Headline Puzzle #2 -- solution to come in two weeks

FU CSSFVBQECM BFQICPEQG EM EPBX OCUQ QPBSN CJ MRBPOG MEMR WEOOECM KCOOBPU

ELYZIYF MIPM ZGF JYDYZILP OGLMKFFGD EGDYCGS SGIS YF YLIA ODIFG NLIMW

NW SOMU ZY EKAMZBZYR OARKZIB OYRNM MWJKIF

OAHPXOQ LGJLQ AJO VHB NG OJSXD AXD - ICOOXJD LQXHS

YSZKMZKZNL AZW MEHASKZGC ESGIV SKOLKCHMHMSMHLKZG

enjoy...ank

Headline Puzzle rotate:

Solution for puzzle of January 17:

BOMBARDIER GETS FORTY-FIVE MILLION DOLLAR TRAM ORDER

THE SIMPSONS CROSS BORDER INTO MANITOBA

TSX DRIFTS AHEAD OF SLEW OF EARNINGS AND NY CLOSED FOR KING HOLIDAY

INDIAN TRAIN FIRE THAT SPARKED RELIGIOUS RIOTS 'ACCIDENTAL,' PROBE FINDS

NON-PRESCRIPTION CHOLESTEROL-LOWERING DRUG NIXED BY FDA PANEL



SETTING = SLAVE

KEY = EQUALITY

HAT = UNCLE TOM

I don't know if anyone even tried to solve it, but I'll post another one a little later today.

More thoughts on "BC's Citizens Assembly recommends STV for plebiscite"

I'm not so sure now. After talking with friends and ruminating over the idea. A Citizen's Assembly has recommended an STV system for electing our unicameral legislature in BC, the vote to be held with the provincial government election in May. I'm having second thoughts about it. The concerns voiced from the northern representatives, that they wanted to "know their specific MLAs" doesn't wash now that I've thought further about it.

I would be happier if they had recommended a mixed-member-proportional system and I think it could have been done in such a way as to allow the "northerners" to "know their MLA" and more importantly, not to be rendered legislatively irrelevant by the far more populous south. Something along the following lines would have done the trick:

1. Use the current federal riding boundaries as a basis.
2. For ridings larger than some threshold size, split them in half (make the threshold large enough that this only happens for four or five über-rural ridings)
3. Each voter ranks all the "riding" candidates and votes for one list ("proportional").
4. "Riding" candidates are elected through STV as proposed.
5. "List candidates" are sent to Victoria based on popular vote.

I think that would serve all sides better than what is going to be presented to the electorate in May.

The only remaining question is, will eventual "correction" of the system be easier if the current proposal passes now or if it is defeated? The $64,0000,000 question...

To understand all is to forgive all?

Today I understand a bit more why Dubya was so intent on taking Saddam down. I'm reading A Pretext for War (which, by the way, contains a fair bit of overlap with the later material in Body of Secrets) and Bamford's exposition of the plot against Bush Sr. and the rest of the Bush family when they came to Kuwait just after Clinton's inauguration made things a trifle clearer.

I understand now much better why he would be so motivated, and he has my sympathy though not my approval. Until now I was thinking it was no more than a little boy finishing what his Daddy started -- another honourable motive, but not a mature enough one for a national leader. And vengeance on someone who tried to kill your family is, at least in the eyes of most, also an honourable motive. My quibbles with that view aside, I submit that fulfillment of a personal vendetta should not be the animus behind the actions of any national leader.

In short, I can understand his actions, even forgive him as an individual for his actions and their reasons -- as far as that goes, to understand all is to forgive all. Still, I cannot exonerate those actions nor acclaim their reasons as valid.

26,000,000 people should not be made to pay for their tyrant's plans. Perhaps they will be better off in the end without Saddam at the helm. But democracy doesn't come by the barrel of the gun. It's a long slow process, a crop that needs to be sown -- and often re-sown many times -- that originally took centuries: like the time between the Magna Carta and the last time the British monarch over-rode the under-democratic House of Commons (Queen Anne, 18th century) -- that even took half a century with a much higher toll of blood in France. China's odyssey on that road is not yet done (farewell, Zhao, man before your time, such as you are never welcome in your own time).

But what about the post-colonial independence binge? There were some success stories there, but not very many. How many decades will it take before a government that looks democratic from the outside will take root in the Middle East? Military action hasn't brought that date nearer, and that you may tie to.

Someone's thinking clearly!

The Emperor's New Clothes -- The Emperor's New Mind -- now The Emperor's -- er, Pentagon's -- New Map (and sorry, Chapters, but you just didn't list it -- I tried to be a loyal Canadian but you thwarted me, here). The interview with Mr. Barnett on Morning Edition today is quite educational and worth a listen -- follow the first link. I've requested the book from my local library already -- okay, so I'm cheap! :)

Headline puzzle anyone? (I apologize -- the former version was wrong. Sorry, folks, still learning...)

PGYPNALOFA SFXC ZGAXJ-ZODF YOHHOGB LGHHNA XANY GALFA

ZIR HVBFHDCH QGDHH EDGURG VCZD BSCVZDES

UNW GFQTUN ZCPZG RT NSPH RT PZFMQMAN ZMG MV BSRNPG TRF IQMA CRSQGZV

XGYXOG EIOXG QXIH EUOE DCOIZHY IHJXVXKPD IXKED 'OLLXYHGEOJ,' CIKSH QXGYD

TCT-KBMFZBSKVSCT ZACRMFVMBCR-RCGMBSTE QBOE TSDMQ XW YQP KPTMR

Solution to be posted in this space, 31-Jan or so.

Blogger-blogging by e-mail

What a disappointment! I sent some mail to my blogger and the lag-time in getting here completely defeats the purpose of using such a feature. I guess I'll be logging in instead of e-mailing here. I sent a test-post to my blog (now deleted since its content was so VERY pithy -- not) by e-mail on the 10th of January but didn't make it to my blog until this morning, the 14th. Not a very useful feature, I'm afraid. Oh well. I said this blog thing was something I wanted to "test". This time the test failed. sigh...

What is the Meatrix?

Okay, so it's old, but someone posted it past me again and it was worth watching again. Grain of salt not included.

Mostly Political

The longer things go on, the less I trust or like the American administration. Even Mr. Bush's show of grief at the bombing in Mosul rang hollow to me, and I couldn't avoid laughing at the irony of his promise to "finish the mission" in light of his aircraft-carrier-top appearance under the heading, "Mission Accomplished!"

In other news, yesterday I almost wished I was Polish. The initiative shown by one Polish minister to show up and "object" to the fishy but not ichthyological entry in the Fisheries and Agriculture Ministers' session renewed my wobbly faith in the ability of governments of-, by- and for-the-people to stand up to huge well-funded multi-national lobbies. Up with Poland!

The other thing I've found amusing was the opposition by the currently sitting but retiring MLA for my former provincial riding (we've moved since the last election) given to one of the candidates looking to replace her. First some background: governments in BC tend not to win byelections (called when someone must step down, up or aside in mid-term) unless the current government is hugely popular. The current Liberal (just not federal Liberal) government is not.

A byelection in a riding in neighbouring Surrey fell to the NDP, which whether you like the NDP or not is probably a good thing since it increased the opposition benches by 50%. The failed candidate there is gunning for Lynn Stephens (perceived to be) much safer seat. Ms. Stephens recently endorsed all the candidates (eight) seeking to replace her except that one. What reason did she give? "We need a local candidate. There are other ridings in Surrey she can seek nomination in."

Ah, the things that doomed-to-be-short-lived huge majorities bicker about. I chuckled.

BC voters, take note!

The Citizens' Assembly, although its report is not due to be submitted until December, its content is now known: along with Ireland, Malta, New Zealand and Australia, we will be using the Single Transferrable Vote system.

I think it's a good idea. You can read all about it here, and as regards BC specificallly, here.

The Green Party of BC is, surprisingly, against it. Perhaps because it isn't the idea they supported in the first place. I'll have to go back and understand why. Doubtless there is some merit to their ideas, but to oppose it seems anti-democratic (which isn't automatically defined as "wrong") at this point.

STV: Recognize it, Understand it, and I say, "Support it!" but you, do so, only if you think it's the best option for Canada's western outpost.

Disney wants "Broadcast Flag" mandated on all audio/video streams everywhere?

This is like trying to prevent a flood by sticking your finger in a weir.

Lawmakers and regulators everywhere have much better things to do than bringing this one to pass.

"Ms. Sgro, whose rights are you going to take away today?"

Judi Sgro, a member of Paul Martin's newly minted Minority Cabinet, is adding dangerous folly to folly as she builds her governmental record. During the previous election campaign, she debased her former cabinet portfolio to the status of Minister of FUD by appearing at a campaign stop of the current and former Leader of the Opposition, with the sole intent of throwing heckling questions at him designed to raise doubts that he would re-open the abortion debate in Canada.

"Mr. Harper, whose rights are you going to take away today?" she squeaked from the sidelines. Never mind the very real philosophical doubt about when life begins and when a fœtus becomes a human worthy of protection under law — and no matter what side of the political debate you may find yourself on, you must deal with that question one way or the other. To do so flippantly in either direction is offensive. But in this case, it was just a whining innuendo that Mr. Harper would be sure to revoke 25 years of judicial and legislative ambiguity over the heads of any protest, given the chance. An implication that her party would be a better protector of civil society than Mr. Harper's.

But now, as Immigration Minister, she is perfectly willing for the sake of expediency to pressure the churches to relinquish their practice of offering sanctuary as a faint hope to those whose pleas for harbour from nasty countries of origin have met with a rebuff.

In Canada, we like to think of ourselves as a more civil society than that of our southern neighbour but knocking this notion of houses of faith as places of refuge flies in the face of that impression. Such a legal provision of final refuge goes back a long ways, beyond the Middle Ages, back to Græco-Roman times, back even to the ancient Jewish Torah. Perhaps the churches need to temper their offers of refuge once a "final appeal" has been lost as even the "Cities of Refuge" laws demanded. But to ask the churches not to offer themselves as final refuges places our legal system in danger of adopting some of the arbitrarily tyrannical characteristics of pre-Hammurabic law.

This is not a direction we want to go, people. Because even if you're in the majority today, one of your descendants may someday be in an oppressed minority and if you erase the recourse to refuge today, so as to stop the Terrorists! your actions will quite possibly expose your own flesh and blood or that of close friends and neighbours to the overzealous working of the long, strong arm of the law.

The right way forward here may not be that hard: Instead of asking the churches not to supply perpetual safe-harbour, perhaps the right thing would be for the churches to find other 3rd countries that would welcome (and give long-term safe harbour to) these individuals whose plea for refuge in Canada has fallen on deaf ears. But trying to pressure the churches into relinquishing their millenia-old role as the harbour of last resort is not just foolish (as the "heckle Mr. Harper" episode was) but dangerous in the sense that it increases the risk that unjust turns the law might take at the behest of tyrannical majorities would have no limit to their power of exercise.

Stop it, Ms. Sgro. Have none of your own forebears ever needed this safeguard? I cannot believe it. Will you nor any of your descendants never need it yourselves? It seems still more unlikely. You'd probably be hurting yourself if you succeed; but even if you aren't, removing this recourse isn't building up the civil society your anti-Conservative FUD was implicitly promising Canadians that the Liberals would be better at defending.

Bruce Cockburn does it again. From "You've Never Seen Everything", a reminder not to give up:

Don't Forget About Delight

Amid the rumours and the expectations
And all the stories dreamt and lived
Amid the clangour and the dislocation
Of things to fear and to forgive,

Don't forget about delight.
You know, what I'm saying to you.
Don't forget about delight, you know.

Amid the post-ironic postulating
And the poet's pilfered rhymes
Meaning feels like it's evaporating
Out of sight and out of mind. But don't forget...

Though you find yourself alone and stranded
With no friend to take your side
On the endless road afoot and empty-handed
Where the wild-eyed cossacks ride, don't forget...

Spring birds peck among the pressed-down grasses
Clouds like zeppelins cross the sky
Anger drips in pools and then it passes
And I say a prayer that I don't forget...

I'm sometimes in danger of forgetting delight.

A witty way of calculating primes:

Check it out if you need a way to calculate lots of primes (less than or equal to 2^64 if you have enough memory). Not only is it a useful program, it's a very clever algorithm.

Isn't the Internet fun!

Humor: John Kerry select his running mate

How soon do you think Buckaroo Banzai will show up? Or do you think he'll wait until John Bigbootee tries to take over?

Wish no evil

This last Sunday, an American friend made a remark implying that I probably didn't agree with his publicly stated well-wishes to the United States of America on its 228th birthday (we live in Canada). I have made no secret of my annoyance with the government of the United States of America -- I'm no good at all about keeping secrets that have any emotional impact on me, just ask my wife -- but I was shocked into mostly-silence, and it was only yesterday evening, 30 hours later, that I came up with a response.

I was grieved that he believed that I would wish ill on anyone from any country, even if I happen to dislike things that their government does. For anyone to exact terror on anyone for any cause is wrong.

I object to the terror the US has been exacting from other countries for the last 100 years. And I will understand when (not if) someone exacts that kind of terror on the population of the US. But I do not relish that day nor do I wish for its hastening.

You must understand, too, that nobody has yet exacted that kind of terror on the US, regardless of what 9/11 looked like.

9/11 was not an example of "that kind of terror" no matter how big its effects were made to appear. It was actually only a tiny pop-gun of terror compared to what the US has done to the Phillipines, Iran, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Cuba, Grenada, Afghanistan and Iraq. (If one included countries where US tacit approval or quiet support resulted in local tyrannies acting murderously towards their own people, this list would be much longer.)

The actual victims of 9/11 numbered only 0.001% of America's populace. A similarly calculated percentage of victims in the above-mentioned countries numbers at least two orders of magnitude greater.

"That kind of terror" is definitely coming -- at whose hands I know not. But it has definitely not yet struck. And I will grieve when it comes, long and deeply, even if I understand the cheers of the survivors of the US' brutal history in their countries.

"The word, 'mercy' is gonna have a new meaning
When we are judged by the children of our slaves..." -- Bruce Cockburn (who else)

Canadian National Shout -- results

So, here are the results of our national election.

In the end, the scandals (HRDC, sponsorship), the gun registry and the callous disregard of the Liberal Party of Canada for regions that don't elect members to their government didn't cost them the government. It just cost them absolute power. Good enough for now.

I have mixed feelings over this election since I wanted to see more diversity in parliament and I wanted to see the Liberals reduced to the regional rump they've been so fond of accusing all the other parties of being over the last ten years. Neither of this happened.

At the same time as I wanted that, and at the same time that I agree with some aspects of the Conservative platform, I didn't want Canada to be drawn too closely into the orbit around the Bush White House.

So what did we get?

• Liberal reduction: Canadians could have sent a message to the Liberals that the corruption they displayed in office over the last decade wasn't good enough, but unfortunately, only Qu&eactute;bec did that. Even more unfortunately, they did it by electing sovereigntists. I'm happy with half of that result, but not the other half.
• Diversity: We have a sitting independent. Actually, he's a very popular Conservative member whose riding association and nomination process was hijacked by an interest group that was otherwise out of step with the bulk of their riding. This one can be played the other way: the members of the Conservative party who cared to get out to the nomination meeting spoke and Chuck Cadman's insistence on running anyways could be interpreted as sour grapes. The fact that he has cancer and may not live out his term will only enhance the human-interest aspects of this story.
• Not like in America? Well, actually, if you look at the negative attack ads (filled, by the way, with mis- and dis-information) run by the party that said they would keep us from Americanization, you'd have to say that for non-America-cosy politicians they sure were acting like American politicians.

I think, by and large, we got what we deserved and the combination of minority and the lack of any real policy distance (except on certain talking points) between any of the three non-separatist parties bodes well for the survival of this minority quite a distance into the maximum five year term.

Pick the Mensch.

With my last post (on Americans stumping in Canada), out of politeness I tried to notify the three folks whom I mentioned in my comments. Only one of them replied. Can you guess which one?

Americans telling Canadians how to vote?

Q: What's less successful, more likely to back-fire, in Canada, than trying to buy Québecois loyalty to Federalism?
A: Americans telling Canadians how to vote.

We may like you folks, our neighbours to the south, as individuals, but we don't like your government, we only grudgingly appreciate aspects of your culture (but mostly because we have few other options and because so many Canadians have made it big in your market) and we don't like to be told what to do by you or by anyone else.

Imagine for a moment how much it would hurt a presidential campaign for foreigners to tell Americans not to vote for the other guy. It'd be a kiss of death, usually. We're no different from you on that score.

Your pundits would never have the gall to tell the Brits or the Spaniards how to vote. Latin Americans in the US would rise in anger at "brains" who presumed to tell the Mexicans how to vote (not to mention how that would affect the voters there if the word got out!). Why are they wasting their breath telling us?

Chances are, neither Ralph Nader nor Michael Moore (both of whom have told us whom not to vote for) understand the integrity issues that are very rightly dogging the Liberals (can you trust an insincere guardian of a social safety net?). And they probably don't realize that there are other parties, including the NDP (and even the Greens) who could come out of this election with surprising levels of influence. Our system is different enough that a Ralph Nader wouldn't be the same spoiler factor here as he was, say, in Oregon.

Who I'm going to vote for is my business and I choose to divulge that "publicly" to my ballot paper only. If you ask me whom in your election you should vote for, I might or might not tell you. I wouldn't think it appropriate for any public figures from up here in Canada to be telling you folks whom to vote for.

Ralph: loved the book (Unsafe...) but it's getting a little long in the tooth.
Michael: your movies knock me flat and they have made me think more lucidly.
You're both good at what you do, but when it comes to Canadian elections, you know not of what you speak. And as non-voters you have neither standing nor competence. Please, just be quiet and watch. Mr. Chomsky, another chap from your country who has opened my mental vistas, is saying nothing. There's an example you could both afford to follow.

If we ask you what you think, say it, by all means. But in the meantime, this is an election year in your own country: why don't you concentrate on that and let this one be.

Thank you.

Sound-byte moment:

President Lyndon Johnston declared War on Poverty. Today the poverty problem in the US is bigger than it's ever been.

President Richard Nixon declared War on Drugs. Today the drug problem in the US is bigger than it's ever been.

President George W. Bush declared War on Terror. Given the record, did the US really want him to do that?