CBC misleading on CAIRS

I have nothing against the way the CBC reports stuff, except what common sense point to as plain wrong. Reporting what you want to say instead of what actually happened is quite an art. However, this piece of reporting takes the biscuit! The title itself is ambiguous, suggesting that the Government has actually SHUT the CAIRS database. The article continues:

The federal Conservatives have quietly killed an access to information registry used by journalists, experts and the public that users say helped hold the government accountable.

Although searching other people's research efforts can help people find documents, I do not see how keeping a database of requests for information is any more transparent than the actual acts allowing access to the information in question.

But did the government actually kill the database? Certainly not!

Last week, a notice to civil servants from Treasury Board stated that effective April 1, "the requirement to update CAIRS is no longer in effect."

What's there remains there. But civil servants will have more time to dedicate to actually serving the public rather than playing around with gimmicks. Of course the CBC distorts reality in its first lines in order to mask the truth.

They interview and quote their own journalist, David McKie, who also runs onlinedemocracy.ca, an information endeavor I actually commend. However, on the website itself the following "limitation" is posted:

Some large departments do not enter all requests which they have received into CAIRS. Consequently you should not assume that this is a comprehensive list of federal ATIA requests.

CAIRS is already incomplete. It will just get less updates, but the information will still be freely available. So why all the fuss?

Now, users mine the database to do statistical studies, fine tune phrasing on new requests and discover obscure documents — often using the information against the government.

What difference does it make for the CBC how the information is used? The info will still be publicly available, the various scandal-hunters will however have to toil a little longer and do a little more research to get their info. Maybe they'll also have time to think whether their story is actually a story.

The CBC should whine less about useless gimmicks and actually push for electronic indexing of all documents that are covered by the Access to Information legislation. And, if they're so concerned, get off their butt and create a database themselves.

No-one truly cares about solving the food crisis

Thailand abandons the nonsensical idea of a South-East Asian rice exporting cartel in favor of stimulating productivity (CBC).

Thai officials had proposed the idea of a cartel earlier this month in an effort to gain more control over skyrocketing rice prices

The day a cartel strives to keep prices LOW pigs will fly. The naivete (or slyness) of the Thai government amazes me. Such a syndicate would only drive producers into bankruptcy (unable to sell at market prices and afford derivative products), hardly a solution to the food crisis.

At the same time, farming subsidies in the US and the Common Agricultural Policy in the EU are still in place and nearly never called into question, the food aid agencies with overpaid employees have to buy the food on a distorted market and so the vicious circle continues. No wonder Senegal's President, Abdoulaya Wade, called on the FAO's abolition (Corriere Della Sera). Headquarters in Rome and the highest-paid employees in the entire UN roster are unmistakable attributes of a body genuinely committed to relieving the suffering of the hungry in Africa and Asia.

South-East Asian governments consider clenching the rice market with an iron fist. The always adamant EU and US pledge aid and whatnot while maintaining a perverse system of pricefixing. The embattled FAO perpetuates the vicious circle. Demand for food genuinely grows worldwide.

Meanwhile leftist anti-poverty anti-WTO anti-capitalist anti-GMO and anti-intelligence protesters deny the African nations (among others) the unmistakeable benefits of Genetically Modified crops that can actually reproduce, forcing those who starve into buying batches of seeds that can grow every year or into the fairtrade delusion. Organic farming, with its gross inefficiency, further steals agricultural land that could be used for producing more food more efficiently.

Who will care for the needy instead of their own backyard, privileges, comforts or sad delusions?

While people starve...

The UN is to get some sort of $1.877 billion repair and makeover on the inside. I wish it were the right "inside" though, and I really wish Reuters made a typo when quoting the figure.

The building housing the Secretariat is to be improved because some nasty stuff has been going on:

It has water dripping through its roof, toxic asbestos lining its ceiling tiles, no sprinklers in case of fire and erratic heating and cooling systems, leading to friction with New York City authorities.

The building epitomizes what's inefficient about the organization. Its decision-making process leaks from a million holes punched by vetos and old-style consensus politics, it has close to no means of intervening in a crisis, the cooling can't cope with the hot air (read: nonsense) the Organization's watchers have to endure and it can't heat up and be ready for action until a disaster is already consummated.

Ban Ki Moon shouldn't be inconvenienced by the "inconvenience" of moving his overpaid staff to some other overpriced NYC space. Having the entire bureaucracy scattered might actually give him some breathing space to reform the blue-clad behemoth he has the onus of heading.

The tough life of a skeptic

The Heartland Institute sent an educational package to over 200 Canadian schools, with material detailing the other side of the global warming debate. Without delving into an analysis of the content (because I haven't seen it), the words of a school teacher, interviewed by the Gazzette, kind of upset me:

"It took me a while to figure out what they were up to," said Eric Betteridge, who teaches at Hillcrest High School in Ottawa.

"I would be concerned because it was well written, and if somebody hadn't been aware of what the general consensus is among climatologists about global warming, you would begin to think, 'Wow, somebody's giving me the wrong story here.' "

Being afraid of losing people's minds unless they had been exposed to your arguments first is an unequivocal sign of weakness. Furthermore, the reference to consensus among climatologists (add an -ology to anything these days and you've got a PhD in it) is eery. Basically students in schools are expected to conform to a consensus of fallible mortal beings just because it's a consensus.

Global warming IS the wrong story. If the world's getting hotter, why does it snow in Baghdad? If this consensus tyranny wasn't enough, the Heartland Institute actually provides the letters schoolkids were encouraged to send to them by their teacher. They make a disturbing read indeed. Heartland's comment is simple:

Particularly troubling about the students’ letters, in light of the principles outlined in the official Science Framework for California Public Schools, Kindergarten through Grade Twelve, by the California State Board of Education (2004), is the children’s utter certainty that they know everything there is to know about global warming, that there is nothing left to learn.

One wrote, “We’ve read article about global warming. And we know all the facts.”

Another said:

“Natural disasters have quadrupled in 20 years, 53 bird species face extinction, World must fix climate in 10 years, Air pollution shrinks fetus size. THIS IS CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING!!!”

'Nuf said!

Bill C-10 should have more balls!

Bill C-10 is to be a confidence issue, and sure as sunshine leftie film industry pressure will not be sufficient to grow the right attributes on Stephane Dion that'd make him vote the bill down. But C-10 doesn't go far enough.

I've seen my fair share of great classics and utter crap films. If you've watched Antonioni's "Zabriskie Point" you know what I mean by boring crap. Non-boring but utterly useless crap is epitomized in the latest "Rambo". But let's remain on topic.

The argument that Canadian film-making is mostly independent and thus dependent (oops) on government funding may well be correct. Comparing Bill C-10 to censorship is, however, wrong. Independent creative expression frequently has the task of provoking, challenging, questioning current lines of thought and current boundaries, including decency boundaries. How is a government supposed to discern between what's acceptable and what's not? Why, furthermore, should the government use its coffers to subsidize what's plainly not in its mandate? If the people wanted provocation and challenges they'd elect anyone BUT an incrementalist Tory.

Perks for film-making should be scrapped altogether. The evolution of thought and perception have no place in a Government's portfolio; its course should be left for the people themselves to decide. Whatever you're filming, if it's good someone will see the opportunity and finance it. This would further encourage independent directors to explore topics that actually appeal to the public or are likely to generate elevated interest. With a private source of finance the director will find not only a moneybag but also a fervent promoter of the movie (he will want to make money!). Where's the trouble?

Independent film-makers should cherish bill C-10 because it cuts into the interests of the great production industries, who have for too long relied on cheap and superficial effects and contents to provide us with dumb movies good only for pizza-and-beer communal procrastination.

New Labour's Britain

Where government peeks into the bedroom and regulates your fetishes.

I borrow the smalldeadanimals style to bring another bit of nonsense from across the pond. New legislation is about to be enacted criminalizing out-of-the-ordinary porn, because it is supposedly encouraging everyone who views it to commit the same violent acts depicted in it. The source is the BBC (here).

The tragic death of Jane Longhurst, murdered by a killer who frequently visited sites depicting rape and violent action, is being strumentalized by her mother to force ambiguous and dangerously vague legislation in a Parliament controlled by a meddling Labour Party.

But the government has sought to broaden the definition and the bill includes phrases such as "an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life".

So if it looks like it could hurt, it's banned. I am against violence in all its forms, and personally find the kind of porn this bill seeks to tackle very distasteful. However Mrs Longhurst is barking up the wrong tree.

The duty of government is to protect rights and educate about responsibility. It is our duty as free citizens to respect the rights of others, including their right to physical and emotional integrity. Whatever one gets turned on by is no concern of the State, what's important is this person not infringing someone else's right to own their body.

What does this new provision do? It deals with a distasteful kind of pornography very vaguely, in typical New Labour spirit of leaving the courts and human rights interpretations to sort out the mess. It does nothing to prevent the emergence of psychotic killers like the one who took Jane Longhurst's life. Nothing is done to educate people about rights and responsibilities, nothing is done to promote respect for the other, nothing is done to speed up the justice system and improve investigation techniques and tools.

This bill is nothing but hot air that will end up scalding all Britons who happen to be turned on by unconventional sexual imagery, not necessarily the result of abuse. Violence is violence, and there's enough laws to deal with it. If someone is abused jail the abuser, don't prowl people's bedrooms and sexual habits. Dealing with consequences instead of causes is a propaganda stunt that does nothing to improve your country.

To those who fear the legislation might criminalise people who use violent pornography as a harmless sex aid, she [Mrs Longhurst] responds with a blunt "hard luck".

"There is no reason for this stuff. I can't see why people need to see it. People say what about our human rights but where are Jane's human rights?"

She's right about Jane's human rights. Her right to be free from harm was violated by a sick madman. Where does everyone else come into the picture? Engaging in a useless crusade will only drive those who get aroused by violence even more underground, further from the eye of those who could send a danger signal such as doctors, counsellors and investigators. Isn't that going to worsen the situation?

I wonder why human beings always want to point the finger at something intangible and general, and refuse to dig deeper into the causes of these disturbing acts. They focus on what's flashy. Remember: if the explanation is too simple, it's wrong.

Failure of US abstinence programmes exposed

When it comes to sex and education about it, a veil of stupidity and hypocrisy seems to descend upon those in charge, especially in some parts of the US. Although it is no different from most political people around the globe, in this case we are talking about influencable minds that may be driven to wrong conclusions and wrong lines of thought.

The BBC in this report shows some of the shortcomings of US abstinence programmes in schools, and how enthusiasm for them is waning.

At least 17 states have opted out of the system and others have suspended funding while Congress investigates whether such programmes work.

Congress would better spend their time fixing the economy and removing some draconian legislation (eg laws forbidding inter-state health insurance purchases). Put young healthy people of both genders together for over a decade in the restricted space of the school and sooner or later some of them will have sex, some will decide not to and some will want to but won't find the right person. If I were to be crude no piece of legislation can make a state of arousal go away, so what should be done about it?

Certainly something MUST be done, if this statistic is true:

[...]a report earlier this year from America's leading health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which revealed one in four teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease.

So how does the federal government spend its money? Funding programmes that just hammer in the "don't have sex" message. Thankfully, as the report states, only a quarter of schools teach abstinence, while the rest do some sort of sex education. Still, 25% is twenty-five percent too many.

"This national programme which has wasted $1.5bn (£750m) of tax money is a failure and our teens are paying the price," says Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood."

So is this a rant against teaching abstinence? Not at all. I decry the means, not the ends. I for one believe that teenaged kids shagging themselves silly 24/7 isn't exactly the definition of a free and civilized country. However I am outraged at the deception that is inherent in the kind of abstinence teaching those unfortunate kids are getting. Educators choose to close their eyes and look the other way.

"They don't touch on subjects like sexuality, STDs (sexually transmitted diseases), birth control - it's not allowed because of abstinence-only education. It leaves you on a cliff-hanger - and a lot of teenagers become sexually active in their middle school years."

And if they don't stay quiet and deny you information, they take things in their own hands and lie:

He [Roger Norman] runs an organization called Wonderful Days which does not receive government funding but teaches abstinence as part of the health curriculum in some local schools.

[...] "Self control leads to a happy, joyful life. If we can learn to control the most basic of drives - the sex drive - for good, then we can control drugs, gangs, alcohol and abusive anger."

His lessons promote marriage and virginity - for both partners - as an ideal. They emphasise disease as a consequence of sex before marriage.

His argument seems to be that you can blame all the problems of this world, from abusive behaviour to street gangs to alcoholism on sex. Not stupidity, not lack of education, not deprivation, not poverty, not even lack of social mobility but SEX. As per the last point, last time I checked a ring on your finger didn't protect you from genital warts. Go figure.

Furthermore, his "alumni" display a remarkably skewed view of the whole of humanity, in particular their peers employing their energy in other, dare I say more entertaining ways:

Eighteen-year-old Ashley says she believes teenagers who experiment with sex are laying the foundations for troubled relationships later in life.

"At some point everybody ends up getting married. Everybody wants commitment at some point and nobody likes to be cheated on.

"But a lot of the young people I know who go around have experiences with lots of different people are just preparing themselves for not knowing how to be committed to somebody.

"Once you get into the practice of doing whatever you want, it's hard to change when you're older."

I guess "try before you buy" rarely crosses these kids' minds. Surely enough these programmes do end up persuading SOME people not to have sex:

Sixteen-year-old Josh says he relies on friends to help him stay abstinent.

"I have a lot of close friends and we pretty much agree on the same thing so we keep each other in line most of the time. Yes, it's difficult, but my friends are there and I'm there for them, and it gets easier if you have friends who agree with you."

I do not want to judge those who are guilty of nothing but being led into deception by people they trust (including their parents). What angers me is adults who indoctrinate teenagers into lies and falsehood under the pretence of care, religion or school policy. They further encourage those indoctrinated teenagers to go find new converts, with the added pressure of the advice coming from a peer.

You want to teach abstinence and responsible sexual behavior? Fine, I'll help. Instead of making people loathe themselves for their completely natural and healthy desires teach them the purpose of those same wants. Instead of shutting your eyes teach people about STDs and pregnancy so they know there's always an amount of risk associated with sex.

Teach them also what a great measure of trust is implicitly involved in intimate contact, and how that trust should be earned by both partners. While you're at it, tell 'em sex may be good, but if you have it with a person you really love it's GREAT. Ultimately, considered it can be great, you'd want to find the person you know would make it great, and you'd also want to have your fun unspoilt by an STD. Can't a promise of greater fun work better than scare tactics?

The bottom line is that the scaremongering and false approach adopted so far (by many, not all) isn't working. All it does is impose frustration and promote masturbation.

Image courtesy of ipostr.com.

Why "Lights Out" = "Brains Off"

A terrific piece presented by the Science and Public Policy Institute, debunking the entire idea of a "Lights Out" campaign. Even if we ignored the failure of the initiative, however much the media tries to convince us of the contrary, the lack of efficacy of such PR stunts is before our very eyes. The mathematics of it should give all the tree-huggers and Gorologists a remarkably cold shower:

Danish newspapers - coincidentally in the native country of the story of the Emperor's new clothes - happily quoted the WWF regarding the event's overwhelming success. But the entire savings (assuming people didn't use more energy later in the night to make up for lost time) amounted to just 10 tons of carbon-dioxide - equivalent to just one Dane's annual emissions for a full year.

I happen to agree with the author of the piece (Bjorn Lomborg) that the combined efforts of the enviro-apocalyptics will yield nothing but further determination not to give up our hard-earned electrical appliances, cars and energy-inefficient homes:

As some conservative commentators like to point out, the environmental movement has indeed become a dark force, not metaphorically, but literally. Indeed, urging us to sit in darkness will probably only make us realize how unlikely it is that we will ever be convinced to give up the advantages of fossil fuels.

I believe in climate change, because I see that something is going on. Winters seem to come later and leave later, Moscow used to have -20 C on New Year's Eve and now single-digit negative temperatures seem to be the norm, while other places seem to be getting colder and it snows in Baghdad. I am no climate scientist to realize something is changing. I do not believe, however, that there's a one-encompassing universal explanation to all these changes. Furthermore I cannot reasonably believe that a half-baked presidential loser can champion an argument of such excruciating complexity AND make a movie about it.

If more people encouraged us to sit down, do the math and actually act in our own self-interest (save on energy bills and gas, for example) we might make progress. If it helps the planet, the better. Meanwhile, we'll have more money in our pocket with which to buy Al Gore's movie. Or a good pint, if you're me.

China recalls death cargo, and how responsible markets could have prevented the stalemate

After days of stalemate China has finally backed down and recalled its weapons shipment to Zimbabwe. The story is fetched from the English edition of Al-Jazeera.

Kudos to the dockers trade unions in South Africa for refusing to unload the crates of oppression that Mugabe so fondly wanted. However regular that shipment may have been on paper, the use to which it would be put was so outrageously clear no-one selling those weapons could expect his hands to be clean of innocent Zimbabwean blood.

Commenting on the shipment at a regular foreign ministry press briefing in Beijing, spokeswoman Jiang Yu said the decision had been taken by the Chinese company involved to recall the vessel.

She said the shipment was completely legal and fell within the established norms of international trade.

"In the field of conventional weapons, we have trade relations with some countries. These are consistent with our laws and with Security Council resolutions and China's international obligations," Jiang said.

"We have been very responsible and cautious with regards to weapons exports."

I can say nothing with respect to the obligations, norms and agreements. What amazes me is that someone would actually decide to take an order from a butcher AFTER an election he was clearly losing. Chinese weapons enterprises seem to combine blindness and the most wicked business spirit in a very efficient manner, making the phrase "business is business" sound eerily disturbing.

I may be accused of double standards. On one hand we have the manufacturer's duty to turn a profit (i.e. sell to whoever buys) and the blindness of the free market. On the other we have the concern for the life of innocent Zimbabweans and the clear indication of a butcher's desire to cling to power at any cost. I wish to analyze this situation in the light of a market failure due to the west's inaction and a lack of market transparency.

Mugabe should have been expected to order more firepower, since his own people were turning against him en masse. A transparent international weapons market would have recorded the assassin's bid for weapons and China's willingness to supply them. All the concerned West should have done then (to put their money where their mouth is) was outbid Zimbabwe for any weapons shipment they laid their eyes on.

The end result could have been the impossibility for Zimbabwe to bid against the economic might of the West (unless some rich thug was willing to buy the weapons for Zimbabwe), a weapons supply shortage causing a rise in prices thereby bankrupting many paramilitary organizations or thuggish governments relying on cheap armaments. A weapons stock exchange maybe, like the system we use for oil supplies?

Although I recognize this is no long-term solution, the market does hold a temporary answer to such crises. In the long-term we should all strive for thugs not to be elected to government in the first place and for democratic means to be the sole way of settling issues of government and representation.

Just a hope for now.

What contempt they hold us in!

I feel for Torontonians, caught up in the midst of a fight none of them ever had fault in provoking. The recent actions by the TTC unions trascends the shocking, let alone the wrong.

The CBC, who I'd expect to attempt distortions of reporting in favor of the unions reported, instead, the exact actions and the exact words of the union leaders. Wildcat strikes are an affront to common sense and general sense of duty, but justifying a surprise walkout with these words is frightening:

Union leader Bob Kinnear said giving longer notice would expose workers "to the dangers of assaults from angry and irrational members of the public."

"We have a legal responsibility to protect the safety of our members, and so does the TTC," he said.

Personally I feel offended, as a member of the public, that someone else deems me irrational and angry because a service I would come to expect if I lived in Toronto is suddenly denied to me without any warning. Be I on a date, on business, on a pub crawl or any other activity requiring transport the trade unions would leave me stranded and defenceless. It wouldn't help if I were drunk or broke either when the subway doors were suddenly slammed in my face.

The public is rational, and them getting angry is a legitimate reaction to the strikers' outrageous behavior. Needless to say violence is out of the question, so Mr Kinnear assuming those angels of his constituents would be attacked by angry hoards of assatanated passengers is further proof of the deep and utter contempt in which trade unions hold those outside them.

Throughout many countries trade unions have morphed from defenders of the dignity of labour to the last bastions of privilege and defence against competition and fairness. Whether they may have a point or not (they might well have), the Toronto Transit workers have no right to hold the whole city hostage. Their latest actions deprive their cause of any residual legitimacy they might have had, and immediate mass dismissal would be the mildest reprisal for their acts.

During the London Underground strike that forced the city into a standstill there was a campaign for all shops and enterprises to deny service to the transport union leader for making everyone's life so miserable. Torontonians should do the same too.

Make a sign like the one at the top and place it on the front door of their shop, pub, restaurant, anything. Just to show Bob Kinnear what an angry public can do to make his life as miserable as he makes theirs.