So BC STV failed

Just shy of the 60% mark, but definitely winning out in most ridings, there is no mandate that the provincial government move ahead with STV -- but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't or that they won't.

I'll admit I wasn't always a booster, but by the time the vote came around, I really believed in it. And if you got there, too, perhaps you're wondering what next? Well I have a suggestion. Here's a letter I'm going to write to my newly re-elected MLA, Mr. Rich Coleman, Fort Langley-Aldergrove. I suggest you write something like it to your MLA. The more of our voices they hear, the more likely they are to pass it.

Failing that, I think there's a good chance that it could be written up as a ballot initiative. The bar for passing an initiative is bother lower and higher. 10% of all the voters in every riding need to sign a petition -- that's the higher part. And then the initiative needs to pass by 50% + 1 across the whole province. That's the lower part.

Norman Spector, Dave Barrett, Christy Clark and other such elitists said they thought the STV was a foolish idea, foolishly arrived at and foolishly presented to the people for a vote and to some extent I agree with them: after spending so much to arrive at it, why was so little spent on informing the public on the choice either way? Indeed nothing, to me, showed the value of the proposal more than the diversity on other points of political doctrine among those who agreed in support of or in opposition to BC STV. Still, I think that it's time for us, the Great Unwashed electorate, the Secret People (who have not spoken yet -- though we may not be of the same nationality as those whom Mr. Chesterton once referred to) to show that we didn't just like it enough to vote for it once, but to sign for it and to vote for it again.

So if you write a letter like the following to your MLA and he or she takes no notice, be on the look-out. That doorbell may be someone coming around with a petition (maybe me!) asking for you to join the 10% of the voters in your riding to sign up to put forward a ballot initiative. We'll get our STV yet -- and a much more honourable end it is than the one that Levesque and Parizeau forwarded unsuccessfully in Québec before us.

Dear Mr. Coleman,

I am writing to ask you and your party to introduce the BC STV plan as conceived by the Citizens Assembly, despite the fact that the referendum may not have reached its 60% threshold. Most of the people in your riding wanted it and though the bar for a mandated passage was set appropriately high, it would be shutting your ears against the desires of your constituents not to send it through the BC Legislature anyways.

If it does not get introduced and passed, it may yet become a ballot initiative and become law through other means. I commit myself to pursuing such ends and encouraging my friends, neighbours and relatives to do the same. This is a time for your party to show some leadership. Don't wait for us to bring about a ballot initiative. Introduce, pass and proclaim a bill instituting BC STV as the the way BC will elect its Legislature from now on. Either way, your electorate will remember whose interests you pursued now: ours or those of the Liberal Party. And either way, you can be sure, that later, when STV passes we will know how to reward you appropriately.

Sincerely,

Arthur N. Klassen
xxx xxxx
xxxxxx, BC Vxx xxx
(address redacted)

Belinda Stronach, the latest Liberal

In response, I sent the following to letters@cbc.ca:

Why am I not surprised? Martin is only doing in Ontario what he was already doing, with more success than failure out here in BC. Welcome to the circle of the excessively ambitious, Ms. Stronach! You should have held out for more than Ms. Stewart's old gibbet.

So the fall of the government isn't quite so certain.

What's "Linux"? What's "Open Source"? What's "Free Software"?

There's a growing document describing the history of open source here. If you want to understand those sorts of things better, take a look. The chapters are short and readable and expose the details of the culture quite well -- especially at the price!

Response to kuro5hin article against Intelligent Design

Earlier today, slashdot posted this article regarding an OpEd piece on kuro5hin. What followed was an incredible storm of comments, counter-comments, accusations and counter-accusations. I couldn't resist adding my €0.02 worth under the subject line, "2000 fundamentalists and counting", thus:

I have read the article and I wish to make two criticisms of it. Then I wish to point out the absolute lack of well-reasoned dialogue on this point.

1. benna writes:

The premise of Intelligent Design is that the universe is so unimaginably complex and perfect that it must have been created by an intelligent designer.

Anyone catch the "gotcha"? What ID proponent is going to say that the universe is so "unimaginably... perfect"? This is a classic but cloaked "argumentum ad hominem - abusive": make ID'ers look like extremists so it's "obvious" to everyone that they're stupid before they even look at what is actually being said.

2. benna also cites a lack of ID articles in peer-reviewed journals as evidence that nobody in the "real" scientific community believes in ID.

This is a trifle circular. The tools used by those who oppose theistic explanations for the world (including ID) include belittling, caricaturizing, marginalizing, black-listing, not to mention monopolizing money and prestige to the exclusion of all other options from serious consideration. Faced with the scientistic forces arrayed against these bodies of ideas, is it any wonder that nobody who wants to be taken seriously later will give articles with an ID point of view serious attention? This is less about ideas "winning or losing" in the scientific marketplace and more about ideas being sand-bagged and informally kept from being heard in that marketplace.

If you don't believe this possible, look at what happened in a slightly different field to Immanuel Velikovsky when what he said didn't line up with accepted scientific orthodoxy in the fields Worlds in Collision and Ages in Chaos speak to -- whether or not you accept the contents of his books as reasonable alternative explanations.

As to my subject line: it seems that very few people can make a dispassionate, deal-with-the-facts comment on this subject either in favour of or in opposition to Intelligent Design. It struck me that there are more than one kind of fundamentalism and many slashdotters who would sooner die than be called fundamentalists merely suffer from fundamentalism in a different direction.

cheers...ank

More on BC's proposed STV electoral reform

When it first came out, I thought it looked like a great idea. Later, after discussing it with some people I thought it wasn't such a great idea. Now, I'm leaning again to thinking it is a better system than what we currently have but I'm not sure that it's the best we could do.

I understand that some people in Ireland want to get rid of it but every time that comes to a ballot measure it gets put up against a re-run of FPTP (our current system) and people don't want to go back there.

For myself, I would have preferred a Mixed-Member proportional system -- leave the rural provincial ridings intact, use federal boundaries for the more urban areas and everyone votes twice: once for a local candidate and once for a list. I personally believe that the rural BCers who, at the constituent assembly asked that the proposed system be STV instead of MMP were, to some extent mistaken: their ostensible reason for choosing STV over MMP went something like this: "we want to know our candidate and not be voting for a slate". I think that with the STV system we're going to be voting on, their ridings will get so big that no group of people will know any one candidate enough that the "personal support" factor will be at all significant.

To me the biggest downside with STV is the way ridings will have to be consolidated to support it in the face of the rider on the constituent assembly's mandate: choose a new system with the same number of seats. This is probably less of an issue for really urban areas -- and maybe not much of an issue for the far-flung reaches, either. Some of the rural ridings are truly monstrous already.

But for me, in the Langley riding where I used to live, and the Fort Langley-Aldergrove riding where I now live, I can see local issues and local interests getting completely swamped in one direction or another, depending on how the consolidation takes place. Will these two ridings get lumped with three Surrey ridings? I can tell you that Langley's and Aldergrove's interests will not be well served in that case: those areas are far more urban and our voices will get lost in their shuffle. Or what if we're lumped in with Abbotsford and Chilliwack? That might be less disadvantageous but I wonder.

I think local issues everywhere but in the urban areas will be ill-served by this particular reform: MMP would have resulted in moderate riding consolidation that would have gotten no less granular than the federal ridings. But STV will result in there being about 15 or 20 ridings across the whole province. Think about it: your riding and up to four neighbouring ones will be consolidated. Is that what you want? Or your riding may be consolidated with others up to two or three ridings away from where you are. Is that what you want?

Still, I may be completely mistaken and STV is far better than what we have now: I'm going to vote "yes".

My only other concern is that it will be open to manipulation in ways that only the big political machines recognize yet. Gordon Gibson says that party politicians don't like STV: I suspect they're shamming but we'll only be able to find that out either way several elections AFTER we adopt STV.

Missing the message...

If there was a life message in John Paul II's papacy, in the sense that he was one of the biggest contributors to the fall of Communism, it was that authoritarian structures can not stand in the face of an ever-more-embraced truth. I believe that in many ways, the Catholic Church failed to understand that fact today.

Stop the Harp Seal Hysteria!

In response to this, I wrote them the following:

Unless you are a 100% organic vegetarian who grows all their own food, collects rainwater and distills it with solar energy and does entirely without the benefits of modern industrialized medicine, you have no moral high ground to oppose the harp seal hunt.

Just be quiet and go away, please. But I understand that that will take even more effort than it would to stop the hunt. So I wonder why I'm even bothering to send this. I don't know. Perhaps it's because I'm under the delusion that there may be a way to stop the mindless hysteria. I only wish.

These are not humans: they're seals! Okay, so they are extremely cute mammals. But once we realize that they are not humans -- unless of course we are complete vegans and all that as in the first paragraph, the issue shouldn't be how ugly their death looks but how long do they suffer and what will be the consequence if they are not hunted.

This last point is easy: they will over-run their habitat and cause all kinds of other problems.

As to how long they suffer, it's not significantly longer than the time a horse suffers when it gets shot as a form of euthanasia.

Oh, and there's also the factor of livelihood of the hunters, many of whom have no other source of income than this annual hunt. Unless you are willing to support them and their families, there's yet another reason why you should just be quiet and not criticize what you are reacting to emotionally -- not rationally at all.

I'm sorry, I'm trying to be respectful. I hope it worked but I have my doubts. Primarily emotional reactions which I have some reason to view as silly tend to bring out the pejorative in me.

In any event, please, you, respect my fellow Canadians and let them cull an otherwise over-abundant population, supply some folks with very warm coats and feed their families. You want "greater good"? There it is in plain sight if only you'd drop your placards long enough to see it.

Solution for puzzle of January 31 (longer than two weeks ago)

US OCCUPATION AUTHORITY IN IRAQ LOST TRACK OF NEARLY NINE BILLION DOLLARS
BRITAIN SAYS TEN MILITARY PERSONNEL BELIVED DEAD IN IRAQ PLANE CRASH
EU WARY OF MICROSOFT ACTIONS AFTER RULING
SWEDISH COACH WAS KEY TO SAFIN WIN - RUSSIAN CHIEF
GUANTANAMO BAY TRIBUNALS RULED UNCONSITITUTIONAL

SETTING = VOTER
KEY     = DEMOCRAT
HAT     = DEBATERS

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.