Nothing interesting to report, except for these few links I found this week:
1) From the New Yorker: "Why Intelligent Design Isn't"
2) Innovation Canada, a Canadaian online magazine about science and technology
3) Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria
Liverpool Champions!
Originally uploaded by blackhole.
Courtesy Reuters
No Words. Just Victory.
In what is arguably one of the greatest comebacks in European Football, Liverpool FC defeated AC Milan 3-2 in penalty shootouts to become this year's Champions League Winners.
What made the match a comeback was that AC Milan was up 3-0 at the half with almost everybody wrote Liverpool off, considering AC Milan was playing some fantastic football. But Liverpool changed forms completely, adopting AC's quick passing game with very few lobs or long balls in the first 15 minutes of the second half. Within 6 minutes leading up to 60 minutes, Liverpool scored 3 goals (1 on a likely controversial penalty kick) to tie it up. Liverpool's goalkeeper Dudek made what some outstanding saves to keep the team in the game...
I haven't watched such an exciting Champions League final since Man United defeated Bayern Munich in injury time to win the trophy. This definitely tops it.
If Cam doesn't blog about this, I'll be sorely disappointed.
As I said below, the Conservatives are PISSED as you can see HERE, for example. But here's my question:
Stronach said that she "didn't believe the party leader's (HARPER) truly senstive to the needs of each part of the country and just how big and complex Canada really is." When did that translate to mean ALL conservatives, as some of the commenters on the Small Dead Animals post seem to be implying?
Ever since I read on Bourque that Belinda Stronach, Conservative MP for Newmarket-Aurora decided to cross the floor and join the Liberal (and become Minister of Human Resources, no less) while at work, I've been itching to post.
Most of the Canadian bloggers on my blogroll (which is not comprehensive, but they'll lead you to others) will have one post or another on this topic, so check them out too. But this has caused quitea stir in actual Canadian space and in the Canadian blogosphere. All Conservatives are pissed and the Liberals are getting drunk with giddiness. So time to put on my peanut-gallery pundit hat:
1) Playing with numbers, the vote is now 152-151 against the government sans the Independents. Carolyn Parrish has stated she'll vote with the budget, and media reports indicate Kilgour's leaning against, leaving the Cons-Bloc one up. That leaves Chuck Cadman, who may be undergoing treatment this week and may or may not be at the House of Commons to vote. If he's there, he's the 'gov-maker', I guess, as his vote for the budget ties up the House (with the Speaker voting with the gov't) and against defeats it. If he's not there, the budget's still defeated. To throw in another monkeywrench, two Nfld Conservative MPs still aren't sure how they're going to vote as their constituents want the Atlantic Accord to go through. But assuming they toe the party line, it's going to be a photo finish.
2) Was Belinda's move opportunistic? Harper seems to think so. I'm not so sure. Definitely, her defection smells of something. If she's actually doing this out of her principles, as she said, why defect so close to the vote? Why not earlier? It's a huge gamble, especially for such a high-profile rookie MP. While the cabinet position reward was definitely a gift, the defeat of the budget would make her the shortest serving cabinet minister EVER. But the thing is, if she had stayed with the Conservatives and won the next election, she would've been guaranteed a cabinet position, so why risk it? No, something doesn't feel right at all. It seems like she knows something that none of us do.
3) How will this play out in Newmarket-Aurora? Since '93, both York Simcoe/York North (Newmarket) and Vaughn-King-Aurora have gone to the Liberals in the Federal government so this crossing the floor won't change much as a 'small-L' liberal. However, I don't think constituents enjoy their members of government crossing the floor, so it'll be interesting to see in the next election whether they're voting for the member or voting for the party.
4) Some have called this as another of PM Martin's desperation tactics. But it was Belinda who approached the Liberals, not the other way around. And I don't think any party leader would refuse to accept an opponent crossing the floor.
5) If Martin survives this debacle, will all the pundits agree that there's confidence in the House again and allow the government to do their thing until the Gomery report actually bury the Liberals?
6) If Martin does survive, he better do something phenomenal, like oh, I don't know, actually lead and run a government and implement policies. He'd have been given half a year. DO SOMETHING. Otherwise they will crash and burn Kim Campbell-style, which would worsen the country moreso.
7) Finally, I wanna give a big shout out to the gossip columnist who asked about the effect this will have on her relationship with Peter Mackay. Idiot. Like it's any of our business. Please turn in your press card, you're being kicked out of the club.
I had one of those days where a lot of interesting stories and websites and I couldn't post about them individually. I don't know if I remember all of them because Blogger was so kind enough to delete my post. So here goes nothing:
It is confirmed that Malcolm Glazer, the millionaire owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers have bought controlling shares of Manchester United, the famed UK football club. Reactions so far are on the opposite side of good. Fans are uber-pissed and are worried about ticket and merchandise prices increase, the possible offloading of Glazer's 300 million pounds of debt (evidently borrowed to leverage the bid in the first place...currently, ManU itself is debt-free somehow) onto the club and a general distrustfulness that since Glazer probably has never seen a proper game of football in his life, he'll probably run the club into the ground and become the anti-Abramovich.
The media's coverage has an underlying tone of "the American Maverick" taking over a prim and proper of a club, albeit a fantastically rich, celebrated and well known one. So, it's not the most objective of sources. As an ex-United fan, this takeover has the smell of the transaction of shares being good for business, but not necessarily for the club itself. The Glazers' have yet to give details as to their plans for ManU, a big reason for the skepticism. Apparently, details will be given out in the next few days by one son, Joel, who is a huge follower (supposedly).
I'd rather like to hear my football friends' reaction to this, who follow English Premiership football more than I...
1) As the BC provincial elections are heating up, CBC produced a story on the BC Green Party and the aspirations of its leader, Adrianne Carr, to be the first Green Party member to be elected into a legislature in Canada. While it was mainly a fluff piece, they guaged BC voters on their willingness to vote Green. One particular person emphasized his 'love' of the environment but was concerned about the 'economic reality' of the way we live.
If there's one thing I'd like any 'green' movement/party to hammer to voters, it's that the environment and the economy are one and the same, especially in Canada since we're a resource-based economy. The movement needs to raise more environmental economists and push the idea and the policy that economics, like health, industry, etc, are tied in one way or another to the natural environment that we live in. The societal view that the environment and economics are separate issues because they're handled by different ministries needs to b changed.
One method that may become useful is the valuation of environmental services. Last week, the Economist's cover story discussed 'ways' to 'rescue' environmentalism, mainly a discussion of environmental economics. While I disagree with some of their points, I see the usefulness of valuation. It would provide more tangent arguments to people to convince them that different natural features are worth protecting, even enhancing. People understand numbers better than aesthetic arguments like 'intrinsic value.' Studies have shown, for example, how wetlands provide better and cheaper water filtration services than treatment plants. Edmund Fowler, in his book, "Cities, Culture and Granite," contend that insurance companies are getting involved in climate change issues because of the associated risks in the uncertain effects it would have on natural disaster frequencies and the effect on insurance rates and premiums. Why not extend that into other areas of the environment, like conservation strategies for water consumption vs. importing water or desalinization?
It's time we stop being afraid that valuation will allow economists or business to gobble up the environment. Considering environmental issues are usually considered 'externalities' in economics anyways and therefore not factored in at all, at least valuation will internalize the costs involved in using nature. That, and I think that almost all valuation will show that natural processes will always be cheaper than human intervention.
A good place to start is the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Comprehensive and global in scope.
2) My other thought involves Hansen et. al's work in Science on April 28, 2005. (Note: As I'm writing this, I just found the full article since the Science website requires a subscription so I haven't had a chance to read it over, but now you all can) One of the authors of the paper has posted on RealClimate, which will provide a better explanation than I ever could. What I want to point out is this. Climate change detractors and commentators (like our bright but inaccurate friend HERE from the Queen's Journal) LOVE, and I mean LOVE, to cite James Hansen's apprehension about the issue of climate change. Unfortunately, they always take his work out of context (I should know, I've previously written one op-ed to the Journal around the time Kyoto was being ratified by Chretien and someone tried to pull out Hansen as an argument).
For those who don't know, James Hansen is a climatologist who testified before a US Senate committee about climate change. If anyone bothered to read the bloody testimony, you'd find that he finds that climate change is occurring, that human induced forcings are one of the major contributors. What he does acknowledge, like any good scientist, is the existence of uncertainties. Now, with other scientists, he's published another paper (hopefully in print soon) confirming how his models are not only corroborated by measurements, but they show that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. You don't have to take my word, his material's linked in this post.
So, if anyone ever tells you that James Hansen doesn't believe that climate change is occurring, please either direct them to the Senate testimony or his new paper. Hell, direct them to this post. As for me, I think our friend from the Journal's op-ed's is gonna get a nice May 24 present in the form of Hansen's paper...
First the Atlantic Accord, then Saskatchewan and the 5 billion dollar deal with Jack Layton, now comes another 5 billion dollar handshake between Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Prime Minister Paul Martin.
Seriously, if PM Martin had this much money to spend, why didn't he commit these funds in the budget in the first place. Show some guts, some principles, anything! Now all it shows is that if you want him to pony up cash for whatever project you have, all you have to do is bitch, complain and threaten to seccede from Confederation.
Hmm, come to think of it, I need some cash for my tuition next year. I wonder if I can annex my apartment like in Family Guy...
"I claim this 900 sq. ft of carpet in the name of Calvinia!"
Update: May 10, 2005 9:48pm
Evidently, I was incorrect in my rant. Saskatchewan's prairie fields haven't been showered with 5 dollar bills yet. But soon, as there are talks about the premier gearing up to talk with PM Martin. On the other hand, veterans are getting 1-billion dollars to aid in their transition from service to civilian life. This, through an agreement between the four party leaders as they were flying back from V-E day commemoration ceremonies. I've obviously nothing against this package, but merely to note that this is another in a series of massive payouts to various parties as the Liberal government bogs down further into irrelevance (though once you're into irrelevance, there's really no further irrelevance...)
Last post of the day. Blogging is taking up more time than realized. Anyways, here's an interesting article about Microsoft's measured response to Google. Money vs. Innovation. Never count out Mr. Gates, but damn, if Google isn't just absorbing every single feature that doesn't involve Microsoft...yet. I'm waiting for a team-up between say, ESRI and Google to bust out the best WebGIS ever, able to pull geographic data from any municipal, state, or federal website that allows customization into GoogleMaps...I'm wrong often, but that'd be sweet.
Why Google Scares Bill Gates
PM Paul Martin actually had to call a 'truce' so that our government (and other political parties) could be represented at ceremonies commemorating our efforts to liberate the Netherlands, and only after missing most of the week's events. Has politics become so lacking in honour and respect that none of the opposition parties were willing to, on their own accord, let the Liberal government perform its duty in honouring our veterans in the Netherlands by sending representatives (like, I don't know, the PM) without political repercussions? Frankly, reps from all parties should have been there from the get-go. I would have thought, oh, I don't know, that the Canadian public would understand, even appreciate, the parties appealing to something greater than their own political victory, by attending these ceremonies...
I'd think that, but I'd be wrong...or I'd be right but only after being shown how stupid they were by our WWII vets. Brownie points for all the parties.
I don't know what convergence of environmental factors caused the recent mayfly explosion in Kingston, and I would seriously be interested in knowing, but something needs to happen to kill all these sons of bitches. They don't bite so it's not a big problem, but they're seriously irritating. THEY ARE EVERYWHERE. You can not walk one step outside of Kingston without eating one in your mouth or finding one in your ear. It's just gross.
Last week I found a made-for-TV movie flipping through channels about bioengineered locusts attacking the US landscape, eating crops, killing people, etc. so much so that they wanted to use VX gas on them. I think I could totally pitch a movie with mayflies instead. They're already swarming and infesting everywhere as it is (When they start covering a minivan or my front door, it's seriously a problem) and all the plot would need is some extra zinger, like, they carry the West Nile Virus, SARS, or herpes or something as they infest Kingston first and then move across the country...
Yeah, it's probably not my best idea. At best, it'll end up HERE.
Update: May 8, 2005 11:25pm
Mea Culpa: So apparently I've been going around telling everybody about the crazy mayfly infestation when I should've been telling people about the midge infestation. I don't have to hand in my biology degree for that mistake, do I?
The Canadian War Museum, having moved from Sussex Drive to its new location on the LeBreton Flats, will be having its grand opening this weekend May 7-8. Since it deals with how we remember war, it's not without its controversies.
Some veterans, as reported by the CBC, have decided to boycott the opening because it is displaying of two paintings of the two Canadian Airborne Regiment soldiers involved in the 1993 Somolia torturing incident, which they found to be 'trashy and insulting' to the Canadian military heritage. Other veterans have defended the museum's decision as a truthful account of our military's roles since its creation.
While I agree with the Museum's decision to showcase all Canadian military history in its entirety (glories and failures), I do sympathize with those veterans who believe the portraits have no place in the same building as exhibits commemorating the sacrifice of so many young Canadians. That said, it simply reflects the honestly difficult task of how history is written and what actually is written and what is omitted from being written. We are obviously not the only ones dealing with this, as we've recently seen with China and Japan (any news search will give you a compendium of stories about the whitewashing of both their country's history).
What I do want to talk about is the museum itself. I frankly can't wait to visit this building because I'm very much impressed in its design. I saw the exhibits with Katie last year and while the castle/archive house where it was previously was nice, I think a revisit will give me a whole new set of experiences because this building is designed specifically for these exhibits so that it will strengthen them further.
The building is designed so that it blends in with the landscape around as opposed to a standalone building jutting out of the ground. It also basically reminds me of a bunker, which helps to reinforce a person's understanding of what they're looking at. In this case, form and function are not following each other; rather, they are working together to complement each other.
The concept (as described by the architect), is that places, particular natural areas, ravaged by war will adapt, survive and reinvigorate itself. While that certainly is there, it seems that it is also reflective of Canadian society's view of war and the role of the military. Our values have changed such that war and the military isn't as important a focus anymore so much so that it has blended into the background of our thoughts. That's not to say that remembrance isn't important, because it is, and the museum is there to aid in our efforts. It is also coincidentally appropriate that the museum's opening occurs at a time when our government's decrease in international influence has resulted in a major push to re-examine the importance of our military and the efforts required to revitalize it.
Other design elements are well constructed. The interior is cavernous, so as to amplify the sights and sounds of war in each exhibit. The outdoor area serves as event spaces as well as roofing (a green roof, in essence), which will decrease maintenance costs. Multipurpose use of space, what a novel concept that few EVER use. And then, there are the windows into the interior. They were designed so that the initials of the museum (CWM/MCG) are spelt out in morse code. On sunny days, these letters will be projected into the building. Absolutely brilliant in terms of form and function working together again.
There're plenty more design highlights that the architect, Raymond Moriyama, discusses and it's well worth reading. This was just the highlights. I intend to visit it when I head up in May (hint, hint, Matt and Chris). So I say to all you few who read my blog, if you're up in Ottawa at any point in the summer, visit the Canadian War Museum. I guarantee it will be well worth the trip to Acto...err, Ottawa. Really.
