Archive for the 'Rants' Category

I heard several news reports regarding some study performed recently on Canadian attitudes towards immigrants.  The conclusion was that Canadians are less tolerant than we used to be, and several of the news reports said we are “more racist”.  They then cited such things as requiring Moslem women to reveal their faces for ID purposes when voting, and referenced our vaunted “cultural mosaic” political mantra.

Like a lot of good ideas, the “cultural mosaic” or “multiculturalism” has flaws when interpreted to extreme ends.  Some people, including some immigrants, believe that Canada’s cultural mosaic (versus the American “melting pot” mantra) means that they can transplant all of their personal beliefs and cultural standards to Canada wholesale, and Canadians will gladly accept them.

So if you come from a culture where the appropriate way to express your dissatisfaction with your wife’s behavior is to beat her with a steel rod, that’s fine.  If men are absolute rulers, and women are considered chattel, that’s perfectly acceptable in Canada.  If “divorce” of your wife means pouring gasoline on her and lighting her on fire where you come from, that’s okay too.  If your religion has hated, tortured, and killed members of another religion for generations, that’s welcome in Canada as well.  If your former homeland has fought a guerilla war with another land for decades, feel free to bring your hatred and fear here to Canada too. 

Maybe that’s the way original crafters of the multiculturalism policy were thinking, but I don’t believe so.  To my way of thinking, to be a Canadian you must accept certain values and agree to abide by our laws.   Tolerance of cultural differences is all well and good, but that tolerance stops when those differences violate Canadian laws and basic principles of behavior.  If the law says I need to wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle, then belonging to a certain religion or culture shouldn’t exclude me from adherence to that law.  If carrying weapons is unacceptable in some areas, then having a particular faith shouldn’t get me a pass. 

Canadian tolerance says that we should attempt to make some accommodations to support one another’s differences.  For example, allowing veiled women to vote by providing them some alternate way to identify themselves is being “tolerant”.  Removing unnecessary (I.E.: no practical purpose) headwear rules from organizations so that other cultures can participate is “tolerant”.

But if believing that “cultural” practices of violence, oppression, and hatred are unacceptable in my Country regardless of the individuals skin colour, country of origin, or religion is “racist”…then count me as a racist.

I want a fully electric car.  One that can go 200 km at highway speeds on an over-night charge.  I might accept a chargeable hybrid: one that has sufficient battery capacity to go 100 km or so on a full charge before the gas engine kicks in.

I have decided I don’t want a hydrogen fuel cell car.  I thought fuel cells were a good idea a few years ago.   But now hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are just another way for the oil companies to sell really expensive processed oil.

Batteries, hydrogen fuel cells, gasoline: they are all different ways to make energy mobile for consumption in a vehicle.  Hydrogen *could* be produced without oil, but it won’t be: the fuel oil companies will see to that.  Electricity, however, already has a lot of centralized methods of production that are much more efficient than processing and burning gasoline and hydrogen.   Even coal, the dirtiest of the electricity generating options, can be made more efficient than burning gasoline, and far cheaper than any petroleum based hydrogen will ever be.  The only problem today is how best to store electricity in the car in an efficient manner.

Hydrogen powered vehicles have the same basic problem as electric ones: efficient energy storage.  Hydrogen gas is tough to compress and store in a way that will give the same kind of range as gasoline.  But the advantage to electric vehicles is that they have the *potential* to remove oil from the equation entirely.  And regardless, producing the electricity directly is about three times more efficient then producing hydrogen to put in a fuel cell vehicle which then produces electricity. 

Modern batteries are *almost* good enough for my 200 km range that I’ve noted above.  A vehicle based around such batteries could be built today for about $100,000.  You can order one today, if you want: the technology exists right  now.  Fuel cell vehicles are still hard pressed with current technology to achieve the same range…and the best available today would cost more like $1,000,000.   The industry experts say that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are probably at least 30 years from being practical. 

What prompted this rant?  I just finished watching Who Killed the Electric Car, a documentary mostly about the death of the GM EV-1.  Ten years ago, there was already a fully electric car with a growing support infrastructure available in the United States.  That car was lease only, and when the leases expired GM took every one back.  They then systematically erased all evidence that the car had ever existed, going so far as to destroy every returned car.  Once the cars were all destroyed, GM fought tooth and nail to overthrow the Zero Emissions laws in California.  The final nail in the coffin was when the U.S. Federal Government took California to court to erase their ZEV laws for good.  George Bush and his oil-company crony enriched administration saw to that.

I strongly recommend taking the time to watch Who Killed the Electric Car if you see it in your TV schedule.  It isn’t fun or exciting…but it is thought provoking. 

My previous post was angry, and looked at the worst aspects of the human animal and how some can sink to levels that might drive me to violence against them.  I find it really difficult to soften my feelings towards the two teenagers involved.

But humans can be kind as well.  The stray kitten (who has been named Adam) I was talking about is receiving a lot of love and care, and actually stands a good chance now of surviving.  There is even a video of Adam including one of the nurses involved in his care.  Tina, the Nurse, says she has chosen to keep her thoughts on the kindness of people who have come together to help him.  Bear in mind that the video was taken about a month after Adam was set on fire by the teenage girls.  Several other cats in the same cages are still missing.

I’ll do my best to adopt Tina’s frame of thinking as well.  But it is hard not to wish for a few gallons of napalm and a little free access to the prison cell where the teenage girls who did this are being held.

Update: Adam is being treated at/by the Forgotten Felines of Sonoma County organization.  You can visit their website to see updates regarding Adam.  His next major surgery is on July 24th.

Two darling teenage girls out for a walk saw a stack of cages containing feral cats.  As a light hearted lark, they poured lighter fluid on one and set it on fire, laughing at their uproarious hi-jinx.

If I met these two twisted little delinquents while carrying a gun, they’d be dead.  If I had a can of gasoline, I’d light them on fire myself, then track down their parents and see how they burned.

Am I serious?  I guess I’m exaggerating a little.  Not much, though.  Unlike a lot of humans, if I had to make a choice between saving a miscellaneous stranger’s child and saving a cat or dog, I’m not completely sure which I’d choose.  I don’t particularly believe that humans are supreme: my own family and friends, yes, but other humans?  Moreso than the other creatures we share the world with?  Perhaps not.

Definitely  not in the case of at least two 15 year olds who will almost certainly receive little more than a smack on the wrist.  Then they’ll go off to breed and raise more mouth breathing, crap for brains humans incapable of either compassion or complex thought.  God save us from their offspring.

As a Canadian, I suffer from every little twitch our American friends make.  And as I see more and more evidence of the devolution of that once free (if somewhat arrogant) nation into fear-crippled police state, I feel I have cause to worry.

When I was a teenager I heard stories about the Soviet Union and how the military and KGB would seize your camera or arrest you for taking photos in many public areas.  Apparently the Americans think this was such a good idea that they are implementing the same measures in droves. 

Ordinary tourists are being apprehended for having “professional looking” cameras and taking pictures of things like fountains, streets, or parks…I can just imagine how fun that would make my vacation.  I like bridges, and I’ve taken photos of several American bridges in the past: I imagine the next time I do this I’ll have my camera confiscated and be introduced to some fine American “hospitality”.

I suppose that there is at least some hope: the “radicals” on Slashdot have largely reacted to this kind of thing the same way I do.  And most Slashdotters are American, I guess.  Although by Department of Homeland Security standards, they are probably not “right thinking Americans”. 

Update: I found this transcript of a 2002 speech by U.S. Congressman Ron Paul.  I have no idea who this fellow is or what his overall perspective might be, but at least on the topic of the erosion of personal liberty in the United States he gives me hope for the Americans.

I hear you’ve been under a lot of pressure lately.  It’s tough trying to look like you can do something to actually solve the terrorist problem.  Especially since anyone can be a terrorist: white guys, Asian guys, or maybe Islamic guys.   Heck, you need a big list to keep track of whose who, and you need to update it daily…

But I have to tell you something…you know, for your own good and all.  You see, many of the things you are doing are, well, pretty stupid.  And forcing everyone to carry passports to go to and from countries you used to have open borders with…well, that’s really right near the top of the stupid list. 

You remember that one time when your country was struck by evil?  Remember that time?  I’m sure you do: how could you forget?  My heart broke for your people that day- the horror of it.  Well, those guys who did that…they all had perfectly valid passports and travel visas.  The people who want to hurt you can get those kinds of papers.  They aren’t stupid.  They’ll recruit people who are already American citizens…and I doubt they’ll find it that difficult to find crazies within your own borders.

And the rights and freedom’s you supposedly treasure? Yeah, those things in that beautiful constitution you have under glass there?  Well, it’s starting to look to me like what you’ve got now is becoming a police state.  Folks who visit you will have to register their day to day travel plans…how long will it be before you follow them around just to “make sure”?  And since that’s expensive, you’ll probably recruit ordinary citizens to keep an eye open for you…you know, to watch their neighbors to see who is visiting, to observe any unusual behavior.  Not spying, oh no!  No, just protecting good Americans from the terrorist threat.  Enemies in your midst and all that.  And you know all those foreigners…none of them have true American values, so you really have to watch those types.

Remember how your government and citizens used to make snide and sarcastic comments about the bad old Soviet Union…about how they trampled the rights and freedoms of their citizens and so forth?  Remember how you used to go on and on about how those Soviets needed papers to go from place to place, or to leave the country?  Could it be, just maybe, that those oppressive commie bastards were scared, fearful of foreigners in their midst, afraid of the massive ground forces and nuclear missile arrays mere miles across their borders?    Fear makes people do some pretty crazy things. 

Sound familiar at all?  Here’s my advice: you can’t live in fear.  You can take some precautions, be more observant, pay more attention to signs that the bad guys are massing, and take that seriously.  But all this stuff about not letting folks carry nail clippers on planes, or requiring passports for everyone crossing your borders: everyone knows this is a waste of time.  Worse yet, it is playing directly to the fears of the ignorant. 

Hope everyone there is fine, things are great here. 

Sincerely Yours,

Me

A judge in Washington, DC, is apparently very easily stressed out.  His life was ruined when a pair of pants he dropped off at the dry cleaners were lost.  And the terrible mental trauma this has inflicted upon him is worth a mere $54 million dollars.  He initially sued the ordinary working class owners of the dry cleaning shop for $67 million, but apparently concluded that he could shave $13 million off of that since the pants were used.

Those must be some really special pants, I guess.  Either that, or Judge Roy Pearson is a scum sucking, ambulance chasing, bill-padding lawyer who should be dragged out back, have honey poured over his body, and be staked out on an ant hill.  The fact that his case is undoubtedly costing the tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars, to say nothing of likely bankrupting the owners of the dry cleaning shop, appears to have flown right over His Honour’s head. 

On the plus side, if Judge Pearson is ever charged with murder he should have no trouble whatsoever getting a reduced sentence due to mental defect.  All he has to do is draw attention to this lawsuit.  The really sad thing, of course, is the fact that the Chungs have probably already been strongly advised to settle with him for a half million dollars or so just to save money.  They’ve already tried to settle for as much as $12,000, but that’s only about two days of lawyer-time. 

I’ve heard that bullets are available for about 10 cents a piece at Walmart…*

*This is purely informational.  I do not in any way condone shopping at Walmart

Update: the judge in this suit has ruled in favour of the defendants (I.E.: the dry cleaners).  I wouldn’t exactly call this a victory for justice.  The judge *should* have offered an opinion on how incredibly unreasonable the demands were, how inappropriate and unbecoming it was for an officer of the court to pursue such unreasonable claims,  and perhaps charged the plaintiff (another judge) for wasting the court’s time.

[tags]stupidity, lawyers, judges, pants, criminal, moron, bastard, ass[/tags]

I found the following today during my usual morning coffee + web browsing session:

Wayne Crookes, a former campaign manager of the Green Party of Canada, said he “suffered an immense amount of frustration and emotional distress” over postings on Google’s Blogspot.com, a free blog-hosting website, within an entry under his name in Wikipedia, and on openpolitics.ca, an interactive political forum set up by Michael Pilling, an Ontario and federal Green Party activist.

Source: globeandmail.com: Internet hosts should be made to pay for libellous statements…

Mr. Crooke is, by my reading of it, basically frustrated and upset that anonymous people have been able to post defamatory (and presumably untrue) statements about him.  Since he can’t find the anonymous people to sue (and since they probably don’t have any money anyway), he’s suing the various service providers who hosted their content.

The world wide web is founded on the premise of free speech.  I can say whatever I want, and if you don’t like what I say you can post your own opposing opinion somewhere else.  If I libel you in a legal sense, you can in theory send your lawyers after me…if you can figure out who I am.  But anonymity is also pretty well established on the Internet.  So that leaves  suing the Internet service providers.

But validating opinions and determinations of “fact” versus “fiction” are decidedly *not* something the ISPs are equipped to deal with.  Doing so would mean having full time legal teams working around the clock to review tens of thousands of posts: basically, it is totally inconceivable.  And thus far, the courts have been pretty clear in their interpretation that free speech on the Internet is reasonably well protected.

In contrast, service providers like Google, or your local ISP, can and do respond to relatively clearly defined copyright violation notices.  If you hold copy rights on something and I post something on the Internet using it, you can probably get it taken down very quickly by contacting whomever is hosting the content.  These takedowns proceed without any real confirmation of actual copyright violation.  The ISPs take the content down defensively, because right or wrong, proving copyright violation in court is expensive.  And copyright issues have been clearly defined in court and in law, in the U.S. at least, via the DMCA. 

Lawsuits like the ones being launched by Mr. Crooke that target ISPs for libel regarding content posted by their clients should send a chill through anyone who likes to think of the Internet as a true bastion of free speech.  I’m not saying that libeling someone should be “protected”, but I think we and our legal system should definitely err on the side of permitting free discourse of opinions. 

If, for example, a significant collection of case history was established showing that suing ISPs to take down “libellous” content was a successful strategy, I can guarantee that ISPs would start taking down content the same way they do for DMCA complaints.  That is, before the complaint has been proven by law.  So, if you said something I disagree with, I could send a letter to your ISP and poof- your thoughts would be gone from the Internet.  If I was simply a jerk who didn’t like you I could do the same, and poof- your rights disappear because of the fear of litigation.

I sincerely hope that Mr. Crooke’s legal motions get tossed out of court with extreme prejudice.  Not because I support libel or dislike Mr. Crooke (I have no idea who he is, and know absolutely nothing regarding what it is he’s upset about), but because I know how damaging a successful result for such a case could be.   He and people like him are living in a happy fairy-land where somehow ISPs can determine instantaneously the difference between a legally protected opinion and a piece of libellous trash.  Either that, or he and his legal team don’t give a flying fig about the rights of everyone to express their opinion.

In short, my opinion is this: people like Mr. Crooke and his entire legal team should be required, by law, to read and agree to an Internet usage license before they launch a browser.  The Internet is a scary place, full of personal opinion dressed up as fact, despicable thoughts and images, and dangerous scams intended to trick you.  It is also full of useful and wonderful things: it is up to the user to figure out the difference, and no one will babysit you.  If you don’t “get” this, you should be permanently banned from use of the service.  Good day and good riddance.