Lost in the details...

Canada had its largest lottery prize last week. A pot estimated at $CAD40 million ballooned to $54 million due to a huge surge of ticket buyers prior to the draw. In the end, an office pool in Alberta, comprising 17 people, took the jackpot with the only winning ticket.

The Canadian Press has a photo of the winning ticket, so just for fun I checked the other numbers on the ticket. Sure enough, the line immediately above the winning line was also a winner: $10. :)

Think they'll buy more tickets with that $10, or was it included in the big $54 million pot?

Autumn musings

I never paid much attention to hardware stores previously, but as I noted earlier, being a homeowner means you spend a lot more time there. I treated them just like other stores though: go in with a list, find what I'm looking for and get the hell out of there as fast as possible. I don't like shopping, so I try to get it over with quickly and painlessly.

Today, however, I found myself lingering in a Home Depot, wandering the aisles for a good 30 minutes or so after I found what I had come in for. I looked at different lighting fixtures, model kitchens, bathroom accessories, large pieces of wood, etc... I think, for once, I let my guard down and let myself imagine the possibilities of what I can do with a house. The idea of taking something and reworking it to make it my own is something that is drawing my attention a lot more as I do odd jobs around the house. I still think a lot of stuff, while neat and cool, is frivolous, but the possibilities are there.

Once I got home, I soaked in the gorgeous autumn weather, a (relatively) warm and sunny day. I did more raking of the leaves but found myself wanting to stay outside even after I was done. I had things to do inside the house, quite a few of them actually, but I found myself, again, letting myself live the moment rather than rush through my to-do list. I don't have a very large backyard, but there I was wandering around rather aimlessly, poking in the corners, admiring the huge tree which threatens to drown my house in leaves, and delighting in the sun warming me. Perhaps a frivolous pleasure, but one that was tremendously uplifting. I may find myself re-reading this posting int he darkest, coldest days of winter, but for now, I lived a perfect moment of bliss, courtesy of a warm, sunny, autumn day.

Beautiful Day

The sun is shining, we're supposed to have the warmest day we'll ever have for the rest of the year, the fridge is full of yummy food, the lunch is going to be free. Yeah, so there are a zillion leaves in the yard, it's still starting off as a beautiful day. Hope it lasts!

Hockey mania

So this year, for the first time in a *long* time, I joined a hockey pool. Not because I'm necessarily a big a hockey fan, but my boss and all of his bosses were gungho about it, so while being in the hockey pool won't help my career, not being in it will hurt it.

Not knowing much about hockey (especially after the strike/lockout season), I didn't have high expectations of the draft and found myself looking for names that were familiar (which usually means people who were rookies in the early 1990s when I collected hockey cards). To make matters worse, one of the bosses was unable to attend the draft, so an agreement was made that I should choose for this boss. I didn't agree to this, but was rather "volunteered" by committee (like any good bureaucracy, I guess). So now I have to cannibalize my limited picks for one of the bosses and hope like h*ll that he does better than I do.

So what happens? After two weeks, I'm in first place and the boss for whom I picked was in last place. Would being in the hockey pool hurt my career after all?

After one month, things have balanced out a bit better; I'm in last place and the boss for whom I picked was in the middle of the pack (thank you Martin Straka!). But I now spend my time on the internet watching hockey scores and suddenly find myself able to follow hockey conversations. And quietly hope that my picks aren't better than the picks of that boss (who, to be fair, has been a good sport about the whole thing).

As for the last time I was in a hockey pool, here is the hint: it was the year that Larry Robinson would have been the last player in my pool through the playoffs. Yes, *that* long ago!

As one of my co-workers is prone to saying: good times!

Cigarettes and crack

Margaret Wente, G&M columnist and former editor, penned a snarky column on the week-end regarding so-called "harm reduction" strategies being used in the fight against drugs. She basically mocks efforts to provide crack heads and heroin junkies with clean drug paraphernalia, arguing that prohibition will be more effective. Yet she undermines her own arguments in two consecutive paragraphs.

She first states that smokers are treated to scare stories and tough love and says that we don't give them tobacco kits and matches, to the contrary of meth heads. She fails to notice, however, that precisely because cigarettes are legal and regulated, there is no transmission of hepatitis or AIDS through the sharing of cigarettes, and no nicotine overdoses reported in the news. The fact is that if drugs were relegated like cigarettes, the only health issue involved would be with the drugs themselves, not the associated diseases that get spread through broken pipes or shared needles.

She then argues that prohibition works because we made cigarettes more expensive (through taxes) and prohibit their sale to kids so fewer kids are going to smoke. Even with those efforts, kids still get access to cigarettes and there are still more than 25% of kids getting hooked. What has helped more in reducing teen smoking rates, in my opinion, is public awareness and something Wente mentions herself: stigma.

The end point shouldn't be to remove the stigma of drug addicts; they are weak and vulnerable and a drain on society. However, every effort should be made to limit the damage they do to themselves and others. Giving out free needles or crack pipes will reduce the spread of diseases unrelated to drug use, just like regulated cigarettes don't spread hepatitis or cut a smoker's lip.

Look at it this way: cigarettes are legal and available everywhere, yet more than 3 quarters of Canadians don't smoke. This, even though nicotine is arguably the most addictive substance known to man (heroin is the challenger).

Prohibition was tried with alcohol and it failed miserably. The war on drugs, like other wars on concepts, has failed to affect drug use rates, because a certain percentage of the population is going to be addicted regardless of the restrictions you put on them. Just look at drug use in prisons, or how prostitution survives every attempt and eliminating. The strategy is obviously not working, so why not try something new like legalizing and regulating drugs, and then using the tax revenue (and savings from reduced law enforcement) into building the same kind of stigma that smokers and drunk drivers have? The problem with drugs is the demand; attacking the supply without looking at demand ensures that the only winners in this drug war are the traffickers.

Government health care

From a conservative point of view, it is unclear exactly why a government should be providing health care to its citizens. Everyone gets sick or injured, but it's something that the private sector can do and do it well. The distinction is in what is meant by health care.

Governments really shouldn't be in the business of running hospitals or laboratories. However, I have a fundamental problem with the idea that someone who is injured in a car crash should have to sell their assets in order to receive medical treatment. The number one cause of personal bankruptcies in the United States are medical bills.

The solution, then, would seem to be that the government serve only as a large-scale health insurance program. Hospitals, doctors and other health care providers would still have to be certified and regulated by medical boards or governments, but the government would cover the medical bills incurred by its citizens. That, at least, is the basic form; there would have to be some kind of cost-sharing depending on the total cost of the system.

And yet, somehow this doesn't seem to be very conservative at all. Public car insurance is viewed as a panacea for the high cost of auto insurance in a lot of jurisdictions, but citizens do not have the right to drive an automobile, nor should they expect such a right. Indeed, courts have consisterly ruled that driving is a priviledge that can be revoked, in the case of repeat drunk drivers or epileptics, for example. However, if a government's duty is to protect its citizens, does that not extend to ensuring they a) have access to proper medical care and b) do not have to face financial ruin to get that access? If you can afford a car, you should be able to afford the insurance for it as well; but life is, naively speaking, free, so who should pay the cost of rescuing that life?

K Street Conservatism

George F. Will, probably one of the most erudite conservative writers I know, wrote what I thought was a brilliant column in the October 17th issue of Newsweek. Entitled "On K Street Conservatism", he simply but thoroughly savages modern-day "conservatives" in Washington for being anything but conservative in its true form. In a previous column, he referred to "true conservatives, that is to mean those who care about something other than their marginal tax rate", or something to that effect, which appears to me that Will is unhappy with Bush and his team. And rightly so.

Key sections of his column (the full piece is at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9629463/site/newsweek/) :

"In 1987 Reagan vetoed a transportation bill because it contained 152 earmarks - pork - totalling $1.4 billion. The (transportation) bill President Bush signed contained 6,371, costing $24 billion."

The pièce de résistance is here:

"Conservatives are not supposed to be cuddly, or even particularly nice. They are, however, supposed to be competent. And to know that scarcity—of money, virtue, wisdom, competence, everything—forces choices. Furthermore, they are supposed to have an unsentimental commitment to meritocracy and excellence. The fact that none of those responsible for the postwar planning, or lack thereof, in Iraq have been sacked suggests—no, shouts—that in Washington today there is no serious penalty for serious failure. Hence the multiplication of failures." (emphasis his)

Being a conservative in the traditional sense of the word is to want a smaller, less intrusive government that doesn't interfere in the lives of its citizens. In my opinion, the primary purpose of government is to protect its citizens from external threats, be it from another country or from nature. This is why humans organized themselves into societies in the first place: strength in numbers. The trend since WWII, however, has been to get the government involved into all kinds of spheres in which it has no business getting into.

This is not to advocate a free-market, libertarian approach either. Left to their own devices, businesses will tend to maximize their bottom line even at the expense of the safety of their consumers (it is naive in extremis to hope that businesses will be run by their conscience). Hence the importance of a neutral and robust judiciary to arbitrate disputes and punish those who show a willful disregard for the safety of others (the external threat). Governments should not, however, be asked to protect citizens from themselves (the scourge of the nanny-state).

Once a government has provided the necessary level of security for its citizens (while ensuring that the liberties and freedoms of those citizens are respected), a society may ask its government to do more, but government's responsibility is to act only where a) the private sector is unable to (for instance, large-scale infrastructure projects) or where the benefits to a society are universal (primary education which provides for a citizenry that is sufficiently educated to carry out its civic duties).

It is tempting to get government involved in special interest projects, the theory of protecting the weak and the vulnerable, but 21st century liberal democracies have taken it to such an extreme that governments are failing in their primary responsibility towards their citizens, while allowing the K Street Conservatives (or, in Canada, Quebec-based advertising firms) to loot the treasury for special interests that are most definitely not in the public interest.

Equality above quality

If you aren't familiar with Ted Rall (Google makes it easy), he's a pretty militant author and cartoonist who is virulently anti-Bush. A lot of what he writes makes sense, but his most recent column, envisioning a McCain - Clinton showdown in 2008 is pretty weak. Essentially, he writes that the US should elect Clinton so that the US can have its first female president. He points out that Sri Lanka and Pakistan have done it, so why not the US? Which is extremely odd since he is all against family dynasties, so it's possible he doesn't realize who their daddies were.

In any event, I disagree that a President should be elected simply on the basis of her gender, because that implies she should not be elected on the same basis. I would vote against Clinton because she still has that grating habit of blaming Canada for letting in the 9/11 terrorists and for McCain because he knows the futility of torture and the hollowness of eroding civil rights in the name of "security".

I do agree that Clinton is probably the most qualified woman to run for President and that US politics are hopelessly titled towards the male and the white, but I'm a firm believer in meritocracy, even if it does appear more of a pipe dream lately. Voting for someone just because of their gender doesn't strike me as the core of a strong democracy (even though people have voted for men precisely for that reason, but that may explain my anguish over the current state of democracy).

Do they speak French in California?

*giggle*

The beautiful colour of death

On Ardeth Wood...

"About a dozen full-time investigators have remained on the case, which has cost about $700,000."

As much as I think it is offensive for me to say so, I have to question the use of police resources for one single person. A few days ago, the paper reported that the province of Ontario wants to put more police officers on the street. We've all seen the decline in how people drive because there simply aren't any police officers enforcing the rules of the road. Reporting a property theft is mainly an exercise in getting an insurance claim as the police don't actually look for stolen property anymore. Try to report a strung out junkie yelling at a traffic light and it could take an hour for a cop to show up, if at all.

Furthermore, Ms. Wood is white, middle class and attractive. The US media has had a field day covering the disappearance of one white, attractive, middle class teenager in Aruba, while ignoring the dozens of native, black or other minority women who also vanished without a trace.

I think it is great that the police have found her killer and don't belittle the grief and loss that the Wood family has gone through. I do think, however, that deploying that many scarce police resources smacks of racist favouritism, a function of the attractiveness of the victim and how much police, media and the general public can empathize with the victim and the victim's family.

I feel churlish and cruel for saying it, but why does this woman merit 12 full time police investigators?

Whew!

It's been one of those months at work lately. You get some relief knowing that there is a reward for overtime, missed meals, working on holidays and week-ends, but when you get right down to it, you really wish you didn't have to know all these policies.

But then 9-5 would probably kind of boring I suppose...

Can't wait for the week-end; happiness is going to bed at night knowing your alarm clock is set to "off".

Swiffergate

Why am I not able to find anything through Google about this alleged video?

Letting "Him" sort them out

As much as I detest Tom DeLay for his subversion of democracy, I'm dismayed at the media coverage that hasn't even bothered to check if the breathing has stopped before burying him and eulogizing him. The man, for all of his other faults, is still innocent until proven guilty. How often have we seen charges filed against a public figure that failed to meet the burden of evidence? The easiest way to get back at a teacher these days is to accuse them of molesting you; it doesn't matter if it's completely false, the accusation alone ensures that said teacher will never teach again (if he's lucky, as a vigilante mob is the unlucky option, and yes, men are much more vulnerable to accusations, false and real, than women).

Having said that, it's just bizarre that DeLay's defense team would smear the prosecutor's integrity first, rather than attack the charges. But attacking the person rather than the message has been part of politics for so long, it's normal.

The pendelum will swing back to civility in public discourse, but when?

So long Greg Sorbara

Is there anyone involved in politics who is *not* trying to scam or screw the people? That is too harsh and cynical, because of course there are. It just doesn't seem like they have the power to stop the corruption and sense of entitlement.

Rules? I don't need no stinkin' rules!!!

The autumn of summer

The weather of late has been nothing short of gorgeous. Temperatures normally associated with June in the first week of October are a delight. As much as I enjoy closing my eyes and revelling in the warmth of the day, the falling leaves and 7pm sunsets remind me that the march of time does not stop as my favourite season retreats for another year. Grass, leaves, the smell of rain on a hot, dry pavement and the pleasure of a breeze are memories that warm the heart as winter locks everything in its deep freeze. Until spring arrives to rescue us all with the promise of a new summer.

See you in court

After five years, "Dubya" has finally fulfilled a campaign promise. His claim to be a uniter, not a divider, finally rings true with his latest appointee to the Supreme Court making both Democrats and Republicans howl with outrage.

While she is a crony, let's hope the moderates rule the day.

Election this, election that

Is there anyone in this country who actually wants to elaborate a vision for the future of Canada, and then actually take us there? The Liberals, who nominally have the power, argue they are governing, even with the absence of a Parliamentary agenda (which makes sense given their contempt for Parliament, as shown by their idiotic plan to split Foreign Affairs and International Trade). The Tories are chronically angry and spend more time attacking the Liberals instead of promoting the many good ideas they have. The NDP and Bloc are comic relief, biding their time until the Green party puts them both in the hole.

And so the country drifts, the absence of leadership noted by no one as the average Canadian gets deeper into debt.

Civic responsibility....whatever....