israeli air strikes.

5. The Prime Minister of Canada announces to the world that it's okay for Israel to kill seven Canadians, because two Israelis were kidnapped.

This is the letter I wrote to the Prime Minister:

Dear Mr Harper,

I am writing to express my disgust with your response to the events of this week in Lebanon and Israel. You do not represent the will or beliefs of myself or any sane person when you refuse to condemn violence and to demand peace.

In light of your government's inexcusable participation in the American imperialist mission in Afghanistan, and your inability to represent the desire of all Canadians for peace in Lebanon and Israel, I believe you have lost the moral authority to govern this nation.

I hope, Sir, that you will be good enough to resign your position as Prime Minister. I will be writing to the Member of Parliament for my riding, encouraging her and her colleagues to bring down your government in a vote of non-confidence as soon as possible.

Further, I demand that you cease immediately your claims that you represent me or my views. You have lost touch with what a Canadian is if you believe that Canadians think the Israeli government's actions this past weekend were appropriate. Do you think that the seven Canadian civilians killed by the Israeli military are well represented by you?

Mr Harper, I look forward to the time when Canada will restore order, good government, and peace.

Sincerely,

-Andrew

I'll write about this soon...

2006-07-06T16:28:00.000-04:00

Meanwhile, feel free to leave your opinions.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/07/05/ott-peelaw.html

2006-06-23T01:30:00.000-04:00

A propos of not answering our questions....

You may recall that some time ago I wrote to the Prime Minister, asking him, among other things, why I shouldn't get married (vide here).

I finally got a letter back.

I don't know if you all have the same experiences I do, but it seems to me that most often when I write to elected legislators, I get form letters back that tell me that my opinions are important. This, regardless of whether I asked specific questions (that need answering) in my original letter.

Municipal bureaucrats seem to write back real letters most often, and federal politicians pretty much only send thanks-for-your-input responses.

Someone from the Prime Minister's Office wrote to tell me that "my comments have been carefully reviewed". I was also told that my letter was forwarded to the Cabinet Minister in charge of the legality of my impending nuptuals.

Although my comments had been carefully reviewed, my questions and my requests for information about government policy seem to have been very ignored. Aside from bluntly asking the Prime Minister why I shouldn't get married, my last letter also contained two requests, which you'll read below.

I have now written back to the functionary who sent me the reply-letter; here's round two:

Dear [Executive Correspondence Officer],

Thank you for your June 17th acknowledgement of my letter about equal marriage. I am happy to hear that my comments have been carefully reviewed.

I asked Mr Harper to send me information on his government's position on this issue. Could you please let me know when I can expect this information to arrive?

Also, I asked Mr Harper to let me know why his government does not support my own forthcoming marriage. Although of course Mr Harper is too busy to respond personally to my question, I had hoped that someone in your position would be able to briefly set out the government's position for a concerned citizen.

Here is an excerpt from my original letter:

"Why, sir, should I not get married?

"I would like you to send me information on your government's position on this issue, if possible. Please contact me and let me know more about your plans for putting marriage equality before Parliament for a second time."

Please contact me by post at [...], by 'phone at [...], or by email at [...]. As you can imagine, I'm eager to receive a response that addresses my concerns. I feel, as I'm sure you do, that dialogue between Members of Parliament and the People of Canada is essential to a system that works.

Thanks so much for your attention to this,

Yours,

-Andrew

I don't understand....

2006-05-31T01:21:00.000-04:00

I don't really understand the contemporary union setup.

I understand that unions were invented after the industrial revolution in order to protect workers' rights. I understand that at that time workplaces were dangerous and even more exploitative than they are now, and so workers stopped work en masse in order to bargain for better situations.

But when did strikes become "legal" or "illegal"? Isn't it in the nature of a strike to be a workers' action taken against the powers that be?

As any Torontonian readers of this blog know, the TTC went on strike this week without much warning. I don't really know much about the issues at stake, and I'm not that interested.

What I want to know is: what's the point of going on strike at all if people can just order you back to work? Isn't the whole point that they can't fire you all at once? Strikes are supposed to give workers the upper hand; that's why they were invented. But it seems that nowadays that isn't the case at all. So what's the point?

Fixed elections, anyone?

2006-05-27T03:29:00.000-04:00

The Harper government wants fixed election dates.

Why? The theory seems to be that, with fixed dates, parties won't be able to wait until a good time to call an election.

I wonder, though, what happens if we end up with a government that doesn't have the confidence of the House. Sure, no one gets to choose the most politically opportune time, but the people are stuck with bad government for a fixed period....

I don't see why we should be saddled with a defective government for four years if it's clear after one-and-a-half that it isn't working out....

Who won't answer your questions?

2006-05-27T03:21:00.000-04:00

Your Prime Minister - that's who.

This past week reporters walked out on the PM because he's insisting that his people take down a list of reporters and pick and choose from that list the reporters that have the questions he thinks he'd like to answer.

Then, he tried to tell other reporters that Canadians don't care about whether or not the Press has access to the Government.

Here's a story about this from the (rather right-wing, but nevertheless press-positive) Globe and Mail.

Amnesty International

2006-05-24T02:40:00.000-04:00

Amnesty International's 2006 report made the news today (o, boy!).

Among the things it pointed out:

1. The...ahem...war on terror has created more terror.

2. The victims of the war on terror are the poor.

3. The US and UK can't claim any international legitimacy if they themselves employ totalitarian tactics. If a nation detains people without charge, or sends them away for outsourced torture, they're no better than your average banana republic. (Hey - Canada's complicit in all this too! So happy we've given people more reasons to hate us! At least we don't have that pesky Geneva Convention to worry about any more.)

The CBC didn't choose to report the report's criticisms of Canada. They did, however, report the following sad but true words of Amnesty International's Secretary General, Irene Khan:

"There is no doubt that it [the war on terror] has given a new lease on life to old-fashioned repression."

Census Stuff

2006-05-16T12:26:00.000-04:00

There are lots of reasons to dislike the Census, not the least of which is that you have to fill it out, or you'll get in trouble.

Next on my list of reasons to be upset by the Census is question 19. Question 19 is a question about ethnicity. It asks respondents to identify themselves as one of a list of ethnicities. My problem is that, although some people get specific options on this list ("Japanese", "Korean", "Chinese" are all options), some people don't ("Black" and "White" are the only option for many people). One can only hope that people will write hyper-specific things in the "Other" box: East Anglian, Provençal if they are stuck with one of the big choices, like "White", and that they'll be non-specific otherwise: Asian, e.g.. Maybe then we'll get some balance.

Then there's the homophobia on the questionnaire, which Stats Can tries to explain here. Egale Canada will walk you through the issue here. Basically, same-sex spouses are being treated differently than opposite-sex spouses for no good reason.

And then read countmeout.ca, which is a website that encourages minimum coöperation with the Census. Now, countmeout.ca is somewhat conspiracytheoryesque, but it also contains a hilarious list of inventive ways to screw up the Census process. Also, it points out that we've contracted out our Census-taking to American companies for no reason. Before you start spilling your coffee all over your Census form, though, have a read-through of Murray Dobbin's article The Census? Count Me In. He points out that having accurate public statistics is good for everyone, especially those who are working for social change.

The same week as the Census arrived at our apartment, we also received the Municipal Enumeration Form, which

"collects information that is provided to local municipalities and school boards for purposes of the November 2006 municipal and school board elections. The information is also used for determining the population of every municipality in Ontario and for municipal and school board planning purposes."

Why this form asks me my gender is a mystery. I hope it doesn't affect my municipal voting rights. Or whether they'll pick up my garbage or build me a sidewalk.

This form also asks me whether I want my taxes to go to public or Catholic schools. And then it asks me a separate question about whether or not I'm Catholic. Does this make sense to you? I didn't think the City of Toronto was in the Church business, so I don't know why they're interested....

I couldn't find the answers about the municipal enumeration on the website of the company (it seems to be a private company) that manages these forms. Here's the link, though, in case you want to have a look: mpac.ca.

Get Riled Up!

2006-05-13T01:14:00.000-04:00

Here's an article that contains information and ideas that many already know.

Nevertheless, it's still infuriating to read about how the Harper government would spend our money.

For those, like me, who like reading that sort of thing:

http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=49810

No One Seems to Have Noticed, But...

2006-05-05T16:19:00.000-04:00

They're trying to change the length of municipal terms of office to four (instead of three) years.

Why? Only McGuinty knows....

It seems to me that this is the sort of thing you'd do for a reason. And you'd maybe tell people you're doing it. O, well....

Look here for more information.

2006-05-01T13:34:00.000-04:00

Happy May Day!

finally a letter to the PM about marriage....

2006-04-20T12:17:00.000-04:00

Here's my letter to Mr Harper:

Dear Mr Harper,

I am writing to you as a gay Canadian voter who is concerned about equality before the law. I believe that civil marriage is an institution that should be available to me.

I am getting married in October, and I would prefer that my government support my right to marry.

Not only is the idea of undoing equal marriage unpopular and legally dubious, but it is also the wrong thing to do. Canadians, through Parliament, have already decided that Canadian marriage should be available to people of any sexual orientation.

I understand that you would like to open a debate on this issue in Parliament. I do not believe that that would be in the best interests of Canadians; it would certainly not be in my interest. I have trouble understanding why you would plan to remove legislation that provided equal access to a civil institution for a group whose right to equality before the law is protected by the Charter. Why, sir, should I not get married?

I would like you to send me information on your government's position on this issue, if possible. Please contact me and let me know more about your plans for putting marriage equality before Parliament for a second time.

Yours,

-Andrew

o, hansard, you do have style!

2006-04-18T23:58:00.000-04:00

The NDP are on the ball as far as asking the right questions about Afghanistan.

Have a look at this transcript of a parliamentary committee:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/006_2006-04-10/HAN006-E.htm#SOB-1501305

It's really long. Just read the Afghanistan part. After you get a sense of the Liberal and Conservative positions (which are the same), just skip through and read the NDP and BQ bits. They'll tell you all about things like how Canadians are in Afghanistan as part of the American mission "Enduring Freedom" [sic]. And how Canadians are at risk of committing war crimes and violating the Geneva Convention. It's worth the read.

Epousez la cause!

2006-04-11T01:21:00.000-04:00

Hey everyone: have a look at this.

Done? Good.

Now get out your pen and take two minutes right now to write to the PM and to your MP (if your MP's an NDPer, you don't have to write to them - they're already on our side).

It doesn't even cost you a stamp. And I won't even make you look the addresses up; the letters can all go to:

[Stephen Harper/Your MP]

the House of Commons,

Parliament Hill,

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0A6

You don't need to write seven pages; in fact, it's probably better if you don't. A clear, short letter that gets sent (as the fine folks at the Toronto Public Space Committee will tell you) is worth a lot more than an ambitious letter that never gets written.

Please tell Stephen Harper that the equal marriage debate has already been had. Tell him that you support equality before the law for people of all sexual orientations, as spelled out in the Charter. Heck - tell him that I have a wedding to plan and that we don't need his bigotry right now.

Thanks,

-Andrew

Afghanistan...still...

2006-04-10T04:43:00.000-04:00

Read this article. Get riled up.

http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?sh_itm=a162ccfed798e7bc8288f5dc01231391&rXn=1&

2006-04-10T04:04:00.000-04:00

Stephen Harper Catch-phrase contest!

It's a little silly, but I enjoyed it.

http://www.halifaxlive.com/content/view/652/2/

Dear Mr Harper...

2006-04-04T04:55:00.000-04:00

We recently got a printer, which makes writing physical letters to your MP or to the PM a breeze. So...tonight I wrote three letters to the Prime Minister.

The first letter I'll post is about Afghanistan. While I was at it, I wrote a sort-of parallel letter to my MP, Olivia Chow, to let her know that I prioritize accountability on this issue. Here it is:

Dear Mr Harper,

I am writing to you as a Canadian voter who is concerned about Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan.

I do not fully understand the nature of our Canadian Forces' engagement in Afghanistan. I perceive your reluctance to debate this engagement in the House of Commons as indicative of the extent to which you do not believe that this engagement would retain any legitimacy if brought under public scrutiny.

I believe that you have a responsibility to bring this issue before the House of Commons. Canadians, through their MPs, should have the opportunity to debate our role in Afghanistan.

Yours,

-Andrew

I then read about the speech that Harper gave to the Canadian Professional Police Association yesterday (the text of the speech is here). These are the two letters that came out of that:

Dear Mr Harper,

I am writing to you as a resident of downtown Toronto and as a Canadian voter.

You recently spoke to the Canadian Professional Police Association about your government's plans à propos of crime. As a resident of Toronto, a city that you mentioned in your speech, I would like to let you know that I disagree with many of your plans for approaching perceived crime issues. As there are no Torontonian MPs that belong to your caucus, I imagine that any feedback from the citizens of Canada's largest city will be of some value to you and your government.

More specifically:

You talked about putting more police on the streets. I do not believe that this will have any real, positive, long-term effects on the safety of Canadians. I would rather spend money building communities of citizens who do not commit crimes than spend more money chasing criminals. In a city such as Toronto, with issues of homelessness and municipal funding shortfalls, more police are the last thing we need.

I understand that Canada's laws on child pornography are so ill wrought that young people who express their own sexuality could be criminalized. Further, those who possess works of literature such as Lolita or Romeo & Juliet are at risk of prosecution. I do not believe that a "zero-tolerance" approach to enforcing these bizarre laws makes much legal sense.

Also, you announced plans to raise the age of consent for sexual relations between children and adults from 14 to 16 years old. I do not see how this would necessarily protect anyone from anything. Overall, it seems to me that this kind of non-sequitur announcement has more to do with grandstand politicking than governing.

Sir, I would like to ask you to spend our tax dollars constructively, rather than reactively.

I thank you for taking my views to Parliament.

Yours,

-Andrew

and:

Dear Mr Harper,

I am writing to you as a Canadian voter to let you know how I feel about Canada's continuing marijuana prohibition.

It is widely acknowledged that Canada's marijuana prohibition is all but arbitrary, and is certainly outdated. I hope that you take the lead in rectifying this situation.

I do not believe that it is in our nation's interest to criminalize those who possess small amounts of marijuana. I urge you to introduce the proposed legislation of the previous government that would decriminalize this possession.

I thank you for taking my views to Parliament.

Yours,

-Andrew

So that's what I did tonight.

I'm never sure what tactics to employ, and I don't really have any idea what the effect of this letter-writing is. I suppose my hope is that I get counted as someone who's for or against whatever the issue is; if there's a deluge of letters about getting out of Afghanistan, it's made up of letters like mine.

Nevertheless, one wishes that the PM would open my letter, read it a few times, and reconsider his position. If politicians read some letters some of the time, which ones influence their opinions most successfully? Should I be succinct, focusing on my opinion and the importance of it being represented? Or should I go into detail, and argue a whole point? Should I be aggressive, or deferential? Serious or flippant? If anyone has any advice, please let me know....

Street Furniture

2006-03-29T14:56:00.000-05:00

The entrance to the Paris Metro is a wonderful example of city furniture. It's beautiful, and has become iconic. And it successfully indicates where the entrance to the subway is.

Toronto is embarking on a street furniture harmonization project. The city wants to have all the bus shelters and garbage bins and bike racks and benches go together.

The thing is, the city doesn't seem to want to actually buy anything. They seem to want to get Eucan or someone to put all this stuff in. What does that mean? That means more and more ads. Sure, the city's website talks about a reduction in the number of ads, but the city also has a history of letting advertisers do whatever they want.

Aside from the issue of advertising, there's also the furniture itself. You may have noticed that most of the street furniture Toronto has right now doesn't really age well, and is designed with advertising as its principal, not secondary, function. This means that we get bus shelters for cheap. It also seems to mean we get cheap bus shelters.*

Anyway, have a look at the Coördinated Street Furniture page that the city has. And have a look at the Great Toronto Sidewalk Sale page that the Toronto Public Space Committee put together.

Here's the letter that I wrote to the Mayor, my councillor, and the guy responsible for coördinating public consultations on this issue:

Dear Mayor Miller, Councillor Pantalone, and David Nagler,

I am excited that our City is considering options for the redesign and harmonization of our street furniture. This sort of project can have a huge impact on our daily experience of our City's streets.

I am writing to you so that you may take into account my preferences and opinions as a citizen of Toronto. I know that you will represent my interests as your constituent.

In my opinion, the following should be the City's two main priorities:

1. Public ownership of public furniture.
2. Reduction or elimination of corporate advertising on/in public spaces.

I understand that the City does not currently plan to buy street furniture; the idea is that an advertising company will put up garbage bins and bus shelters draped in advertising at little cost to the City. I believe that this is short-sighted. I believe that public infrastructure is something worth investing in. I would like Toronto to have public furniture of such beauty and lasting value as the art nouveau entrances to the Paris Métro; I do not believe that this desire is compatible with street furniture that sells iPods or bulimia-inducing fashion.

It is more expensive to actually buy things, I know. I would much rather experience a slow, slow change from our current ad-ridden state to something of lasting substance, than refill our streets with matching garbage-bin- and bus-shelter-shaped billboards. I would support the increased expenditure that would be required to make this happen.

Let's buy ourselves something nice for a change.

I thank you for reading and giving voice to my opinions.

Yours,

-Andrew

*actually, though cheaper to put up, I'd like us all to note that advertising shelters (and even some of our billboard-garbage-bins) use electricity. Clearly we want to reduce our electricity consumption and expenditures, non? So why would we allow someone to install a light-up shelter when the shelter would be just as functional without being lit (it's not like there aren't street lights already)?

Saying Sorry in British Columbia

2006-03-29T01:44:00.000-05:00

Have a look at this article that was published in the Toronto Star. It'll tell you all about British Columbian apologies.

Yes, in BC, apology and regret could soon be legally detached from liability.

Civility triumphs! Huzzah!

Neighbourliness.

2006-03-16T01:05:00.000-05:00

Visit the CBC and read about how the American coast guard is arming its Great Lakes fleet.

Does anyone know why we're in Afghanistan?

2006-03-15T04:53:00.000-05:00

The Prime Minister went to visit the Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan this week, prompting everyone to ask: why is Canada in Afghanistan?

The people whom we employ to work through such questions are exactly the people Mr Harper does not want discussing the issue: parliamentarians. No: Mr Harper, demonstrating his lack of understanding of what Parliament is for, does not think it important that the government publicly consider our role or commitment there.

Now, I don't know what I think about Canadian "peacekeeping" in general, but our Generals seem to all be indicating that this mission isn't quite "peacekeeping" anyway. Although we didn't apparently care at all about Afghanistan until 2001, it is somehow vital now to "stablize" that nation, by militarily propping up a West-friendly government and putting down poppy farming. I do not feel that these things fall within the scope of the Canadian government's concern.

I am not an isolationist. I know we're all connected, and that we need to do what we can to help people. Also, I understand that it is rather difficult to provide help to areas that are up in arms. I don't have a specific plan in mind to increase the joy and ease of the people of Afghanistan. But I think this military adventure is unacceptable.

Here are some links to things I read tonight about this:

Note that the Canadian Government Afghanistan website just assumes we all agree growing poppies is an evil practice. It says:

"Afghanistan's trade in drugs is seen as the biggest challenge to its long-term security, development and governance...."

The Afghan drug trade "is seen" to be a problem by...unnamed people. Someone sees it as a problem, so we'll send our troops there. The way in which it threatens security, development and governance is also unmentioned. It seems like Canada just hates opium...and will spend your tax dollars and your troops' blood to stop people on the other side of the world from growing it.

The obvious solution would be to legalize poppy farming in Afghanistan. This article points out that that would be a bit of a problematic solution; but mostly it won't work, it seems, because the West doesn't really want it to. An American functionary explains that it wouldn't be good to "suggest that there is something legitimate to growing [opiates]". He doesn't point out that you can make codeine and morphine out of poppies, and that we use these things all the time.

Here's an article about Candians' opposition of and support for involvement in Afghanistan.

And finally, have a look at this article about how our Minister of Defence (how sending soldiers to Afghanistan falls under the category "Defence" is beyond me) would rather "sell" this military adventure to Canadians than talk about it in the Parliament in which he occupies a front bench.

2006-03-06T12:45:00.000-05:00

Have a look at this, which will tell you all about why we should be upset about what the Ontario government wants to do à propos of electricity.

Here's the letter I wrote to the Premier and the Energy Minister:

Dear Mr McGuinty,

I am writing to express my opposition to the construction of any new nuclear power plants in our province.

I understand that Ontarians' demand for electricity will exceed the available supply in the coming years, unless something is done. I believe this is a clear call for strong, strong conservation programmes, as well as legitimately safe and renewable energy sources, such as wind power.

Please know that nuclear power is not an acceptable option. It does not serve Ontarians' interests. I expect our government to work to reduce our consumption of electricity. I hope you, as Premier, will work with Ontarians towards the goal of a sustainable, healthy future. Nuclear power plants would enable more and dirtier consumption. Let's go for less and cleaner.

Yours,

-Andrew

If we'd wanted your opinion....

2006-02-15T01:46:00.003-05:00

O, Stephen Harper. Your ridiculous cabinet-appointment shenanigans make me happy. They make me happy because they give me confidence that you will soundly lose the next election.

But not all the news about you makes me happy. As Freedom to Read Week approaches, I am unhappy that you took the opportunity to speak against free speech.

This week, as reported in this article (and elsewhere, I'm sure), Mr Harper let us all know that he doesn't like that some Canadians have published those cartoons that were published in Denmark and that are causing a bit of a stir.

He believes that the stir they are causing argues against their publication. He thinks that riots overseas will make things harder for Armed Canadians overseas (because people love Western militarism usually...they just don't like Western cartoons...). He generally thinks that the people of Canada shouldn't read things that rile people up.

Does this mean that, if we all get riled up about Mr Harper's penchant for censorship, he'll follow his own line of reasoning, and shut himself up?

something to look at...

2006-02-03T16:12:00.000-05:00

From the guy who brought us the Toronto Public Space Committee, here's Who Runs This Town?

Made me want to run for City Council....

Stephen Harper's Drug Problem

2006-02-01T14:08:00.000-05:00

If his economics and his militarism aren't already upsetting you enough, have a look at what this article has to say about our new PM.

share and share alike...

2006-01-31T01:52:00.000-05:00

A Canadian record label is paying the legal bills of a Texan who is being sued because he may have downloaded (liberated!) some music onto his computer.

The record label in question (and its artists) have noted that the people who are fans of the music they make are the people who are downloading the music. And buying the CDs. And the concert tickets. They are their customers. Maybe - just maybe - they should make friends with them, not sue them.

Read all about it in this article (and elsewhere, I'm sure).

Oh dear.

2006-01-24T12:26:00.000-05:00

Well, here's the new Prime Minister. I watched the coverage of the election last night (mostly on the CBC). Here are some things I have to say.

1. Peter Mansbridge is hilarious. Consistently.

2. I don't want this government to screw around with my wedding plans (I'm likely going to write to Mr Harper this week about this).

3. At a certain point, as the numbers were being finalized, I found myself hoping that the Conservatives would gain a couple more seats, for no other reason than it would have put Jack Layton in a position of greater importance if those two parties totalled 155. But it wasn't to be.

4. I'm rather happy that Olivia Chow won my riding. I don't think I've ever voted for someone who won.... I enjoy seeing that my vote helped.

5. I love Kim Campbell. Peter Mansbridge interviewed her last night (she was in Madrid). (PS - have you ever heard of the Club of Madrid? There are 68 former heads of government who get together in Madrid to fight crime or some such; Kim Campbell is one of them. Very strange....)

6. Everyone on the TV was saying over and over last night that this minority government might last a while because Canadians don't want to go back to the polls again any time soon. I don't know who everyone was talking about, but this Canadian is ready for another election as soon as possible.

7. Maybe the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Liberals will form a coalition?

8. These are the times when one is happy to have dual citizenship. When the Handmaid's Tale scenario erupts in earnest all over North America, I'm hoping some kind heterosexuals will smuggle Chris and me to the British Consulate, where we'll be taken by helicopter to St.-Pierre et Miquelon and thence to Europe.

9. At least it's a minority.

Vote Selector

2006-01-19T00:36:00.000-05:00

Hey there! Go here to take the Politics Watch Vote Selector quiz for this year's election.

(It's fun.)

towards universal Universal Suffrage...

2006-01-17T23:43:00.000-05:00

If you have a look at this article in Macleans, you'll understand why I felt that I had to write this letter:

To the Editor:

My name is Andrew Woodrow, and I am a 28-year-old Torontonian voter.

I am writing in response to the article that examines the suitability of 18 as Canada's voting age.

I do not think this article considered the most important question surrounding voting age. It seems to me that our government is built on the consent and participation of the governed (if nothing else, that is the rhetoric on which it's built). The question we should ask is not "How do we get more people to vote?" or "Are 18-year-olds (or 16-, or 21-year-olds) able to vote well?", but rather "Can we legitimately make laws which govern young people, while denying them the vote?"

Our government lacks the legitimacy it claims when it unreasonably excludes certain demographics from voting. Now, an infant cannot vote; I would say that it's pretty reasonable to exclude babes-in-arms from the voting process. But are 17-year-olds specifically and demonstrably less able to vote than their elders? Clearly not.

Your article cited David Denver, a British professor, who expressed his belief that young people have less of a "political memory". He meant, in saying this, that they were less qualified than older people to vote, because they "can't remember Mrs Thatcher". This may indeed be the case. I do not have any particular confidence that younger people would vote well. That said, Mr Denver's contribution to the discussion would be more pertinent if we tested each citizen's political memory before registering her to vote. But we don't.

Instead, we allow everyone whom we expect to be bound by our laws to contribute to their creation. Everyone except the young.

Oh, yes. The gullible vote. The confused vote. Those with poor political memories vote. The stupid vote (if election results in the last few decades are any indication). Everybody gets to vote. Otherwise, we might as well not bother. If we demand any qualification other than citizenship, we'd better have a darned good reason.

The value of our system is that it is representative and responsible. We cannot expect young people to understand and value this system if they themselves are disenfranchised by it. Democracy is made a joke to the student who has the capacity to understand that it is available to society at large, but not available to him.

I believe that the voting age must be lowered to as young as possible. The point at which we expect people to have an appreciation and understanding of our system is the point at which the voting age must be set. (As one guideline: the public education system in Ontario taught me about our government when I was 13).

People take ownership of things that they have a hand in. I believe that the closer we can get to universal suffrage, the better.

Yours,

-Andrew

(It's perhaps not the most persuasive letter-to-the-editor I've written on this topic, but writing it made me feel better.)

Free Culture!

2006-01-08T16:15:00.000-05:00

Every once in a while, you need to read something that really riles you up. Thus, I just read Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig.

Lessig's book is really well done. He starts off with the history of the contemporary West's notions about intellectual "property", showing how the recording and film industries benefitted, once upon a time, from the availability of others' work in the public domain. He then explains the lengths these and other industries are going to today to dismantle that same public domain.

The book is rather US-centric, but the US are the centre of this international problem, so I didn't mind so much. Lessig is a law professor at Stanford, who has spoken before the American Supreme Court on this topic (this case before the Court is one of the more juicy episodes in the book).

Lessig goes beyond just pointing out that downloading a song is not the same thing as stealing the CD from the store. He proposes moderate solutions to current copyright issues. His solutions have been endorsed by American lawmakers, but unfortunately haven't become American law.

I don't know if you've noticed, but copyright terms keep getting longer and longer. This has the effect of reducing the public domain, such that contemporary Individual Talents are less and less permitted to interact legally with the Tradition (note to self: re-read Eliot's "Tradition and the Individual Talent", paying attention to how it relates to current issues of intellectual "property").

I won't try to lay out all of Lessig's arguments here for you. This book gives a good framework for understanding the problems of the idea of intellectual "property", and offers grounded, moderate solutions.

But - in case you don't see why this issue is important - I'll close by relating something from Free Culture. There are drugs that ease the suffering and prolong the life of people with AIDS. These drugs aren't generally available to the people of Africa. Governments in Africa can't afford to purchase these drugs from the Western companies that manufacture them. The drug companies won't sell them at different prices in different places, because there's no current laws that would protect their inflated prices at home in the West. And Africa, who can't afford to buy them, is not allowed to know how to make them herself; that would destroy international patent law. But the drug companies wouldn't be losing potential profits if African nations manufactured generic versions of their drugs, because African nations can't afford to buy them anyway. All that would happen would be that fewer people would die and fewer people would be in pain. For the sake of sacred intellectual "property", millions suffer. And this kind of thing is bound up with the laws that tell you not to download music or photocopy books. The system doesn't work.

On Guns in Toronto

2005-12-28T02:29:00.000-05:00

Everyone's talking about gun violence in Toronto. I have a couple of things to mention.

1. Toronto's really safe. 21st-century Toronto is about 8 million times safer to live in than any other place and time you can think of. I heard people today saying that they don't feel safe here, and that upsets me. If people become less likely to wander around in our streets, that will make them less safe. The fact that we can and do populate our avenues with lovely, unarmed, benign citizens is what makes them safe.

2. Some politicians have recently and publicly noted that violent crime has underlying causes. But most of the big political pronouncements in the last two days about gun violence have taken a law-and-order stance. There's been talk of handgun bans. There's been talk of stopping the flow of guns from the United States. There's been talk of tougher sentences and more police. Of enforcement. These kind of pronoucements miss the point.

Banning handguns is not a bad idea at all. I don't see the good that you can do with a gun. But it doesn't address the problem of Torontonian gun violence. People who have shootouts at Yonge and Dundas are unlikely to be people worried about whether or not their firearm is registered.

Stopping the flow of guns from the United States is not a bad idea either. But no one believes that that will eliminate 100% of guns from Canada.

If we are creating a society in which more and more people have fewer and fewer qualms about shooting each other, then we will have more shootings. People don't shoot people because they will only go to jail for 2 years instead of 10. They don't shoot people because handguns are legal. They shoot people because they don't find shooting people abhorrent. That is the problem that needs to be addressed.

If people don't have ways of dealing with others that aren't violent, then they'll deal with people violently. If people don't have a general situation (family, friends, livelihood...) that is valuable enough that they don't want to risk it by being shot and/or arrested, then they won't care whether or not they risk the situation they do have.

Although this is an NRA line, it is true: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. I don't believe (like members of the NRA) that that means people should be allowed to own guns. I do believe, however, that the best way to reduce violence is to build a society that marginalizes and alienates people less.

Provincial Ridiculousness....

2005-12-20T02:45:00.000-05:00

I have been trying to get around to writing to the Premier, but still haven't finished my letter.

This week, he announced that the Provincial government wants to require young people to be in school in order to be licensed to drive. This clearly goes hand in hand with other anti-truancy policies that were announced earlier this year.

The idea is that if you're 16 and want to drive, you're forced to stay in school. 16-year-olds want to drive, so this will make them finish highschool, right?

The problems are these:

1. We don't want a culture of the car anymore. Using driving as a bribe doesn't help to dismantle our car culture; it reënforces it.

2. Skill as a driver clearly has nothing to do with academic skill. This is an arbitrary measure designed to achieve ends that the government happens to like. This sets strange precedent: the government doesn't like smoking.... Should smokers have to quit before they are allowed to drive? The government doesn't like people who don't vote. If you don't vote, will you be issued a license? I know that this is absurd, but only as absurd as making people stay in school till they're 18 in order to drive.... Why wouldn't the government link any behaviour that it finds inconvenient to some sort of negative institutional bribe?

3. People who are young, and who decide that their time would be better spent outside of the classroom than inside it, are already discriminated against in the workplace. Although highschool teaches one almost nothing related to any professional endeavour (other than showing-up-on-time and doing-as-one's-told), people who don't finish highschool are at an economic disadvantage. This will be compounded if they aren't allowed to drive. Clearly, the government doesn't mind this. They are happy to take economic opportunities away from groups they don't like if it makes good press. I think that, rather than take a qualification-opportunity away from those who don't finish highschool, we should rather try to offer those people more and different ways of obtaining skills and qualifications. Driving is a skill. A driver's license is a qualification. People who don't finish highschool might be exactly the people who need the opportunity to drive for a living. Why does our government dislike those people?

4. Once again, the government is making laws about people who aren't able to vote against them. They won't tell you you have to go to college or univeristy in order to get a license, because if you're at that age, you can vote against them. Why can't they stick to restricting adults' liberties? At least we can vote them out.... Pick on someone your own size, I say!

I hope to write and send my letter soon; I'll let you know.

Beer and Popcorn

2005-12-11T18:15:00.000-05:00

This is a picture of Scott Reid. He's Paul Martin's director of communications, or some such. Today, he said that the Tory plan to give families with kids money so that they can find their own damn child care was irresponsible. He pointed out that the parents could just use the money for beer and popcorn.

Now, Conservatives don't like welfare much. If we asked a Conservative why he didn't like welfare, he might explain to us that we shouldn't pay people to sit around at home all day and watch tv and drink beer. Most Conservatives don't actually want the poor to starve to death; they just feel that welfare gets given to too many people, and ends up, therefore, spent on luxuries (beer!).

I think this is a very typical, hackneyed Conservative idea about welfare.

If you express this opinion à propos of the Conservatives' childcare/welfare plan, though, you insult Canadian parents - at least if you're Scott Reid. Apparently, Tories believe the judgement of parents to be more sound than that of welfare recipients (don't ask what they think of welfare-receiving parents).

So, the Liberal guy says his line about the popcorn on tv today, and everyone is shocked. Shocked! And then, what's more bizarre: he apologizes. (Apologizes!) To suggest that someone could misspend money the government gives them is wrong! The government can misspend money - it does it all the time - but not the people! Don't worry though: Mr Reid is sorry! Sorry to have maligned each and every Canadian parent.

I don't know about you, but I just think it's mighty strange to not be able to point out that if you give people cash they might do anything they please with it. What kind of political discourse can we have when any statement that contains an opinion is a liability?

Need Help with Your Decision?

2005-12-06T19:24:00.000-05:00

This quiz, from the CBC, shows you how your views on 12 issues match up with the main four party leaders'.

Have fun!

Election Time!

2005-12-01T00:22:00.000-05:00

I'm sure that the upcoming election will provide wonderful material for us all. While things are still gearing up, why don't you take a moment to respond to my Why Do You (Not) Vote? poll, at the bottom of this page.

I couldn't resist...

2005-11-23T03:48:00.000-05:00

I know it's a bit silly, but I couldn't resist. I've been meaning to write ridiculous emails like this for a while, and finally, tonight, I did.

I am tired of people whining about media violence. I want them to put things in perspective. Thus, after reading this article, I wrote the following email to Dan McTeague, who, apparently, is a Member of Parliament:

Dear Mr McTeague,

I read with interest an article which expressed your opinion that people in Toronto don't want rapper Fifty Cent's message of violence in our city. You were quoted as saying that "I think it's time we send a message of our own to those who glorify violence that their gratuitous violence and movies are not welcome in our country".

I am a pacifist who lives in Toronto. I believe that speaking out against violence is important.

I do not understand your particular interest in preventing Fifty Cent's "message", when there are examples of violence that have a greater cultural impact.

I encourage you to review the Bible, which, as I'm sure you know, has become a central text of the Western Canon. Besides being the focus of much of Western culture, it is a text that clearly glorifies violence. As examples, I would have you review Leviticus 24:16, which instructs us to summarily execute blasphemers, Exodus 21:17, which counsels the execution of people who curse their parents, and Exodus 23:20, which suggests the utter destruction of those who sacrifice to "any god, save the Lord only".

I perceive this text to be more pernicious than any comtemporary musician's lyrics. It has demonstrably become the foundation of our culture of violence.

I hope you will turn your attentions toward the sources of violence in our culture, and speak in favour of banning the Bible in Canada.

Thank you for your efforts,

Yours,

-Andrew

They aren't the best examples of biblical violence, I know. I just picked the first things I found.

I await Mr McTeague's ban-the-bible campaign....

further to the post below...

2005-11-18T03:27:00.000-05:00

Here's another article about free trade in the Americas.

It's hardly balanced, but it got me a bit riled up....

Ivan Illich is a really smart guy...

2005-11-18T02:40:00.000-05:00

I finished reading Tools for Conviviality by Ivan Illich this week, and thoroughly enjoyed it.

I may just try to set down the basics of his politics in a subsequent post; for right now I'd just like to gush a bit and try to encourage you all to read him.

He is a bit of a challenging read; not only is his prose pretty dense (not ridiculously so, but it needs some attention), but he also presents ideas which are counterintuitive to most capitalists and most communists. He breaks down the framework within which most of us usually contain our political arguments and ideas.

You should give him a try.

Here's a link to the text of Tools for Conviviality.

Some good things, and some bad things....

2005-11-06T04:53:00.000-05:00

Have a look at the NDP ethics package (which is described in this article).

I'm glad the they're pushing for proportional representation, but I'm not so sure about points 1 and 2.

Point #2 calls for fixed election dates, which I think I might oppose. It may be the case, though, that I oppose them on æsthetic grounds.

Point #1 would disallow MPs from crossing the floor. They would have to seek reëlection in a by-election instead. Not only is this much more costly than crossing the floor, but it would seem to discourage independent action on the part of each MP. I think our system is built on a fine balance between parties and individual members. The balance is already tipped well towards the parties. I worry that tipping it much farther might cause a spill.

I realize that the most recent floor crossing didn't have much to do with the will of anyone's constituents. But I like that MPs can realign themselves should their party take a turn that is unacceptable to the people who voted for them.

What does everyone think?

I'm on my way to work....

2005-11-05T13:34:00.000-05:00

I just thought I'd post a link to this article, which demonstrates the extent to which Paul Martin doesn't know what's good for us, or anyone else.

(Hugo Chàvez is in this article, too!)

Here you go:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/11/04/martin-summit051104.html

Maybe I'll write a bit about it when I get home.

Oh, those rascally laws!

2005-10-29T17:54:00.000-04:00

Laws are slithy things, as this article will tell.

Yes, it's true. We may have criminalized humanitarian aid a few years ago in our fervent attempts to keep up with American "anti-terror" draconianism. Oops.

The good news is, no one can say we weren't as reactionary as Washington. Hooray for keeping up with the Joneses!

...the results are in...

2005-10-29T17:03:00.000-04:00

I've recently added opinion polls to both of my blogs, and I'm about to change the question for the quod scripsi, scripsi poll.

So I thought I'd take a moment to record the following results.

Of people who read my blog:

0% would like a piece of a budget surplus for themselves.

100% would like a surplus spent on programmes or services.

And there it is.

PS the new polls that I'm putting up allow you to add your own answer if you don't like the ones I provide for you. Have fun!

Gee, there's some extra money here....

2005-10-07T04:52:00.000-04:00

Most of the time the government has no trouble spending money. But give them an unexpected surplus and suddenly they don't know what to do.

Maybe if our government had some sort of overarching idea of what it was going for, they could use the money for part of that plan. If only they had a vision of what they wanted things to be like....

Unfortunately (or fortunately - would I want to live in the Liberal Vision of Canada?) no one in the government can figure out anything useful to do with an extra $2 billion. So they're just going to give it back to us.

That's right. We're getting it back. The average cheque will be $133. Not enough to pay the rent of a poor family, not enough for the comfortably middle-class to really notice. Yes, every millionaire in Canada can have their $133 back, because everything is ideally funded and we couldn't possibly do anything more.

Here's a letter I wrote to the Finance Minister and my MP:

Dear Mr Goodale,

I am writing to express my opposition to your government's plan to distribute one third of unexpected surpluses which exceed $3 billion to taxpayers.

I am happy to pay taxes, knowing that they support the services I receive from the government. Whatever amount of money the government might send to me as a surplus rebate would go a lot farther if the government kept it and pooled it with everyone else's cheques.

Also, there is no need to provide such rebates to Canadians who already have enough wealth. If your government is interested in making an impact with this money, I recommend that it be distributed only amongst Canada's poorest. Providing $133 tax rebates to Canada's millionaires in celebration of a budget surplus would be amongst the most callous, useless and annoying decisions ever made by a Canadian government. It is not in our Nation's interest to consider any amount of available money a surplus while there are homeless people on the streets and children who go to school hungry every morning.

The provision of the best possible quality of life for its citizens should be the goal of any government. Please use the estimated $2 billion available for this proposed rebate to instead make a real difference in the lives of those who need it most.

Thank you for your attention,

Yours,

-Andrew

Frightening Florida....

2005-10-03T01:58:00.000-04:00

So....

Until yesterday, in Florida, in self-defense, you could shoot someone who was threatening to attack you only after you had made efforts to extricate yourself from that being-attacked situation. That is to say, self-defense was only self-defense if you couldn't get away. People on their own property were generally allowed to defend themselves from intruders, but that was about it....

Well, Floridian law has changed. Now, you don't need to waste your time trying to de-escalate your public arguments. Don't worry about getting out of anything while the getting's good - why bother? The new law that's just been introduced seems - as far as I can tell - to allow the use of deadly force even in circumstances where walking away would suffice to save your life. It's a Stand-Your-Ground law.

So, the next time you're in Florida, remember that the law appears to be on the side of anyone who kills you because they're afraid of you. Florida's new attitude - as far as I can tell - is that they should just go right ahead: get you before you get them. Who knows what massively destructive weapons you might be carrying on your person? Better safe than sorry.... If they think you're threatening, shooting you and walking away from you are now equally appropriate actions legally.

One hopes that people in Florida (and elsewhere) won't use deadly force arbitrarily or preëmptively. I guess we'll see how things go....

O, Billboards!

2005-09-27T13:20:00.000-04:00

The people at the Toronto Public Space Committee have gotten me all riled up again. They pointed out two items that are before City Council this week, and I just had to write to every City Councillor....

Dear Mayor and City Council,

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed variance that would allow Ciniplex at 1025 the Queensway to build a video screen aimed at the Gardiner.

Anyone who gives the matter more than a moment's thought will understand that there is no way in which video advertising can make the Gardiner a safer place to drive. It certainly has the potential, however, to make it a more dangerous place to drive.

I have read that the screens will be visible to drivers three-quarters of the way up an on-ramp. I think that trying to advertise movies to people who are trying to merge onto a busy highway is all but criminal.

I urge you to disallow the construction of this video sign.

With thanks for your attention,

-Andrew

...and...

Dear Mayor and City Councillors,

Applications will soon come before City Council to vet or veto the construction of third-party illuminated signs on the rooves of 1294 St Clair Avenue West and 1840 Eglinton Avenue West.

City Council enacted by-law 1995-0229 specifically to prohibit signage such as these proposed signs. The belief was that such signs have a negative visual impact on our city, especially in areas of mixed commercial and residential use (who wants an apartment with a billboard outside their window?).

I support by-law 1995-0229, and urge you to support it as well. Our City needs less advertising, not more. Please don't let these signs go up.

With thanks for your time,

-Andrew

We'll see what happens, I suppose....

a Good Thing about Education in Ontario

2005-09-09T22:44:00.000-04:00

It seems like the simplest of gestures, but I'm glad that we didn't get tied up in a bureaucratic knot over this.

New Orleansian kids staying in Ontario until their homes are a bit more dry get to go to school here. No fuss, no muss.

Hooray!

More on Venezuela...

2005-09-08T12:36:00.000-04:00

Does Hugo Chavez Have a Lesson for Canada?

a Letter I wrote to the Premier...

2005-09-07T01:39:00.000-04:00

Dear Mr McGuinty,

I am writing in response to an article I read about your government's recent plan to curb Ontario's highschool dropout rate. I would like to express my opposition to this plan. I do not believe that it is inherently problematic that some young people have the wherewithal to opt out of compulsory, systematized "learning".

Further, I fail to see the way in which simply demanding more compulsory "learning" of young people addresses the desire of many young people simply not to take part.

I thoroughly enjoyed my highschool experience, and attended diligently because I did feel engaged by my school life and by my teachers. I, however, respected and continue to respect the decision some of my fellow citizens made to dispose of their time and attentions as pleased and suited them best. (Although there are those who unwillingly leave school as a result of non-scholastic circumstances, I believe these circumstances could be better addressed directly. If school isn't the problem for these people, then it's not what needs fixing.)

If it is the case that we need to "find ways to engage [potential dropouts]", I believe that we should not abandon the idea that school itself could be more engaging. Why would your government surrender its interest in making its education system work? Why can't your government address the needs of these 30% for whom its system does not currently work? Has the government asked these 30% what they need? Could it be the case that some of them would rather enter the workforce at 16? Does your government find these young workers' desire to contribute their skills and taxes to our province unacceptable? Why?

It may be the case that – in your words – "most Ontarians, the overwhelming majority would say it just doesn't make any sense for our kids to drop out at sixteen." An important question – I think – is whether dropping out makes sense to the overwhelming majority of sixteen-year-old dropouts. I realize that sixteen- and seventeen-year-old dropouts are disenfranchised – disallowed as they are from voting in Ontario's provincial elections. I hope that, despite this, your government takes seriously its clear responsibility to represent and address their needs.

I am convinced that a good way to keep people in classrooms (if that's your goal) is to increase the funding and support provided to those classrooms. I distrust any shift of educational responsibility or priority away from the public sphere and towards private and corporate instructors or interests, as seems to be called for in your recently announced programme.

I worry that this plan amounts to little more than a feel-good press release. I would, however, be interested to read anything you could send to me that details your plan more specifically. Please do let me know how your plans for Ontario's young people speak to their needs and concerns.

With thanks for your time and attention,

-Andrew

Education Idiocy

2005-09-07T00:10:00.000-04:00

Something I would not do, if I were in charge...:

What the Government of Ontario is Doing to Avoid Having to Deal with Bigger Problems

the Letter I wrote to the Councillors who voted well...

2005-09-01T17:21:00.000-04:00

Dear Councillors Chow, Giambrone, Mihevc and Moscoe,

I am writing to thank you for representing all Torontonians so well in voting against the installation of video advertising inside TTC subway cars.

I believe you have done what is truly in the public interest. Keep up the good work!

Thanks again,

-Andrew

Hooray for No Screens in the Subway!

2005-09-01T17:16:00.000-04:00

I don't know if you knew that they were considering putting video screens in all of the Subway cars.

Well, you don't have to worry. By a vote of 4 to 3, they decided not to do it.

Hooray!

Here's what the TPSC had to say about it.

A Fine Response from Venezuela

2005-08-25T01:08:00.000-04:00

D'you remember the good old days when wanting to spit at the Prime Minister could send you to prison? (You don't? Here's a refresher).

As we learned this week, the best way to evade the "anti-terror" laws that have sprung up all over the West in the last few years is to a) avoid expressing conditional interest in expectorating on someone in an email sent only to your Member of Parliament, and instead to b) encourage your government to murder an internationally protected person during a television broadcast. (In case you need a catch-up for this one, too...).

Well, Mr Chávez has responded better than anyone could've hoped. (I'll let you read about it on your own). Basically, rather than pout about Mr Robertson's call for his assassination, Chávez has instead put America in an awkward position by offering to provide cheap oil to America's poor. Not only might this make things monetarily more easy for poor Americans, but there will not be a gracious, face-saving way for the States to accept or decline the offer.

Now, I'm not saying that the States (or anyone) needs encouragement to continue to consume fossil fuels. But here's someone who has suffered a personal attack from the American Establishment (I think Pat Robertson qualifies as part of the Establishment...), and who has responded in a way that underlines the problems of that Establishment, while still rising above the pettiness of the whole affair.

I don't know if the above really makes that much sense.... I certainly enjoy Chávez's response, though. I hope you do too.

O, NAFTA!

2005-08-24T12:13:00.000-04:00

This is an article about why we should just get ourselves out of NAFTA. (In case you needed a reason).

the Letter I wrote to the Mayor...

2005-08-24T11:58:00.000-04:00

23 August 2005

Dear Mayor Miller,

I understand you are planning to increase the number of police deployed in our city in response to recent violence.

I am writing to urge you to reconsider this course of action. I would like our money spent building communities of people who do not shoot each other, rather than employing police to chase after shooters.

We have plenty of police. Please do what's good for the long-term.

Yours,

-Andrew

More Police for Fewer Guns?

2005-08-24T03:15:00.000-04:00

Here's an alright article that I read in the "Eye" this week.

Unless the Mayor's plan is to have each citizen paired with a Police Officer at all times, I don't see how deploying 150 more cops will have an affect on whether or not people decide to shoot each other....

Politics Blog

2005-08-19T12:14:00.000-04:00

I've wanted to write about politics ever since I started my first blog, but have always felt that that would be incongruous with my little blurbs about novels and concerts. So I'm starting a whole politics blog. And this is it.

(I'll try to post more often than I do on the other one).