This is Controversial

After a week of not blogging anything (I've been really busy, looking for a place to live, if you must know), I came across this article. For those of you too lazy to click on the link and read it, I'll summarize it very quickly: people all over the world are protesting, mostly because they have a very strong sense of entitlement.  Greece and Montreal (over tuition increases) were specifically mentioned.

Though I have always felt that I have fairly left-leaning political views, and I believe that a government's job is to take care of its people first and foremost.  Which means providing all sorts of things that the free market can't provide, such as police, health care, infrastructure (roads, rail, ports), and education. I know government isn't very efficient at a lot of the things it does, but the anger againts governments these days borders on the ridiculous. Though I expect to have all the conveniences of living in modern times (see my above list of what a government should provide, though it's not comprehensive), I'm not so deluded into thinking that I should get it for nothing or that it doesn't cost anything.  Yes, big business has its hands in government and yes that does influence some decisions it makes.  But unions influence them just as much, and it feels like once someone has something good, they'll do anything to protect that even at the detriment of others.

I'm not saying we should all just sit down and accept every government decision that comes about, especially when it means cutting services and rising taxes.  But governments must be run in a way that doesn't lose money. Someone loses out when that happens.  Who are we to say we should get all the good things and someone else should pay the price.

In my field, I've had to witness hundreds and thousands of people who have it way better than me (and many others) complain about small concession they are being asked to make.  They just don't seem to get that there are hundreds and thousands of willing people who would kill (well, maybe not kill) to have the opportunity to work at their jobs. It makes me want to shake each and every one of them and shout: "DO YOU NOT REALIZE HOW GOOD YOU HAVE IT!?!?!" Which would (in my fantasy) be followed by a lot of swearing and more shaking - though, this being reality, I'd never do that.

In the past, unions and protest movements (ok, even some today) have been helpful in advancing many worthy causes, but in many places those times have passed. At some point it switches from ensuring fairness in society to taking more than what you've earned.

So yes, I've also noticed this sense of entitlement, or "entitlement addiction" as the article calls it.  It is very frustrating for me to see since I'd love to have it as good as some of these people.

Finally!

When credit is due, I am not one to withhold it. Today marks what might possibly the beginning of a huge change. For those of you who haven't heard yet, the Liberals (keep in mind, they have no opposition parties from the right, so they are decidedly more right-leaning than most provincial Liberal parties) in my former province of residence - British Columbia - have done what no other political leaders have had the courage to do: they have imposed a carbon tax.

The tax will initially work out to 2.4 cents per litre - starting July 1st - but will increase each year until 2012 when it will be almost 10 cents per litre. Though the amount seems pretty small right now, perhaps this will start to encourage drivers to get off the road and get on a bus, or walk, or bike. And certainly 10 cents extra per litre (when gas is already pretty expensive in B.C.) will make some sort of difference.

Check out the coverage from CBC, Globe and Mail, and The Times Colonist (Victoria).

So Kudos to Gordon Campbell and Finance Minister Carole Taylor. I certainly didn't support you in the last election, but I applaud your efforts today. Let's see who follows suit now that the first step has been taken.

Clearing Up The Climate Debate Smog

I wanted to highlight another blog today. There is actually a funny story behind this blog and how I discovered it. I was in the grocery store a month or two ago and saw someone wearing a jacket with this web address on the back of it. It's name caught my attention so I decided to check it out. You can follow my discovery by checking out DeSmogBlog.com.

It actually took me a while to figure out what side of the climate change debate this blog was on. It was not long, however, until I found this explanation on the site:

DeSmogBlog exists to clear the PR pollution that is clouding the science on climate change.

An overwhelming majority of the world’s climate scientists agree that the globe is warming - the world's climate is changing - and that the indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels is to blame. We know that the risks are incalculable and, increasingly, we understand that the solutions are affordable.

Unfortunately, a well-funded and highly organized public relations campaign is poisoning the climate change debate. Using tricks and stunts that unsavory PR firms invented for the tobacco lobby, energy-industry contrarians are trying to confuse the public, to forestall individual and political actions that might cut into exorbitant coal, oil and gas industry profits. DeSmogBlog is here to cry foul - to shine the light on techniques and tactics that reflect badly on the PR industry and are, ultimately, bad for the planet.

So basically, they are here to counter the points of the scientists who refute global warming. I have checked this blog out occasionally over the past few weeks and months and have found some interesting things in it.

Check it out if you're interested...

Green and Red Working Together

This week we were treated to the announcement that the Liberal Party will not run a candidate in the riding that Green Party leader Elizabeth May will contest in the election that is apparently coming soon. For those of you who are not up to date on this development, here is an article which outlines the plan.

When I first heard this news I thought it was a great thing; the Liberals were acknowledging the existence of the Green Party and are giving them some help. Then I read many scathing responses to this move. The sentiment against it basically revolves around the fact that the Liberals (well, Liberal leader Stephane Dion to be exact) are leaving their supporters in that riding out to dry. They will not be able to support the Liberal party.

But that is not what started to bug me. If the Greens do pull of the likely miracle of winning that riding (and most experts suggest they won't) then they will have made their breakthrough the easy way. As a supporter of the Green Party's last couple of platforms (and probably one of the few people who actually read them!) I would not be so proud that the breakthrough came as a result of help from the Liberals.

I'm sure Mr. Dion has some good reasons for this move, though no one can really explain how this benefits the Liberals. They potentially lose their supporters in a whole riding (who may or may not vote for the Green party) and don't gain anything from a lack of opposition from the Greens in Mr. Dion's riding.

Maybe more will come out later related to this move, but I doubt it will make a major impact on the results of the next election (whenever it happens). Hopefully, the Green Party will make a breakthrough somewhere else and get a few members elected to Parliament.

Note: I realize this post is somewhat biased. This will not happen often. If you have anything you would like to add (comments on the situation), please feel free to post your thoughts.

Making Our Cars More Environmentally Friendly

Following the release of the 2007 budget by Stephen Harper and his party, my roommate, Meg, and I got to talking about the controversial car rebate/surcharge initiative. For those of you who missed that, the Tory government has offered rebates of up to $2000 for new fuel efficient vehicles, while at the same time added up to a $4000 surcharge on fuel inefficient vehicles. Read what Treehugger had to say about it here. It's all good right? Well, not quite. Meg explained what her economics professor, Peter W. Kennedy, had to say about it in class. Apparently, the rebates and surcharge may actually lead to more greenhouse gas emissions. Bear with me while I try to explain how.

By raising the price of gas guzzlers, you decrease the number sold. That part is simple. It gets complicated when you look at what happens in the used vehicle market. Those people who want, for example, a Hummer, won't buy a new one because it's too expensive. Instead they will buy a used Hummer which does not have the surcharge. On the flip side, by lowering the price of Smart Cars and Prius's, you allow people who couldn't afford to buy a car to be now able to afford one. This would increase the number of drivers on the road. Meg and I discussed this idea for a while, with me still contending that it didn't mean FOR SURE that emissions would increase, but that it could. The main issue that we saw from this part of the budget was that it didn't encourage decreased use of gas. The only real way to deal with that would be to bring in something like a carbon tax, which would encourage people to drive less in order to save money. I'll leave it at that for now (no doubt I will talk about a Carbon taxes, but if you're interested in them until then, try reading Paul Hawken's The Ecology of Commerce, which explains carbon taxes and many other great ideas!).

After this discussion I also thought a lot about cars and how we can make them more efficient and less of a burden on our atmosphere. I had two ideas which I'm surprised are not in widespread use. The first is actually pretty obvious (and after doing research found that it has been used in many places). We could put solar panels on cars to help with energy needs. Note that I am not suggesting that we make solar cars like the ones used in the World Solar Challenge. I'm suggesting we add solar panels on cars to help out with such things as heaters, air conditioners and in the case of hybrids, running the car. I found an article on treehugger about Steve Lapp, a Canadian engineer who outfitted his Prius with solar panels in 2001. All the links to his project unfortunately don't work. The Treehugger article, along with this article, claim that there is a 10% increase in gas mileage in converted hybrids.

My second idea is to use wind power to generate electricity. I'm sure all of you have been riding in a car with the windows down and have felt the wind hit your face hard. Why not find a way to use that energy to generate some electricity? Perhaps a pipe could be put somewhere on the front of the car that could turn a turbine which could then generate some electricity. Apparently I am not the only one to think of these ideas, as I found a similar suggestion here. I also found this car, which may not be the most practical, but it did have something to use wind power.

So those are my ideas. Though I'm not quite an engineer, I think something like this needs to be done with cars. If our society is to keep on functioning, we will need to either drive less (and we'll need incentives like taxes to make that happen), make our cars more efficient (with hybrid technology and alternative energy sources), or both.

A Compromise?

I thought I should write about this subject since it came up on Saturday. I think we can justify it by saying it's Social Commentary on Sunday.

I get the Globe and Mail six days a week and the following headline appeared on the front page: "Lift face veils or don't vote, Quebec tells Muslims." I read the article and had several conflicting thoughts about what went on. Until recently I did not know the purpose of any coverings (whether it be a burqa or a niqab). I was given a great article (whose name I cannot remember, but maybe one of my readers could post the name or a link to it online) in a class of mine explaining the reasons (mainly so that woman are judged on what they say and do and not by how they look - it was described as an empowering thing to wear) why women cover themselves up.

After some thought I came to the following conclusion: Why can't they (all the people in Quebec) just compromise. In summary, this is what the two arguments are (at least the rational people in this debate):

1. The Chief Electoral Officer is trying to avoid voter fraud. Due to what seems like many angry responses, there is a fear that the original agreement would be used to the advantage of some people in protest of the decision.
2. The women who are wearing the veils are doing so for a religious reason (I'm not here to debate whether they are right or wrong, but it's important to realize they have a strong belief in something), and it would violate their beliefs to provide the requested proof of identification. They are stuck with a choice between not voting or going against what they believe in.

Clearly, there are two very good arguments for either of the two proposed outcomes. I decided to do some research to see if I could make sense of it. The first thing I did was look up "niqab" on wikipedia. The entry did not tell me much, but it did send me to this article about a similar situation that occured with regards to wearing a veil for the picture on a driver's license. I discovered there that many muslim nations require muslim women to have their pictures taken without their veil.

I then wanted to find out WHO a muslim woman is "allowed" to uncover herself for (I use the word allow because I'm under the impression that it is different for each individual. I do not think that anyone forces muslim women into this). After much searching I found this quote which came from a much bigger web page:

A Muslimah should not uncover her adornment in front of any non-Mahrahm male. Muslimahs should especially be careful and remain covered, modest, and quiet around in-laws.

If a gay male is aware of female body parts, he should not be allowed to view a woman uncovered. And, of course, a bi-sexual male should not be allowed to view a woman without proper covering.

In addition, a Muslimah should not uncover that which she normally uncovers, in front of any non-Muslim female whom she fears may describe her to others. She may also choose to remain covered around any Muslim female whom she fears may describe her physical attributes to their husband or others.

I also looked up who qualifies as Mahrahm and non-Mahrahm males and found the answers here.

So where am I going with this?

My proposed compromise is for the Chief Electoral Officer to provide a way for women to prove their identiy which does not require them to show themselves to people they do not want to show themselves to. Perhaps arrangements could be made in each riding so that a trusted muslim woman was available to check ID's for the people running the election. One representative for each riding would probably be sufficient if it were advertised which polling station this representaive would be at. To me it is common sense, but perhaps this is just a small part of a larger problem...

I wonder if this message will find it's way to Quebec.

I bet someone has something to say about this... let's hear what you think! I may be wrong about everything and I'm open to other viewpoints (keep it nice though).

For more information, check out this blog which talks briefly about the same article and situation: http://hogtownfront.blogspot.com/