Happy Halloween Everyone!

To anyone not offended by it, I hope you’ve had a pleasant Halloween.  I have to be honest, this has been my best in years.  Mostly because I don’t have hordes of fifteen year olds asking for the “scariest” movie at Blockbuster.  It’s a trick question.  The answer usually isn’t the same from one person to the next.  Suffice to say, what they really wanted was plausible deniability.  When their friends complain the movie isn’t scary, they can lay the blame off on the lame dude at the video store.  But let’s move on now.

The other item contributing to the awesomeness of this Halloween was my experiment in pumpkin carving.  I planned ahead, took my time and created my best pumpkin ever.

Is it the best pumpkin ever carved?  Of course not.  But it’s the best one I’ve ever done, and I’m really proud of it.  It’s about three and half hours work.  The eyes aren’t exactly what I was hoping for, but it’s something to work on for next year.

Lynn took care of the rest of the entrance while I was busy carving.

She does nice pathway doesn’t she?

We didn’t get a huge number of trick or treaters this year, but the ones we did get liked the setup.  The perk to less visitors, is more candy left for me.  Not that I would eat it.  That would be bad.  Wouldn’t it?

Cheers, Winston

Will Cheap Tablets Drive The Next Internet Revolution?

In a recent article in Macleans, Jesse Brown was talking about the new Aakash tablet which is being made in India.  It’s not here yet, but it’s likely coming soon.

The first thing to know about it, is that it’s a bottom end tablet.  The processor is slow.  The networking is substandard and there’s no multi-touch.  But they sell for about $50 so who cares.  Those are the facts.  From there, it’s off to imagination land.

According to Mr. Brown, an influx of cheap tablets will get a billion more people on the internet.  I’m just curious who’s going to pay those billion monthly bills.  The fact is, hardware is the cheapest part of the online experience.  Access fees are the biggest financial disincentive to more widespread embrace of the net.

I doubt that cheap tablets are going to be the great democratizing force foreseen in this article.  Hardware is a one shot expenditure.  You buy your device and it’s yours.  Access fees recur every month.  Depending on what level of access you want, a couple of months fees will run you more than the cost of these new tablets.  Until we find a way to bring down ISP charges, widespread access remains a pipedream.

The true value of these types of products lies with people like me.  It’s not going to be my primary device, but if it was that cheap, I’d consider one for certain applications.  It would piggyback on my existing internet plan, and that’s the key here.  It would be an auxillary device.  If they’d been around when my daughter was younger, she would’ve had one.  Instead of a netbook which cost several times as much.

Of course, it ignores the larger issue.  We complain about the lack of manufacturing jobs but then get excited about how cheaply they build tablets in India.  We want $50 tablets, but we want $20 an hour to build them.  That’s the bigger issue.  The government needs to find a way to create incentives for that type of manufacturing in Canada.  We need to create entry level industries that can employ less skilled workers.  The resulting products may not be the bleeding edge, but they will be more affordable.

That’s what will lead more Canadians online.  Not affordable hardware, but real jobs that allow them to pay those monthly fees.  Without those jobs, and others like them, there will be less people online, not more.  That’s the real secret to the democratization of the internet.

Cheers, Winston

Good Thing The Conservatives Hate Spending Our Tax Dollars

So yesterday I wrote about the Conservatives plan to spend billions on new F-35 fighter aircraft.  Here’s a quick follow up.

The tab for 65 F-35 fighters will ring in around nine billion dollars.  But wait, it gets better.  When you purchase a bunch of shiny new aircraft, you need parts and service on them.  This is called a service contract.  If you’ve bought anything from Best Buy, you know what that is.  Now think about this.  If the geek of the week at Best Buy says “Sign here for the service contract, and I’ll tell you later how much it will be.”  Would you still take the service contract?  I suspect not.

Not so for Mr. Harper’s Conservative government.  They signed off on the F-35 purchase without getting an actual dollar figure for the accompanying support.  That apparently won’t be available until production is under way.  If that seems a tad peculiar, that’s the sort of thing to expect when you agree to single source your new aircraft.  That’s right folks.  We can only purchase our new jets from Lockheed Martin, and only they can service them.

But, there is some good news from our leaderless fears.  They’re also going to upgrade our navy.  To the tune of thirty-three billion dollars.  The good news, that money is scheduled to remain in Canada.  Twenty-five billion goes to contracts in Halifax, the other eight billion goes to Vancouver.  Which is exactly what I wanted for the aircraft update.  The project is expected to generate around fifteen thousand jobs.  Which kind of makes my point about the kind of jobs that would be created by building our own jets.  But for reasons best known to themselves, the Conservatives decided that it would be bad to create too many jobs all at once.

Now, they’re talking about maybe buying us some nuclear submarines. The used non-nuclear subs that we bought from Britain were a total bust from the get-go.  We’ve spent more rebuilding them than we paid for them, and they still aren’t actually sea-worthy.  So the only obvious solution is to buy some used nuclear subs.  The estimated price tag for all this plutoinum powered goodness?  How about three billion a pop.  If we replace our four leaky, crappy existing subs with spiffy new used subs it’ll ring in at around twelve million.  Cheap at half the price.  Yes?  Probably.

Here’s the fun part and the punchline to my headline.  During our recent federal election, the Conservatives were at great pains to tell Canadians how much money the Liberals would spend if elected.  The Conservatives would be our fiscal saviours.  Or maybe not.

F-35s=9 billion + unspecified multi-billion support contract.  New ships=33 billion.  Nuclear subs=12 billion.  Total 63 billion + unspecified multi-billion dollar support contract.

Good thing we didn’t elect those free spending Liberals eh?

Cheers, Winston

Two Reasons Canada Shouldn’t Buy F-35 Jets

Actually, there are more than two, but I don’t feel like writing a twenty-thousand word essay tonight. So I’ll limit this to just a couple, or so.

First up of course is the idea of spending BILLIONS of dollars on new fighter aircraft. I’m going to assume that’s because we live in an unstable part of the world where we are constantly at risk of invasion. No? Maybe the Conservative government is correct and we need them to assert our Arctic sovereignty. Against whom?

Anyone who is likely to be trekking about in the high north isn’t anyone we’re likely to shoot at. Let’s face it. The only countries actively challenging us in the Arctic are the U.S. and Russia. It’s really unlikely that we’re going to shoot at either of them. I mean really. If the U.S. thought that might happen, they probably wouldn’t be selling us the aircraft to make that possible. Add to this Prime Minister Harper’s own comment. According to the man who wants to buy these planes, the greatest threat to Canadian sovereignty is “Islamicist Terror”. I think it would be nice if he decided which threat we’re supposed to address and who these jets will address either.

My next nit to pick regards a fairly simple question. Why don’t we build our own jets? We’ve got our own aircraft industry. We’ve got more than enough technical knowledge. The Conservatives keep talking about how they plan to create jobs. Seems like a no-brainer to me. It’s not like we have any imminent threat demanding we upgrade in the immediate future. Fact is this could be a long term investment in Canadian businesses, creating Canadian jobs and employing Canadian technologists. What a concept.

Lastly tonight, I would like to raise a point I noticed in an article in Maclean’s. The jets which Mr. Harper and his fellow Bedlamites want spend billions on to defend the Arctic from “Islamicist Terror”, seems there might be a little problem with that. Apparently they won’t be able to communicate from there. A lack of polar orbiting communications satellites renders these awesome beasts mute. Way to plan Team Harper!

If the same salesperson from the U.S. shows up and starts talking bridges, give me a call. For twenty bucks and a couple of beers I can do a better job of advising you than the “pro”s you had for this one.

Cheers, Winston

Corporate Resonsibility Shouldn’t Stop At The Border

Earlier tonight, I was reading an article from the Huffington Post.  It talked about a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals saying that corporations should be held to account for human rights violations overseas.

Specifically, the residents of the island of Bougainville in the Phillipines is looking to sue the Rio Tinto for the deaths of thousands during a civil war that started in the late eighties.  The people revolted against their treatment at the hands of this multinational mining conglomerate and it’s government stooges.

While this ruling favors accountability, there are several levels of court involved in the U.S. and just as many different views.  As a result, it’s going to the Supreme Court for a final decision.  What the hell do they have to decide?

A corporation abuses people on a tiny, resource rich island on the other side of the world.  The people revolt.  The corporation pays the government to involve it’s military.  A ten year civil war ensues and thousands die.  How is the corporation not responsible?  Why do the courts even need to debate it?  Especially in a country that invades others just because they feel like it?

So why shouldn’t a massive corporation be held to account in the courts?  How about because they are a massive corporation with enough capital to buy immunity.  In much the same way that the U.S. declared a few years ago that they wouldn’t be bound by international criminal proceedings regarding their involvement in various foreign wars.

Of course that’s one of the problems.  It’s a U.S. corporation, being ruled on in U.S. courts.  Who would’ve thought they might not rule in favor of the victims?  There’s no track record of that sort of favoirtism in their courts, is there?

Cheers, Winston

We Are The 90 Percent

Rare though it may be, I agree heartily with a recent article by Andrew Coyne in this weeks Maclean’s magazine. In it, he argues that the problem isn’t with the super rich one percent. It’s them and the eighty nine percent under them.

Here in Canada, we don’t have the same issues as are motivating the Occupy Wall street movement in the U.S. The fact is, we’ve experienced a combination of good management and good luck. Every time I hear someone advocate for less government regulation I just point at our respective mortgage and housing industries and smile.

So the Occupiers in Canada make me laugh. It’s just more enjoyable and polite than swearing at them. Their main protest seems to be that other people have more than they do. Oh boo hoo.

As Mr. Coyne points out in his article, our housing market didn’t collapse, so our banks didn’t need to be bailed out. The gap between the top one percent and the next eighty-nine percent isn’t as serious as the one between those ninety percent and the bottom ten percent.

Maybe we can’t get that second car, but the bottom ten percent can’t necessarily get that second meal. I lose my job and we have to cut some corners until I find a new one. For the bottom ten percent, the only corner they have is the one they are backed into. They have nothing left to cut.

Probably the most telling comment in the piece was in the last paragraph. If the money went into the hands of the bottom ten percent, it would take only a two percent increase in the HST to bring their standard of living above the poverty line.

The poor aren’t poor because of the top one percent. They live in poverty because of everyone who believes that tax cuts are the way to create economic health. Sure they are if you already have enough. Sadly, if you have nothing to spend, HST cuts don’t actually help you all that much.

If you want to make the world a better place, how about making better for people who need it more than we do.

Cheers, Winston

Nickelodeon Says It’s Okay To Vandalize School Property

My daughter is a fan of the Nickelodeon show Victorious.  It’s not one I’ve taken the time to watch, but the bits I’ve seen over her shoulder tell me it’s another teen/highschool dramedy.  Seen one, seen them all.  Or so I thought.  Then I caught a couple of minutes on while it was recording on the PVR.

One of the characters skips a couple of classes.  Her friends determine that she is upset because the school isn’t going produce the play she wrote.  Apparently, they found it too “strange and disturbing”.  Her friends are concerned for her, and go look for her.  They find her in the janitors closet where she is cutting up a large wastebasket with pair of scissors.

One of her classmates is impressed that she cut up the janitors large waste bin with a pair of scissors.  That’s it.  No one comments on her destroying school property.  The episode goes on from there with no further mention of it.  How is that an appropriate message?

The school won’t produce her play, so she starts destroying school property.  Everyone’s okay with this.  The writers, actors, editors, show-runners, everyone.  People complain all the time about how violent or “immoral” programs are destroying today’s youth.  How about youth programming that doesn’t think before it broadcasts?

Sure, I realize that it’s just a waste bin.  I realize that she’s supposed to be high strung and emotional because she’s creative.   She’s just expressing her emotional distress.  Yeah right.  If one of the teachers says her play is poorly written, do we get a hilarious scene of her slashing their tires.  Too much of a stretch to assume that such an emotionally stunted and self-obsessed character might respond to criticism that way?  Ummm…. probably not.

Under the guise of “youth oriented” programming, they are normalizing this type of behavior.  Let me break this down for you.  A student writes a play and offers it to their school.  The school deems it unsuitable and declines to produce it.  Rather than accepting the decision and either re-writing it or seeking another venue, the student starts destroying school property.  How is that depicting any type of healthy behavior?

Nickelodeon’s message of the day, “If someone doesn’t let you do what you want, destroy their property.  It may not solve the problem, but it will show everyone how angst laden you are about things.”  Great conflict resolution skills you’re teaching there team.

I bet Victorious gets a couple of awards for that one.  I’m just glad my daughter is eighteen.  She’s always been pretty good about understanding that not everything in “G” rated programming is appropriate in the real world.  I’m more concerned about the viewers who may not make that distinction.

Cheers, Winston

“Puss In Boots” Gets It Done In Style

I was fortunate enough to get passes for “Puss In Boots”, the spin-off from the “Shrek” franchise.  I was a little skeptical going in because generally, spin-offs tend not to catch the original magic.  Puss manages to dodge that bullet as elegantly as the title character dodges blades.

He is ably supported by Salma Hayek as “Kitty Soft Paws” and Zach Galifianakis as “Humpty Alexander Dumpty”.  The rest of the voice cast is also quite good.

The story is actually better than I was expecting with a new raft of re-imagined storybook characters.  They include the career criminals “Jack & Jill”, the goose who lays the golden eggs, and “Mother Goose” herself.  In keeping with the formula established in the Shrek movies, none of them is going to be exactly what you’re expecting.

 

As with other Dreamworks animated films, the humor manages to appeal to both kids and the parents who bring them.  The kids laugh when Humpty changes into golden egg disguise.  The parents laugh when Kitty complains about him not wearing underwear.  In another scene, Puss is in a prison cell.  Believing himself alone, he is “grooming” himself when a voice from the shadows says “Don’t stop on my account.”  We then see Puss sitting hunched over with is his arms wrapped around his knees.

Throughout the movie, there was laughter from kids and adults alike.  It speaks to the cleverness of the writers that often it was both at the same time.  It isn’t likely to achieve the standing of the original film, but it’s definitely as good as the sequels.

Short version.  If you enjoyed Shrek or any of Dreamworks other animated offerings, then this is well worth you time.  Take the kids.  Take yourself and your sense of humor and have a good time with it.

Cheers, Winston

The Fast And The Criminally Stupid

According to the Ottawa Sun, a seventeen year old child was clocked driving 175 kph in an 80 kph zone.   When police stopped him, he had two other minors in the car with him. His license and vehicle have been seized for seven days.  The driver is facing a charge of “stunt driving”.  Actually, it wasn’t his car, it was his parents BMW.  So am I the only one who’s tired of this crap?

This kid will get a slap on the wrist, the parents probably won’t get even that.  In less than a year, he’ll turn eighteen and the entire incident will be officially forgotten.  He will face absolutely no consequences to his actions.  Is there anyone who is going to try and justify that to me?

This child could have killed himself, his passengers and who knows how many others, but none of that matters.  At least not to anyone in the business of passing laws.  The Conservatives talk about getting tough on crime, but there hasn’t been a lot of talk about rewriting the Young Offender laws.  Or putting some actual teeth into the law.  How about some consequences that might mean something?

This kid should have his name smeared across every possible media outlet.  His license should be seized for a lot more than seven days.  How about seven years?  How about a psych evaluation after that before he can get it back?  Let’s make sure he’s a little less self-obsessed, self-absorbed and just generally stupid.  If not, how about we make it a lifetime suspension?  Too much?  I don’t think so.

While we’re at it, how about something similar for impaired driving.  Only for that one, how about a mandatory lifetime suspension?  Too much again?  How about we take a poll of everyone who has lost a family member to an impaired driver?   How about just the people who’ve been crippled, maimed or scarred for life?  I bet they wouldn’t find it too much at all.

Let’s keep in mind that driving isn’t a right, it’s a privilege.  Like any privilege, it has to be earned, and it has to be deserved.  When a privilege is abused, it needs to be revoked.  If it is a serious abuse, that revocation needs to be permanent.

Some people do the right thing because it is right.  Others will only do it if they are sufficiently afraid of what will happen if they don’t.. Under the current laws, there’s nothing there for them to fear.  That needs to change.  It needs to change now, before anyone else dies.

That’s something worth thinking about.

Cheers, Winston

How To Save On Next Year’s Camping Trip

Since losing my job with Blockbuster, I’m always on the lookout for new ways to save money.  With the help of the fine people at Occupy Whatever, I’ve come up with a great new plan.

Normally, my family and I would drive very long distances to set up our campsite and then later tear it down and drive to the next one etc.  Not having a lot of money for gas would have put a definite damper on our plans.  Not anymore!

Now that I understand that it’s not actually illegal to camp in municipal parks, we barely have to drive at all.  In fact, there’s a really nice park right across the street.  It’s within easy walking distance of Harvey’s and Starbucks.  That’s important because I don’t think I’ll be allowed a campfire, so access to food and coffee is important.  Not to mention the sanitation side of things.

If Lynn wants something a bit more exotic, the National Capital Region is lousy with parks and greenspaces.  I’m certain we can agree on one that suits our tastes and needs.  There’s a really nice one at Major’s Hill.  It is next to a lovely set of rapids that should drown out the traffic noises nicely.  Should make a nice first stop.

I had always thought that we weren’t allowed to camp on just any bit of public grass we like.  Boy was I wrong.  Apparently all we needed to do was paint up a bunch of “We are the 99%” signs to carry around and set up a few at the campsite.  Just like that we’re bulletproof.  Some people might feel that I’m not genuinely supporting the messages of my more dedicated brethren and sisteren.  That may be true, but no one says I have to.  I am almost certain that we sku onto some list somewhere as having something in common with 99% of some group.  Such as the 99% of people who would like to go camping if only it was more affordable.

On the other hand, if I do come up with gainful employment before then, it also opens up a whole range of travel options.  No more calling at the last minute trying to get a spot at a crowded and overpriced campground.  As long as we have our protest signs, every public lawn is our campground.  Viva la protesta!

I’d like to thank the nice folks at Occupy Anywhere But A Polling Booth.  Without their leadership, I’m not sure I would have hit on this bit of genius on my own.  Also, a nice shout out to the various municipal authorities who helped them to establish this precedent.  We’ll be sure to think of you during our public tour next year.

Cheers, Winston