Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Liberal Hypocrisy around the Gun Registry vote.
On this one, Jack has won my respect. Considering the Liberals led the charge visa vis democracy and it's principles, especially as relates to say, the proroguing of Parliament. Considering their howl over the erosion of democracy around the G-20 event doesn't it strike anyone else there is rank hypocrisy in this? Private members bills always have had free votes in the house. It's a democratic institution and principle. This sort of vote is usually a breath of fresh air against choking partisan votes of confidence. To resort to whipping it, driving their members to vote against their conscience and against their constituents, only means the party of entitlement will stay in the woodshed for another 4 years. They have lost almost every vote west of Thunder bay.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Blogging in a Montana news paper.
Long have I been a proponent of my American cousins. Even in the face of international disdain, I was the one standing up for the US of A. I know you can stand up for yourself, but its always good to have friends.
2 months ago, CSIS (the Canadian CIA) reported that some politicians were in the sway of foreign governments. As it would in the US, it caused quite a stir. Everyone thought China, with all its spy networks on both sides of our border.
However, what has been very painful to many of us up here, is that that would actually EXACTLY apply to what happened in the secret dealings between your Governor and our Premier. I have been on the Flathead, from Moose city to points south. There is no way you guys could pull that off on your side of the border there would be gun fire in the streets.
BUT I guess you think you off-set your own pollution of the Flathead, by creating a virtual park up here.
Can anyone down there imagine how galling it must be to be a Canadian and watch the YtoY initiative play out? Take a look at the map, it intends to make a park out of Canada greater in size than the size of Texas—perhaps twice that.
Imagine what would happen if the US tried to make a giant park from Yellowstone to the Canadian border. There would be a war. So why do it up here? Because you can. And Canada I guess is like any third world country you can have your way with.
2 months ago, CSIS (the Canadian CIA) reported that some politicians were in the sway of foreign governments. As it would in the US, it caused quite a stir. Everyone thought China, with all its spy networks on both sides of our border.
However, what has been very painful to many of us up here, is that that would actually EXACTLY apply to what happened in the secret dealings between your Governor and our Premier. I have been on the Flathead, from Moose city to points south. There is no way you guys could pull that off on your side of the border there would be gun fire in the streets.
BUT I guess you think you off-set your own pollution of the Flathead, by creating a virtual park up here.
Can anyone down there imagine how galling it must be to be a Canadian and watch the YtoY initiative play out? Take a look at the map, it intends to make a park out of Canada greater in size than the size of Texas—perhaps twice that.
Imagine what would happen if the US tried to make a giant park from Yellowstone to the Canadian border. There would be a war. So why do it up here? Because you can. And Canada I guess is like any third world country you can have your way with.
"Also the cops SHOULD have gone in sooner and picked off these rabble."
The problem is we have laws in this country. You can't (or shouldn't) be arrested without committing the crime. It isn't a crime for example to have a rock in your hand. Or a gallon of gas for that matter. Unless there is evidence you plan to use something to commit crime (conspiracy). In many cases they are confiscated without arrest.
Most of these 300 were performing for live cameras. No doubt the video will form the basis for the charges brought forward by the Crown.
They should all take a bow: Stupidity upon idiocy.
Am I suggesting the police did nothing wrong? No.
Am I suggesting they didn't overstep their bounds? No. No, even though the feces, spittle, urine, rocks, curses and whatever else happened to them. They should have taken it like a **man**. They shouldn't have pushed back. But let the crowd push them where ever it wanted. It wasn't a mob after all. Right? It was just *peaceful protesters*, who wanted to sit on a world leader's lap and tell him just how unhappy they were.
The police had an impossible job.
I think it would have been more effective if the protesters had their protest on the internet, or on skype or something. It certainly would have been less costly. They wouldn't have had to pay those airplane tickets, motel room, restaurant costs. The expense! (sic) And we wouldn't have had to pay for their baby sitting.
The problem is we have laws in this country. You can't (or shouldn't) be arrested without committing the crime. It isn't a crime for example to have a rock in your hand. Or a gallon of gas for that matter. Unless there is evidence you plan to use something to commit crime (conspiracy). In many cases they are confiscated without arrest.
Most of these 300 were performing for live cameras. No doubt the video will form the basis for the charges brought forward by the Crown.
They should all take a bow: Stupidity upon idiocy.
Am I suggesting the police did nothing wrong? No.
Am I suggesting they didn't overstep their bounds? No. No, even though the feces, spittle, urine, rocks, curses and whatever else happened to them. They should have taken it like a **man**. They shouldn't have pushed back. But let the crowd push them where ever it wanted. It wasn't a mob after all. Right? It was just *peaceful protesters*, who wanted to sit on a world leader's lap and tell him just how unhappy they were.
The police had an impossible job.
I think it would have been more effective if the protesters had their protest on the internet, or on skype or something. It certainly would have been less costly. They wouldn't have had to pay those airplane tickets, motel room, restaurant costs. The expense! (sic) And we wouldn't have had to pay for their baby sitting.
G20 debate
I wonder if there were no police present what would happen? Think the crowds would stay back? If you do you are smoking something. I wonder if Al Qaeda,or any other terrorist could resist a target of opportunity like that: Take out all the infidel leadership all at one go! Back in the 1960s when the protest movement was really born, there would be speeches and chanting w/no violence "Peace Man" was the word of the day.
Back in the 1960s police presence could be minimal. There was respect for property, and protest too.
Fast forward to 2010. Start with that nonsense at the Olympics that necessitated the fencing. This created a chill. It was the Olympics of 1972. There was minimal police presence. There was no protest, but there **was** a terrorist massacre. As is often the case, host governments ever since produce high security at international events. No one wants that to happen again.
I know I am recounting what we already know. The bombings, vandalism, rock throwing, spitting, throwing feces, and urine: These sorts of things are perpetrated by, in this case, at least 300 people. These people as everyone knows, embedded themselves in the crowd. Yes, peaceful protest is a human right. But the cost to keep it as peaceful as it was was 1 billion dollars. If there were 3,000 protesters, that comes down to 333,000.00 each. Congratulations. Like it or not, that was what we had to pay for your to exercise your rights.
Ok, let me retreat a little bit. Part of that money, was dual duty. Protesters **and** Terrorists--that didn't show (20,000 police on the ground might have had something to do with it.)
Oh and references to Communist countries' freedom of speech give rise to thought they must be laughing at us. This freedom of speech thing certainly appeared to the world to have gotten out of hand. If this was the result of freedom of speech, think they would ever want this in their country? No they are saying: Yeah Tiananmen! Disgraceful.
Back in the 1960s police presence could be minimal. There was respect for property, and protest too.
Fast forward to 2010. Start with that nonsense at the Olympics that necessitated the fencing. This created a chill. It was the Olympics of 1972. There was minimal police presence. There was no protest, but there **was** a terrorist massacre. As is often the case, host governments ever since produce high security at international events. No one wants that to happen again.
I know I am recounting what we already know. The bombings, vandalism, rock throwing, spitting, throwing feces, and urine: These sorts of things are perpetrated by, in this case, at least 300 people. These people as everyone knows, embedded themselves in the crowd. Yes, peaceful protest is a human right. But the cost to keep it as peaceful as it was was 1 billion dollars. If there were 3,000 protesters, that comes down to 333,000.00 each. Congratulations. Like it or not, that was what we had to pay for your to exercise your rights.
Ok, let me retreat a little bit. Part of that money, was dual duty. Protesters **and** Terrorists--that didn't show (20,000 police on the ground might have had something to do with it.)
Oh and references to Communist countries' freedom of speech give rise to thought they must be laughing at us. This freedom of speech thing certainly appeared to the world to have gotten out of hand. If this was the result of freedom of speech, think they would ever want this in their country? No they are saying: Yeah Tiananmen! Disgraceful.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
On the EU seal ban.
I think this is an issue Canada feels quite chippy about. You got to give Mr. Harper the credit, he really does have a finger on the pulse of the nation.
Canadians even out here in the west stand with our Newfoundland brothers.
From an ecological point of view, huge escalations in seal populations cannot help but ravage the fragile cod stocks. Atlantic Canadians understand this. Proactive management is a must given the fact that already human overfishing has done so much damage already. To passively "leave it to mother nature" is an abandonment of humanity's vital stewardship of the earth.
The EU needs to understand this. When they do, the will likely listen to us.
Canadians even out here in the west stand with our Newfoundland brothers.
From an ecological point of view, huge escalations in seal populations cannot help but ravage the fragile cod stocks. Atlantic Canadians understand this. Proactive management is a must given the fact that already human overfishing has done so much damage already. To passively "leave it to mother nature" is an abandonment of humanity's vital stewardship of the earth.
The EU needs to understand this. When they do, the will likely listen to us.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
EdwardR said: Harper is a fascist.
The term Facist comes from two latin words that mean a bundle of sticks, or sticks bundled and tied together.
The etymology is important. Because recent "authorities" on the subject have such poor rigor as to be laughable.
"Fascist" Government is government by strong-men.
They may be the wealthy elitists, industrialists, militarist people in a country, but that is always the primary indicator of fascism. Now there are 2 prime ministers who in the past would fit this descriptor, including the last one. As a large shipping magnet, he would fit the wealthy industrialist descriptor. The other was non other than Trudeau who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Mr. Harper began his political career driving a beat up old Ford Fair-lain. If anything he comes from humble beginnings.
Fascists are Statists. That means that a Fascist government is anti-free trade, anti UN, anti multilateral agreements; and puts the interest of the state as its absolute raison D'etre. There are political parties in Canada who are anti-free trade... but that wouldn't be the Conservatives.
Look at the joke your #14 is. Considering Mr. Harper has governed through 3 elections with a minority government. That cannot be described as being anti-democratic. There are routine votes in the house... all the time it is in session. Including votes of confidence. A fact conveniently overlooked by the "fascist" camp. Has any party governed in successive minorities for 5 years?
Love him or hate him, but Mr. Harper's story will go into the history books as quite remarkable.
For people who love to label others they dislike is one thing but, this fascist label is really tired and needs to be put out of its misery, it just makes any reasonable discourse descend to cliche braying upon one note. As if by doing so one might look intelligent.
It was George Bernard Shaw who said that fascism has lost its meaning. It was simply overdone.
The term Facist comes from two latin words that mean a bundle of sticks, or sticks bundled and tied together.
The etymology is important. Because recent "authorities" on the subject have such poor rigor as to be laughable.
"Fascist" Government is government by strong-men.
They may be the wealthy elitists, industrialists, militarist people in a country, but that is always the primary indicator of fascism. Now there are 2 prime ministers who in the past would fit this descriptor, including the last one. As a large shipping magnet, he would fit the wealthy industrialist descriptor. The other was non other than Trudeau who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Mr. Harper began his political career driving a beat up old Ford Fair-lain. If anything he comes from humble beginnings.
Fascists are Statists. That means that a Fascist government is anti-free trade, anti UN, anti multilateral agreements; and puts the interest of the state as its absolute raison D'etre. There are political parties in Canada who are anti-free trade... but that wouldn't be the Conservatives.
Look at the joke your #14 is. Considering Mr. Harper has governed through 3 elections with a minority government. That cannot be described as being anti-democratic. There are routine votes in the house... all the time it is in session. Including votes of confidence. A fact conveniently overlooked by the "fascist" camp. Has any party governed in successive minorities for 5 years?
Love him or hate him, but Mr. Harper's story will go into the history books as quite remarkable.
For people who love to label others they dislike is one thing but, this fascist label is really tired and needs to be put out of its misery, it just makes any reasonable discourse descend to cliche braying upon one note. As if by doing so one might look intelligent.
It was George Bernard Shaw who said that fascism has lost its meaning. It was simply overdone.
Fox on Iran time bomb
Mr. Gordon does not represent Canada well. But he does represent opposition. Our Prime Minister, Mr. Harper, is hounded about every decision from these guys. Do you remember how the presidential candidates fell over each other trying to prove/assert they were Christians? In Canada, Mr. Harper is crucified daily because he has a quiet private faith.
However, that said on things military, since the Korean war Canada's military has been seriously degraded by successive Liberal Governments. Until now. Under the Liberals, Canada first showed up in Afghanistan wearing green camo, and virtually no armor. However, under Mr. Harper, who believes Canada needs to have a strong military, at least in relative terms. Canada has made huge strides. New Heilcopters, and recent the F-35, as well as ships and tanks.
We will never be the US in terms of might, but we aren't against the US. We have gone to war shoulder to shoulder with the US since the 1st World War. And in Afghanistan, we have been at war in the most dangerous Kandahar district longer than we were at war in WWII (and we were in that war quite a bit longer than the US). Canada shares many goals along side the US. On Iran, Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation in Korea and Iran, issues of economy and trade, democracy and freedom. I hope my American friends can hold these things in perspective. We are proximately 1/10 your size on a per capita basis, and economic size. Some have said of Canadian forces we punch above our weight. That may be true, but I for one am proud of our boys and what we have contributed literally blood sweat and tears to the same freedoms your boys are fighting for. Despite the Liberal/Socialist Wankers that come on these boards from time to time, they don't represent most of us.
However, that said on things military, since the Korean war Canada's military has been seriously degraded by successive Liberal Governments. Until now. Under the Liberals, Canada first showed up in Afghanistan wearing green camo, and virtually no armor. However, under Mr. Harper, who believes Canada needs to have a strong military, at least in relative terms. Canada has made huge strides. New Heilcopters, and recent the F-35, as well as ships and tanks.
We will never be the US in terms of might, but we aren't against the US. We have gone to war shoulder to shoulder with the US since the 1st World War. And in Afghanistan, we have been at war in the most dangerous Kandahar district longer than we were at war in WWII (and we were in that war quite a bit longer than the US). Canada shares many goals along side the US. On Iran, Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation in Korea and Iran, issues of economy and trade, democracy and freedom. I hope my American friends can hold these things in perspective. We are proximately 1/10 your size on a per capita basis, and economic size. Some have said of Canadian forces we punch above our weight. That may be true, but I for one am proud of our boys and what we have contributed literally blood sweat and tears to the same freedoms your boys are fighting for. Despite the Liberal/Socialist Wankers that come on these boards from time to time, they don't represent most of us.
Philosopher King said:
"Alethia: At the moment we have very strict privacy laws, such that the government cannot even share with itself many of the details.
What you're suggesting would undermine this, which is in my opinion far more invasive than an aggregated census."
____________________________
You are correct in noting that there are strictures withing government that protect privacy. Health Care and Rev. Can are examples of this.
But if Stats Can were to say to Rev. Can. How many children are there in Canada? Would Rev. Can be violating its rules to answer?
The data has already been collated in such a way that it is divorced from individuals. Rev Can, in other words, has departments that function much like Stats Can does. Why have it done it twice? Canadians are paying for it each time remember.
This would have to be implemented under the strict supervision of the privacy commission of course. I admit, I despair of thinking privacy exists in the World any more
"Alethia: At the moment we have very strict privacy laws, such that the government cannot even share with itself many of the details.
What you're suggesting would undermine this, which is in my opinion far more invasive than an aggregated census."
____________________________
You are correct in noting that there are strictures withing government that protect privacy. Health Care and Rev. Can are examples of this.
But if Stats Can were to say to Rev. Can. How many children are there in Canada? Would Rev. Can be violating its rules to answer?
The data has already been collated in such a way that it is divorced from individuals. Rev Can, in other words, has departments that function much like Stats Can does. Why have it done it twice? Canadians are paying for it each time remember.
This would have to be implemented under the strict supervision of the privacy commission of course. I admit, I despair of thinking privacy exists in the World any more
Hammer Tim said: Alethia
I think the Conservatives, will compromise with its critics: And allow Canadians to see how Britain and Germany do after dropping their national census. (Britain didn't even whimper)
===========================
Really, from Time Magazine...
Read it this time, you ignored it yesterday obviously!!
The European countries you speak of have far more intrusive information collection devices, requiring their citizens to offer information - through various sources that Canadians, of every stripe would be shocked at... and unaccepting of...
______________________________
You and I exchanged views on this yesterday.
The Nordic countries do have a more intrusive state. I suppose, with the most cctv cameras Britain is always watching. And we must be able t think something up about Germany.
I was not talking about Nordic Countries you might notice. If I were, I would have referred to Europe generally. No, what I said if you go back and re-read it, is that Canada can observe England, since it dropped it's census in the past week or two; and it can observe Germany who intends to shortly.
England is significant because of Commonwealth ties. And Germany who has rebuilt itself twice, after WWII and after the fall of wall. It has had to integrate people who were indoctrinated as socialists, and reform itself. One might think that a) Germany's socialists would want government control and public facilities, and therefore would be very upset about the change.
b) There must be some thinking intellectuals and elites who have considered this and fed into the process. The government isn't known to be low-brow.
By watching how these countries do this, we can assess if this can be accommodated in Canada.
I think the Conservatives, will compromise with its critics: And allow Canadians to see how Britain and Germany do after dropping their national census. (Britain didn't even whimper)
===========================
Really, from Time Magazine...
Read it this time, you ignored it yesterday obviously!!
The European countries you speak of have far more intrusive information collection devices, requiring their citizens to offer information - through various sources that Canadians, of every stripe would be shocked at... and unaccepting of...
______________________________
You and I exchanged views on this yesterday.
The Nordic countries do have a more intrusive state. I suppose, with the most cctv cameras Britain is always watching. And we must be able t think something up about Germany.
I was not talking about Nordic Countries you might notice. If I were, I would have referred to Europe generally. No, what I said if you go back and re-read it, is that Canada can observe England, since it dropped it's census in the past week or two; and it can observe Germany who intends to shortly.
England is significant because of Commonwealth ties. And Germany who has rebuilt itself twice, after WWII and after the fall of wall. It has had to integrate people who were indoctrinated as socialists, and reform itself. One might think that a) Germany's socialists would want government control and public facilities, and therefore would be very upset about the change.
b) There must be some thinking intellectuals and elites who have considered this and fed into the process. The government isn't known to be low-brow.
By watching how these countries do this, we can assess if this can be accommodated in Canada.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Fairness in Considering Refugees.
Paul_Toronto said: The bigotry against a whole people here is disgusting. I have seen some hate posts, often with vulgar language. But they are pulled very quickly by G&M and we thank you for doing so.
Does Canada have bigots?
Most certainly there are some, perhaps many depending on your point of view. But to sling all the people who are trying to contribute to this discussion; and who may hold an opposing view to yours; to cast them into the classification of being a bigot is wrong.
When in a debate, people start to label and vilify they other side, that is the indication they have lost-- having exhausted meaningful ideas.
But this issue isn't driven by bigotry. Its driven by fairness. Why should a boat load of people be able the push themselves to the front of the line? --The line which has **valid** refugees awaiting final processing from all around the world.
This is the travesty of the situation. Other people who's lives are legitimately at risk put on hold because 500 people were trafficked into Canada.
This has been a long-standing issue many Canadians are very angry about. This anger can exist the same time we welcome our neighbor who is Tamil, African, or Asian without suspicion or prejudice. **This** situation however because it has been definitively understood involves Tamils, creates a backlash that regrettably, may fall on innocent Tamils in Canada. Of course, if it is found that Tamil organizations have funded this crisis, paying their way, I say throw their butts in jail, or if they aren't citizens, send them packing too.
For the person who is Tamil, working hard in Canada as a Canadian, who has not elbowed their way to the front of the line. Then I think I speak for most Canadians: Welcome to Canada.
Does Canada have bigots?
Most certainly there are some, perhaps many depending on your point of view. But to sling all the people who are trying to contribute to this discussion; and who may hold an opposing view to yours; to cast them into the classification of being a bigot is wrong.
When in a debate, people start to label and vilify they other side, that is the indication they have lost-- having exhausted meaningful ideas.
But this issue isn't driven by bigotry. Its driven by fairness. Why should a boat load of people be able the push themselves to the front of the line? --The line which has **valid** refugees awaiting final processing from all around the world.
This is the travesty of the situation. Other people who's lives are legitimately at risk put on hold because 500 people were trafficked into Canada.
This has been a long-standing issue many Canadians are very angry about. This anger can exist the same time we welcome our neighbor who is Tamil, African, or Asian without suspicion or prejudice. **This** situation however because it has been definitively understood involves Tamils, creates a backlash that regrettably, may fall on innocent Tamils in Canada. Of course, if it is found that Tamil organizations have funded this crisis, paying their way, I say throw their butts in jail, or if they aren't citizens, send them packing too.
For the person who is Tamil, working hard in Canada as a Canadian, who has not elbowed their way to the front of the line. Then I think I speak for most Canadians: Welcome to Canada.
Tamil terror
Fluxed them Said: A lot of the people who say that Tamil refugees need to stay home and fight their own fight against oppression (because their problems aren't our problem)
_________________________
Hello?
So what then of those who are coming to Canada to work and earn money to terrorist causes in their homeland? And don't try to make out that didn't or doesn't happen today. Air India ring a bell?
So how many of these 500 odd people have come to Canada to do just that?
There needs to be Canadian law that only grants immigration status on Canadian soil, to those it screens. To those who's situation is somewhere between very likely to certainly to result in torture, rape, and killing. Just as we do to those in the cue from others in various parts of the world.
_________________________
Hello?
So what then of those who are coming to Canada to work and earn money to terrorist causes in their homeland? And don't try to make out that didn't or doesn't happen today. Air India ring a bell?
So how many of these 500 odd people have come to Canada to do just that?
There needs to be Canadian law that only grants immigration status on Canadian soil, to those it screens. To those who's situation is somewhere between very likely to certainly to result in torture, rape, and killing. Just as we do to those in the cue from others in various parts of the world.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
For everything there is a season and a time for everything under heaven.
There are times to balance the books, and there are times to borrow.
If borrowing needs be done, it is best that governments borrow. If an unemployed family has to borrow, the local "Lending Tree" wants 30%. Families in crisis do not borrow to buy a new car, they borrow to eat, buy a few clothes at the 2nd hand shop and do what ever they can to scrape by.
Most Canadians aren't in that place. It was appropriate for the government to borrow. Canada's economy has been lock-step with the States for probably 75 years--until now. Usually we lag behind about a year. Not this time, were that the case, Canadian housing prices could have collapsed to the 50% range enjoyed by Southern California for example.
Consider what would happen to Canadian wealth if that much equity were wiped out... It makes 50 billion in borrowing a bargain. Its the right time to borrow in situations like this. With interest rates below 1%, the pain of debt on the heads of Canadians is far less than the alternatives.
Canada's debt is about 25k/capita. In the US its almost 50k. If the Canadian government stimulus was in equal proportion to the US, the Canadian deficit would be between 130 billion and 200 billion this year. Comparably speaking the government here is far more conservative. I am worried it might be too much so.
There are times to balance the books, and there are times to borrow.
If borrowing needs be done, it is best that governments borrow. If an unemployed family has to borrow, the local "Lending Tree" wants 30%. Families in crisis do not borrow to buy a new car, they borrow to eat, buy a few clothes at the 2nd hand shop and do what ever they can to scrape by.
Most Canadians aren't in that place. It was appropriate for the government to borrow. Canada's economy has been lock-step with the States for probably 75 years--until now. Usually we lag behind about a year. Not this time, were that the case, Canadian housing prices could have collapsed to the 50% range enjoyed by Southern California for example.
Consider what would happen to Canadian wealth if that much equity were wiped out... It makes 50 billion in borrowing a bargain. Its the right time to borrow in situations like this. With interest rates below 1%, the pain of debt on the heads of Canadians is far less than the alternatives.
Canada's debt is about 25k/capita. In the US its almost 50k. If the Canadian government stimulus was in equal proportion to the US, the Canadian deficit would be between 130 billion and 200 billion this year. Comparably speaking the government here is far more conservative. I am worried it might be too much so.
Does anyone find an irony in the double-speak of the meta narrative of the media and chattering classes?
First of all, Mr Day is hacked to pieces because he referenced a **survey** done several years ago that indicated there might be a slight up tick in unreported crime. It is probably valid to criticize him given long term downward trends also noted by similar surveys over the past 10 years. It was a Stats Can **Survey (s)** that was taken as a given to be accurate and authoritative.
Secondly, the census cannot be accurate or authoritative if it is a voluntary **survey**.
Anyone get that?
First of all, Mr Day is hacked to pieces because he referenced a **survey** done several years ago that indicated there might be a slight up tick in unreported crime. It is probably valid to criticize him given long term downward trends also noted by similar surveys over the past 10 years. It was a Stats Can **Survey (s)** that was taken as a given to be accurate and authoritative.
Secondly, the census cannot be accurate or authoritative if it is a voluntary **survey**.
Anyone get that?
I am still torn about this. I am not a statistician, although I needed to employ a statistical rigor for my grad work.
There are several problems with surveys and modern cenus'. The first key goal is random sampling. It is very hard to achieve perfect random sampling. The mandatory long form attempted this through coercion. Answer it or you could go to jail. The fact that no one did go to jail is not the issue. The issue is coercion itself. Every 5th house was to under threat of jail or fines capitulate and fill the form.
I understand why it was done. Firstly, because the threat got it done. Very few people in the sample did not return a completed census form. The idea is to achieve a ubiquitous distribution of data in the sample, and there-by understand trends.
The problem is that there is an assumption at some level that the data received is accurate and true. This is an important assumption, but the intellectuals among us must admit the assumption or they cave in to intellectual dishonesty.
The classic example is the question about religious affiliation. 21, 000 people said "Jedi Knight" The purely "random sample" in itself problematic, because there is a level of resentment toward the census for what is perceived to be an intrusion of the state. Some, understand that the answers they give have a significant impact on their lives a year, or two from the moment they answer a question.
Some resent what they perceive to be an intrusion of the state. Perhaps realizing the information may impact how foreign corporations and governments view Canada. Some don't want to capitulate and give information to countries who consider us their enemies.
I am sure we could go on at length. Purity is a myth.
For what ever reason Canadians are not cooperating even under threat of jail. It is said of torture victims, they will tell the inquisitor anything they want to hear. But the truth? That is another matter.
Does that mean this is the right way to go? I don't know. I suppose, being somewhat of a contrarian, I like to ask and think about the the opposing view. I also have this kind of resistance to what ever power structure I view to be coercive. So being undecided, bring the long form back or don't it doesn't matter. If people resent the intrusiveness enough, Jedi Knights are looking...
There are several problems with surveys and modern cenus'. The first key goal is random sampling. It is very hard to achieve perfect random sampling. The mandatory long form attempted this through coercion. Answer it or you could go to jail. The fact that no one did go to jail is not the issue. The issue is coercion itself. Every 5th house was to under threat of jail or fines capitulate and fill the form.
I understand why it was done. Firstly, because the threat got it done. Very few people in the sample did not return a completed census form. The idea is to achieve a ubiquitous distribution of data in the sample, and there-by understand trends.
The problem is that there is an assumption at some level that the data received is accurate and true. This is an important assumption, but the intellectuals among us must admit the assumption or they cave in to intellectual dishonesty.
The classic example is the question about religious affiliation. 21, 000 people said "Jedi Knight" The purely "random sample" in itself problematic, because there is a level of resentment toward the census for what is perceived to be an intrusion of the state. Some, understand that the answers they give have a significant impact on their lives a year, or two from the moment they answer a question.
Some resent what they perceive to be an intrusion of the state. Perhaps realizing the information may impact how foreign corporations and governments view Canada. Some don't want to capitulate and give information to countries who consider us their enemies.
I am sure we could go on at length. Purity is a myth.
For what ever reason Canadians are not cooperating even under threat of jail. It is said of torture victims, they will tell the inquisitor anything they want to hear. But the truth? That is another matter.
Does that mean this is the right way to go? I don't know. I suppose, being somewhat of a contrarian, I like to ask and think about the the opposing view. I also have this kind of resistance to what ever power structure I view to be coercive. So being undecided, bring the long form back or don't it doesn't matter. If people resent the intrusiveness enough, Jedi Knights are looking...
Monday, August 9, 2010
8/9/2010 8:01:07 PM I think the social/fiscal conservative description is a flash in the pan. There are Liberals who could fall under the social-conservative moniker as well as conservatives who are Liberal in their social moors. Consider the classic example of the issue of Abortion. There are quite a few Liberals who voted to create legislation regarding it. Or for another oft-used example gun control. Heck there were even NDP people who voted to withdraw the long gun registry. These at least are the purview of what some call social conservationism. No the matter of profligacy is first of all anti-social-conservative. Especially if one of the definers of that "ism" is the old Protestant work ethic. Profligacy and excess is far from that proverbial tree. The issue of the Conservatives being socially vs fiscally conservative is a false one from the get-go. The matter is further magnified by some of the points you made visa vis prudent fiscal management. Conservatives by tradition should be fiscally prudent. But of course we haven't seen that since Joe Clark, or Ross Stanfield, or Dief himself. While it is true Conservatism should be marked by fiscal prudence, it is even more defined by reducing taxes and size of government. The "surplus" issue is bunk. That money was Canadian taxpayers hard earned dollars. Conservatives believe a dollar is best in the pockets of citizens instead of coalescing by the billions in government coffers--begging to be spent on some new larger government project. No more irksome a tax was and is the Gst/Hst. The 2% cut most say is roughly equal that surplus. The problem with that tax is that it taxes disproportionally the poor(albeit offset somewhat for the poorest among us). The poor spend 100% of their money on life's essentials--no pension plans, no bank accounts with much but zeroes. The middle and upper classes, spend proportionally less on consumption--never worrying about their next meal, but banking that cash in investments etc.  1  0 | ||
 Alethia | Even so, I thought when the GST was first conceived that it was good because it was a tax the rich could not avoid. So let them buy that Mercedes, so long as that tax brought in extra funds for good government. Anyway, I digress from the central issue that is again deceptive in its spin. That "surplus" was money taken from Canadian tax payers that shouldn't have been. Government should not make money on the backs of the taxpayers. It should ideally break even. When I look at the G20 nations, many of whom have debt equal to or greater than their GDP, I shudder. To be honest, and I hate to say it, the "recovery" may stutter, or fall in to what in retrospect we will say a depression. Printing presses from national banks/central reserves are going into over drive. How the heck with the US be able to pay back 50k per person PLUS interest? Unless everyone gets to cancel their debt by at least 50% of their Gdp, we are in for frightening taxation and inflation. These are the worries of conservatives, who want to conserve something for the future. | |
Canadian/US Deficit spending
Soenso, from where I sit there is more that unites you and I than divides us. Even though I might see myself a small-c conservative, I think you are correct in seeing terror exhibited in seniors. I think gated communities are a testament to that, moreso than ghettos for the wealthy. It isn't that expensive to put up a fence and gate. Many gated communities in BC offer homes well under the median prices. That isn't to say there aren't palaces either behind walls and gates, but come to think of it hasn't that always been so?
Then I am struck by the irony, we have been talking about one sort of prison with walls and gates, and then yet another.
I haven't made up my mind about the Conservative party. Many conservatives are uncomfortable with the spending. We are trying to appreciate in the times of recession, bordering on depression in some places, it is important for government to spend money for the sake of stimulus.
So when you are building roads, fiber optic networks, prisons and even fake lakes and fighter jets make no mistake that is stimulus. People were and are employed who wouldn't otherwise be so.
But as uncomfortable as I am with the spending in Canada, the US deficit is aiming at 2 trillion this year, with last week's indicator of another 800 billion for distressed mortgages. For Canada to be spending an equivalent amount per-capita, it's deficit would be in the order of 200 billion this year.
I know they have had it particularly bad there. But I can't help noticing Canada's deficit of in the 40s could be far worse if there was a "democrat" equivalent at the helm here.
Even if it is true current deficit spending in Canada is evidence of fiscal restraint, I am worried about the disparity between our monetary systems, when per capita debt in the US is almost twice ours.
Will they end up with inflation of more than 10% per anum, essentially sealing off the US from Canadian export?
It may be that we haven't spent enough in the end.
Then I am struck by the irony, we have been talking about one sort of prison with walls and gates, and then yet another.
I haven't made up my mind about the Conservative party. Many conservatives are uncomfortable with the spending. We are trying to appreciate in the times of recession, bordering on depression in some places, it is important for government to spend money for the sake of stimulus.
So when you are building roads, fiber optic networks, prisons and even fake lakes and fighter jets make no mistake that is stimulus. People were and are employed who wouldn't otherwise be so.
But as uncomfortable as I am with the spending in Canada, the US deficit is aiming at 2 trillion this year, with last week's indicator of another 800 billion for distressed mortgages. For Canada to be spending an equivalent amount per-capita, it's deficit would be in the order of 200 billion this year.
I know they have had it particularly bad there. But I can't help noticing Canada's deficit of in the 40s could be far worse if there was a "democrat" equivalent at the helm here.
Even if it is true current deficit spending in Canada is evidence of fiscal restraint, I am worried about the disparity between our monetary systems, when per capita debt in the US is almost twice ours.
Will they end up with inflation of more than 10% per anum, essentially sealing off the US from Canadian export?
It may be that we haven't spent enough in the end.
Sorenso said: "Actually I, at least, do think home invasions are always reported. Why would they not be? This is a serious crime. Home invasions are probably on the rise because there are far more predators on our streets who have nothing to lose and nothing to gain from mainstream life. These young criminals seek easy victims."
So the more serious crime the more its reported?
Tell that to Pickton's victims. Perhaps you missed my thrust about terror. I guess none of us have proper statistics, and that sort of question wouldn't have made the long form anyhow.
This is the problem with conjecture. The people on both sides of the question pointing to polls done 5 years ago to buttress their argument inevitably come short of adequate test for truth.
The idea of a 1st time criminal initiating a home invasion has happened, rarely. Usually because the perpetrator has known the victim over time he might try it. But organized gang related home invasions, if they leave anyone surviving, make it very clear they will be back if the victim reports. However, if you will read my point, the issue I point to is terror. A growing elderly population living on their own, worries more about the issue than they did 30 years ago.
People worry about thieves so they buy door locks, and car alarm, they worry about rapists, so they carry pepper spray. Neither of which are necessarily guaranteed to stop crime. Prison as well. Unless you've been there and never want to go back.
Of course we have no people in Canada who should be in jail that aren't. Right?
So the more serious crime the more its reported?
Tell that to Pickton's victims. Perhaps you missed my thrust about terror. I guess none of us have proper statistics, and that sort of question wouldn't have made the long form anyhow.
This is the problem with conjecture. The people on both sides of the question pointing to polls done 5 years ago to buttress their argument inevitably come short of adequate test for truth.
The idea of a 1st time criminal initiating a home invasion has happened, rarely. Usually because the perpetrator has known the victim over time he might try it. But organized gang related home invasions, if they leave anyone surviving, make it very clear they will be back if the victim reports. However, if you will read my point, the issue I point to is terror. A growing elderly population living on their own, worries more about the issue than they did 30 years ago.
People worry about thieves so they buy door locks, and car alarm, they worry about rapists, so they carry pepper spray. Neither of which are necessarily guaranteed to stop crime. Prison as well. Unless you've been there and never want to go back.
Of course we have no people in Canada who should be in jail that aren't. Right?
More Debate on Prisons
Soenso said, "If it were possible to give a child back her life under the circumstances you lay out, no matter what it cost it would be worth it"
"Don't you find it insulting in the face of your apparent experience that Mr. Clement talks about 'unreported crime' and seems unaware of the deeper, perhaps more legitimate, reasons and justifications for spending money on prisons? "
_____________________________
First of all thank you for taking the time for a thoughtful response. I appreciate that we can have an area of commonality on this question.
I suppose I am altruistic to some extent. I can't accept that these comments are not taken out of context to some extent. I may be wrong.
The reasons I shared with the bloggers here are the reasons we should build prisons--In My opinion.
I have had a bit of a smile cross my face on some of these posts: When it is suggested these prisons are for pot smokers and protesters. Having inhaled in my younger years, I recall the heights my paranoia could rise. (incidentally the major mental health risk with pot) But I don't think Canadian authorities are going to go after marijuana users. It is important to realize how incredibly over crowded the prisons are today. I wouldn't be surprised if after spending these billions, we could fill half those spaces to alleviate the overcrowding issue alone.
Canadians spend billions on the revolving door right now. The incredible pressure on the justice system, and on policing can't help but create enormous costs on tax payers.
So long as we budget for rehabilitation inputs in these new places, this could be very good for Canada.
Finally, forgive my crass view on politics.
One party comes to power for a while, then another. What's the probability the Conservatives will be in power in 5-7 years?
It will be the Liberals most likely given these shiny new keys. So the question is what will they do with them?
"Don't you find it insulting in the face of your apparent experience that Mr. Clement talks about 'unreported crime' and seems unaware of the deeper, perhaps more legitimate, reasons and justifications for spending money on prisons? "
_____________________________
First of all thank you for taking the time for a thoughtful response. I appreciate that we can have an area of commonality on this question.
I suppose I am altruistic to some extent. I can't accept that these comments are not taken out of context to some extent. I may be wrong.
The reasons I shared with the bloggers here are the reasons we should build prisons--In My opinion.
I have had a bit of a smile cross my face on some of these posts: When it is suggested these prisons are for pot smokers and protesters. Having inhaled in my younger years, I recall the heights my paranoia could rise. (incidentally the major mental health risk with pot) But I don't think Canadian authorities are going to go after marijuana users. It is important to realize how incredibly over crowded the prisons are today. I wouldn't be surprised if after spending these billions, we could fill half those spaces to alleviate the overcrowding issue alone.
Canadians spend billions on the revolving door right now. The incredible pressure on the justice system, and on policing can't help but create enormous costs on tax payers.
So long as we budget for rehabilitation inputs in these new places, this could be very good for Canada.
Finally, forgive my crass view on politics.
One party comes to power for a while, then another. What's the probability the Conservatives will be in power in 5-7 years?
It will be the Liberals most likely given these shiny new keys. So the question is what will they do with them?
On more Prisons.
I take exception to the denigrating comments like this one: Sorento: 35 pages and not a single constructive comment from the HCon defenders."
Here are a few, that are not talking points:
Regarding prisons: Are our prisons over-crowded?
The answer is quite obviously yes. Does over-crowding effect judges sentencing deliberations? In fact they do without question. Does overcrowding impact parole decisions? I have no personal knowledge of that, so I leave that one hanging. How does prison overcrowding effect morale of inmates? Ask Manitoba with the riots that happened there last month: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2010/07/22/man-stony-mountain-uprising.html and I quote: "...the riot was prompted by ***overcrowding and double-bunking*** at the prison, saying that will be part of the investigation by RCMP and an internal review by prison officials." and 5thly, Do the RCMP spend significant amounts of time re-apprehending repeat offenders? The answer there is obvious. And most important, what price would you put on giving back a child his or her life that wouldn't have been abused or raped and murdered, had the perpetrator been kept in jail?
What isn't intelligent is to sweep these issues under the carpet. To suggest by innuendo that the reason "they" build them is to make room for more prisoners like me and you. That is intellectual dishonesty. To take a complex multifaceted problem and distill it down to a sound bite, is either intellectual dishonesty or a reflection that people in this debate do not have the intelligence to have an opinion outside the NDP talking points.
Here are a few, that are not talking points:
Regarding prisons: Are our prisons over-crowded?
The answer is quite obviously yes. Does over-crowding effect judges sentencing deliberations? In fact they do without question. Does overcrowding impact parole decisions? I have no personal knowledge of that, so I leave that one hanging. How does prison overcrowding effect morale of inmates? Ask Manitoba with the riots that happened there last month: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2010/07/22/man-stony-mountain-uprising.html and I quote: "...the riot was prompted by ***overcrowding and double-bunking*** at the prison, saying that will be part of the investigation by RCMP and an internal review by prison officials." and 5thly, Do the RCMP spend significant amounts of time re-apprehending repeat offenders? The answer there is obvious. And most important, what price would you put on giving back a child his or her life that wouldn't have been abused or raped and murdered, had the perpetrator been kept in jail?
What isn't intelligent is to sweep these issues under the carpet. To suggest by innuendo that the reason "they" build them is to make room for more prisoners like me and you. That is intellectual dishonesty. To take a complex multifaceted problem and distill it down to a sound bite, is either intellectual dishonesty or a reflection that people in this debate do not have the intelligence to have an opinion outside the NDP talking points.
On Crime 2 Points:
1) Are prisons overcrowded? If so does that overcrowding effect release dates, jail times mandated by the judge, and probation?
2) When we have our police tracking down and rearresting repeat offenders, does that stretch resources or worse, DEFLECT resources that would better serve the public?
I think these 2 questions are the questions more-so than extending mandatory sentencing. Is the meta-narrative journalists are hung up on, mandatory sentencing? Or are my 1st 2 points simply wrong?
1) Are prisons overcrowded? If so does that overcrowding effect release dates, jail times mandated by the judge, and probation?
2) When we have our police tracking down and rearresting repeat offenders, does that stretch resources or worse, DEFLECT resources that would better serve the public?
I think these 2 questions are the questions more-so than extending mandatory sentencing. Is the meta-narrative journalists are hung up on, mandatory sentencing? Or are my 1st 2 points simply wrong?
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Furor over Conservative spending
And then I look across the border. The US is about to spend 800 billion to help mortgage holders who's house values are under water.
For all intents and purposes, thats an extra trillion dollars.
That figure is 1.4 times the size of Canada's ENTIRE national debt.
If a leftist party were in power the spending situation could be a lot worse.
For all intents and purposes, thats an extra trillion dollars.
That figure is 1.4 times the size of Canada's ENTIRE national debt.
If a leftist party were in power the spending situation could be a lot worse.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Survivability vs Russian Bomber squadron
The question was raised: Can't our f-18s take out russian bombers when they are refueling, even if they are protected by 6 fighters...
You are right that mid-air refueling is the biggest weak spot among all airforces today.
Probably our f18s could have a big advantage to kill the bomber... *today*, even if it meant zeroing out their own survivability.
But that is the problem. Our F18s are aging generation 4 planes. The Mig 35 which might be "capping" is rated 4++. Their specs are superior to the F18 even upgraded as our are.
That doesn't mean we can't defeat them, or at least kill the bomber before they get blown out of the sky.
But is that what we want? To be out-gunned, and MAYBE pull it off but die trying?
And now the Su 035s has over 60 planes in the air. The 037 has been prototyped (incidentally costing 147 million each). Which boast better specs than the CF 18s by far.
Its past time for these planes, and its past time for us to be looking forward to the F35s.
I will close for the night by referencing recent war games between Canada and its F18s, and the US with F-35s and 22s. We lost every plane before we even saw them. They had zero casualties. Even 10 years ago we were holding our own. Not anymore.
You are right that mid-air refueling is the biggest weak spot among all airforces today.
Probably our f18s could have a big advantage to kill the bomber... *today*, even if it meant zeroing out their own survivability.
But that is the problem. Our F18s are aging generation 4 planes. The Mig 35 which might be "capping" is rated 4++. Their specs are superior to the F18 even upgraded as our are.
That doesn't mean we can't defeat them, or at least kill the bomber before they get blown out of the sky.
But is that what we want? To be out-gunned, and MAYBE pull it off but die trying?
And now the Su 035s has over 60 planes in the air. The 037 has been prototyped (incidentally costing 147 million each). Which boast better specs than the CF 18s by far.
Its past time for these planes, and its past time for us to be looking forward to the F35s.
I will close for the night by referencing recent war games between Canada and its F18s, and the US with F-35s and 22s. We lost every plane before we even saw them. They had zero casualties. Even 10 years ago we were holding our own. Not anymore.
CF 18s vs Russian Bomber squadron...
PHilmac,
You are right that mid-air refueling is the biggest weak spot among all airforces today.
Probably our f18s could have a big advantage to kill the bomber... *today*, even if it meant zeroing out their own survivability.
But that is the problem. Our F18s are aging generation 4 planes. The Mig 35 which might be "capping" is rated 4++. Their specs are superior to the F18 even upgraded as our are.
That doesn't mean we can't defeat them, or at least kill the bomber before they get blown out of the sky.
But is that what we want? To be out-gunned, and MAYBE pull it off but die trying?
And now the Su 035s has over 60 planes in the air. The 037 has been prototyped (incidentally costing 147 million each). Which boast better specs than the CF 18s by far.
Its past time for these planes, and its past time for us to be looking forward to the F35s.
I will close for the night by referencing recent war games between Canada and its F18s, and the US with F-35s and 22s. We lost every plane before we even saw them. They had zero casualties. Even 10 years ago we were holding our own. Not anymore.
You are right that mid-air refueling is the biggest weak spot among all airforces today.
Probably our f18s could have a big advantage to kill the bomber... *today*, even if it meant zeroing out their own survivability.
But that is the problem. Our F18s are aging generation 4 planes. The Mig 35 which might be "capping" is rated 4++. Their specs are superior to the F18 even upgraded as our are.
That doesn't mean we can't defeat them, or at least kill the bomber before they get blown out of the sky.
But is that what we want? To be out-gunned, and MAYBE pull it off but die trying?
And now the Su 035s has over 60 planes in the air. The 037 has been prototyped (incidentally costing 147 million each). Which boast better specs than the CF 18s by far.
Its past time for these planes, and its past time for us to be looking forward to the F35s.
I will close for the night by referencing recent war games between Canada and its F18s, and the US with F-35s and 22s. We lost every plane before we even saw them. They had zero casualties. Even 10 years ago we were holding our own. Not anymore.
Ok Gentlemen, let it be a given that right now in 2010, it is nigh impossible to conceive of a day we might have to take on Russian planes in a life or death struggle.
Now consider this:
God forbid that would ever happen.
The world has changed so much in the past 50-80 years, its hard to comprehend it its enormity in retrospect. I remember the cold war, when North America was at Def-con4; And bombers rose to the skies from coast to cost on both sides of the world.
And today we sit post-Soviet era with relatively little anxiety compared to those days. Who knows the future? Who knows, if the entire Western economy is going to collapse as it did in the Soviet Union--precipitating the dissolution of that empire?
I can tell you, no one in 1964, 1969, 1973, could imagine that the Soviet empire would collapse as it has. No one would imagine that we are building bridges together with them. Its the problem of the unimaginable that calls a country to build a military force.
I can't imagine being drawn into another gulf war. It would take something like a nuke going off in an American city. How long would it take for NATO to be in Iran if that were the case? If New York were nuked with a strong NW flow, we would be effected, if Chicago did likewise. God forbid that any of these scenarios occur.
One of the most peaceful countries in the world: Switzerland, has universal compulsory conscription of all citizens. And everyone who has done their service has a gun in their home. It is deep in the National psyche, the concept of the defense of the homeland.
___________
Now consider this:
God forbid that would ever happen.
The world has changed so much in the past 50-80 years, its hard to comprehend it its enormity in retrospect. I remember the cold war, when North America was at Def-con4; And bombers rose to the skies from coast to cost on both sides of the world.
And today we sit post-Soviet era with relatively little anxiety compared to those days. Who knows the future? Who knows, if the entire Western economy is going to collapse as it did in the Soviet Union--precipitating the dissolution of that empire?
I can tell you, no one in 1964, 1969, 1973, could imagine that the Soviet empire would collapse as it has. No one would imagine that we are building bridges together with them. Its the problem of the unimaginable that calls a country to build a military force.
I can't imagine being drawn into another gulf war. It would take something like a nuke going off in an American city. How long would it take for NATO to be in Iran if that were the case? If New York were nuked with a strong NW flow, we would be effected, if Chicago did likewise. God forbid that any of these scenarios occur.
One of the most peaceful countries in the world: Switzerland, has universal compulsory conscription of all citizens. And everyone who has done their service has a gun in their home. It is deep in the National psyche, the concept of the defense of the homeland.
___________
Series of Post around Jonas' NP Article on the Census
Agnostic666
4:00 PM on July 31, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Agnostic666. Show DetailsHide Details
How about changing the title to just "Drop the Charade"? If someone truly opposes all forms of statism then they must oppose any state run military or any state run police force as well as any other government function, essentially only wanting anarchy. Otherwise the argument is what amount of statism is acceptible. If you accept some form of government (statism) is required then you must decide how effective you want the government to perform its required functions.
My Response:
You don't have to think all forms of statism are wrong to think this one is. One Canadian doesn't tell anyone how much he has in the bank, another tells the world. Both are an expression of freedom. What is privacy for one may not be the same for all. Since Revenue Canada has pried most of that data from us anyhow, let them get it there. I will be joining the ranks of the Jedi Knights this time round. I will make up every answer.
What statisticians won't admit, is that the census data is not pure. They want people to think it is. The mandatory form theoretically creates a random distribution so prized by statisticians. BUT it presupposes those responses will be absolutely true. That is the problem. After this scrap, a lot of Canadians are going to join the ranks of the Jedi Knights. Let Stats Can take that and smoke it. Is that valid enough for you all you sheeple?
Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/31/george-jonas-drop-the-census-charade/#ixzz0vJmBBhiU
Joe Shmoe
7:01 PM on July 31, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Joe Shmoe. Show DetailsHide Details
At the risk of sounding indelicate, this is a “steaming pile.” Who knows, perhaps at 75 Jonas has just run out of ideas; or he was working his way through his third keg of “Borsodi Barna” when he came up with this clunker?
In fact, if one of my students had handed this in as an essay justifying the Harper Tories denuding the mandatory long-form census, I would have given it back for a re-write. You know an essay with factually correct information and evidence of research. And lighter, much lighter with the “red herrings,” erroneous examples, straw men, and the unnecessarily emotive language. I think we call it lacking in “substance.”
a) Jonas makes no mention of the fact a voluntary long-form census will almost certainly contain significant sampling bias, as well as being incomparable with previous long-form data.
b) Jonas fails to mention that the new voluntary long-form will cost Canadian taxpayers between $30-40 million due to the bigger sample and need to “sell it” to Canadians.
c) Jonas fails to mention that virtually every economist and statistician in Canada is against Harper’s decision. (Jonas is neither a trained economist, nor a statistician.)
d) Like most right-wingers, Jonas incorrectly assumes that anyone who disagrees with Harper’s unilateral decision to change the census is “statist,” or a “social-engineer.” (Check with Colby Cosh, or Andrew Coyne!)
e) The only actual “evidence” Jonas presents is “a lady from a small community” who wrote him 14 years ago. Yikes!
f) Jonas makes no mention of the fact that Canadians are almost certainly going to be bombarded with all sorts of aggravating and intrusive marketers and polling companies vying to fill in the data void resulting from this decision.
g) Jonas makes no mention of the fact that 18% of the 2006 long-form censuses were filed electronically; and that Statscan was expecting that number to approach 50% in 2011. So, a long form census “for nosy neighbours to gloat or salivate over,” is probably a thing of the past anyway.
Jonas’ website describes him as “a master of subtle provocation and reasoned defence.” Alas, this sophomoric tripe represents the polar opposite of his biographical notes
______________________________________
I understand what you are saying, Joe. I am trying to say this with unfeigned respect: I am an old man by some measures. I have had a little bit to do with Universities over my years. There are many great things they contribute to our society. However, personal liberal bias is absolutely abysmal in most of the Canadian Universities I know.
Would a student who might try to write a paper from a different perspective than the crowd in your class clearly would have to pass through the eye of a needle? After a few F's on his test he will learn either to morph into your world view, or will likely drop out--Profoundly discouraged, maybe never returning to learn something meaningful he will love for the rest of his life.
I have young students that call me all the time with people like that installed in the university they are studying at.
That said, you have made some good points as well. For example being able to respond to the census online will help protect unanimity for the most part. There is the probability that without the *free* stats Can data, companies may be forced to pay their own way for a change, --and that could be intrusive. Lets hear it for Canada's Do Not Call list!
Jonas takes a step on the wild side, somewhat like a blogging troll, stirring up a segment of Canadians who have felt dumbed-down, under-classed, and otherwise suppressed by elitists who give no quarter to an opposing view.
I only ask one thing. Go back and read your post. How many absolutes do you employ? How many labels? How many straw men? I can see a few.
The problem of a teacher is pulling off practicing what we preach.
4:00 PM on July 31, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Agnostic666. Show DetailsHide Details
How about changing the title to just "Drop the Charade"? If someone truly opposes all forms of statism then they must oppose any state run military or any state run police force as well as any other government function, essentially only wanting anarchy. Otherwise the argument is what amount of statism is acceptible. If you accept some form of government (statism) is required then you must decide how effective you want the government to perform its required functions.
My Response:
You don't have to think all forms of statism are wrong to think this one is. One Canadian doesn't tell anyone how much he has in the bank, another tells the world. Both are an expression of freedom. What is privacy for one may not be the same for all. Since Revenue Canada has pried most of that data from us anyhow, let them get it there. I will be joining the ranks of the Jedi Knights this time round. I will make up every answer.
What statisticians won't admit, is that the census data is not pure. They want people to think it is. The mandatory form theoretically creates a random distribution so prized by statisticians. BUT it presupposes those responses will be absolutely true. That is the problem. After this scrap, a lot of Canadians are going to join the ranks of the Jedi Knights. Let Stats Can take that and smoke it. Is that valid enough for you all you sheeple?
Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/31/george-jonas-drop-the-census-charade/#ixzz0vJmBBhiU
Joe Shmoe
7:01 PM on July 31, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Joe Shmoe. Show DetailsHide Details
At the risk of sounding indelicate, this is a “steaming pile.” Who knows, perhaps at 75 Jonas has just run out of ideas; or he was working his way through his third keg of “Borsodi Barna” when he came up with this clunker?
In fact, if one of my students had handed this in as an essay justifying the Harper Tories denuding the mandatory long-form census, I would have given it back for a re-write. You know an essay with factually correct information and evidence of research. And lighter, much lighter with the “red herrings,” erroneous examples, straw men, and the unnecessarily emotive language. I think we call it lacking in “substance.”
a) Jonas makes no mention of the fact a voluntary long-form census will almost certainly contain significant sampling bias, as well as being incomparable with previous long-form data.
b) Jonas fails to mention that the new voluntary long-form will cost Canadian taxpayers between $30-40 million due to the bigger sample and need to “sell it” to Canadians.
c) Jonas fails to mention that virtually every economist and statistician in Canada is against Harper’s decision. (Jonas is neither a trained economist, nor a statistician.)
d) Like most right-wingers, Jonas incorrectly assumes that anyone who disagrees with Harper’s unilateral decision to change the census is “statist,” or a “social-engineer.” (Check with Colby Cosh, or Andrew Coyne!)
e) The only actual “evidence” Jonas presents is “a lady from a small community” who wrote him 14 years ago. Yikes!
f) Jonas makes no mention of the fact that Canadians are almost certainly going to be bombarded with all sorts of aggravating and intrusive marketers and polling companies vying to fill in the data void resulting from this decision.
g) Jonas makes no mention of the fact that 18% of the 2006 long-form censuses were filed electronically; and that Statscan was expecting that number to approach 50% in 2011. So, a long form census “for nosy neighbours to gloat or salivate over,” is probably a thing of the past anyway.
Jonas’ website describes him as “a master of subtle provocation and reasoned defence.” Alas, this sophomoric tripe represents the polar opposite of his biographical notes
______________________________________
I understand what you are saying, Joe. I am trying to say this with unfeigned respect: I am an old man by some measures. I have had a little bit to do with Universities over my years. There are many great things they contribute to our society. However, personal liberal bias is absolutely abysmal in most of the Canadian Universities I know.
Would a student who might try to write a paper from a different perspective than the crowd in your class clearly would have to pass through the eye of a needle? After a few F's on his test he will learn either to morph into your world view, or will likely drop out--Profoundly discouraged, maybe never returning to learn something meaningful he will love for the rest of his life.
I have young students that call me all the time with people like that installed in the university they are studying at.
That said, you have made some good points as well. For example being able to respond to the census online will help protect unanimity for the most part. There is the probability that without the *free* stats Can data, companies may be forced to pay their own way for a change, --and that could be intrusive. Lets hear it for Canada's Do Not Call list!
Jonas takes a step on the wild side, somewhat like a blogging troll, stirring up a segment of Canadians who have felt dumbed-down, under-classed, and otherwise suppressed by elitists who give no quarter to an opposing view.
I only ask one thing. Go back and read your post. How many absolutes do you employ? How many labels? How many straw men? I can see a few.
The problem of a teacher is pulling off practicing what we preach.
Russian Bomber Probe Rationale
Ok Riddler and co. Again your question regarding the Russian bomber probe:
First go to a map any map, google is fine... measure out 250nm north of Goose bay. See where that is?
To suggest that this was simply the Russians patrolling international waters demonstrates the complete lack of the basics. Check the facts.
I posted this 40 or 50 pages ago. No one would expect you to have read that far back, so I will go easy on you on that one:
These "training exercises" are used to discover response times: How long it takes us to scramble interceptors, what level of def-con this elicits, what kind of plane we are responding with. How close to Canadian airspace can they get before intercept. The radar signature, and probably many more facts I am totally missing.
Its important to understand what I just said. Combined with your look at the map, you can see this was quite the training exercise. Look at how far that plane flew before it turned around. How did it get there?
Trace the huge S pattern they would have to fly to get there by flying only over international waters.
The "training" was data gathering.
The question might be asked, why don't we just refuse to play? The main reason is, these brief incursions around the edges, and our responses demonstrate our sovereignty. The Russians would be happy colonize this side of the pole, given the vast wealth underneath. If they did, who would know? We wouldn't be flying up there for any other reason than this.
First go to a map any map, google is fine... measure out 250nm north of Goose bay. See where that is?
To suggest that this was simply the Russians patrolling international waters demonstrates the complete lack of the basics. Check the facts.
I posted this 40 or 50 pages ago. No one would expect you to have read that far back, so I will go easy on you on that one:
These "training exercises" are used to discover response times: How long it takes us to scramble interceptors, what level of def-con this elicits, what kind of plane we are responding with. How close to Canadian airspace can they get before intercept. The radar signature, and probably many more facts I am totally missing.
Its important to understand what I just said. Combined with your look at the map, you can see this was quite the training exercise. Look at how far that plane flew before it turned around. How did it get there?
Trace the huge S pattern they would have to fly to get there by flying only over international waters.
The "training" was data gathering.
The question might be asked, why don't we just refuse to play? The main reason is, these brief incursions around the edges, and our responses demonstrate our sovereignty. The Russians would be happy colonize this side of the pole, given the vast wealth underneath. If they did, who would know? We wouldn't be flying up there for any other reason than this.
Parks and Bears
Ewesfly said: " Yellowstone or my beloved Canadian Rocky mountains become more and more overrun with tourists"
I can't agree more. National parks are an Ecological disaster. You can't inject a million visitors into Banff without screwing up animals and their environment.
Is it natural to have elk lying on your boulevards?
I apologize for the vehemence in my posts. There is a cult where I live that is trying to make the Feds create a new National Park in my back yard.
The Flathead valley who might have a few hundred visitors a year, as a National Park will have thousands. Today that land is extremely well managed. And, while not pristine, is relatively undisturbed.
The failed Y to Y initiative still has unrelenting supporters. When CSIS was reporting foreign influence on provincial MlAs, nothing could be more true in describing the behavior of Mr. Campbell over this area. He out an out said that the governor of Montana and he had become friends over the previous few years, an so had convinced him to act over this land.
It galls me that big US money wants to make parks almost entirely on Canadian soil. to make up for the failed Yellowstone disaster.
I say let them make a park from Yellowstone to the border then come talk to us up here. They would get strung up! But in Canada, its roll over and play dead.
I can't agree more. National parks are an Ecological disaster. You can't inject a million visitors into Banff without screwing up animals and their environment.
Is it natural to have elk lying on your boulevards?
I apologize for the vehemence in my posts. There is a cult where I live that is trying to make the Feds create a new National Park in my back yard.
The Flathead valley who might have a few hundred visitors a year, as a National Park will have thousands. Today that land is extremely well managed. And, while not pristine, is relatively undisturbed.
The failed Y to Y initiative still has unrelenting supporters. When CSIS was reporting foreign influence on provincial MlAs, nothing could be more true in describing the behavior of Mr. Campbell over this area. He out an out said that the governor of Montana and he had become friends over the previous few years, an so had convinced him to act over this land.
It galls me that big US money wants to make parks almost entirely on Canadian soil. to make up for the failed Yellowstone disaster.
I say let them make a park from Yellowstone to the border then come talk to us up here. They would get strung up! But in Canada, its roll over and play dead.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Ok folks here are some important facts, you might not read in these blogs and in the press.
More fighter for less money? I was always taught you get what you pay for. It is delusional to think there is a better option. Here is why:
We have committed to pay 8.7 billion for 65 planes, (133m each)for the F-35. The F-22, a better plane by some standards is unobtainable. No one aside from the US has been able to procure this plane. Besides, what kind of hysteria would we have if we were paying 250 million for each f-22 instead of 133 million for the F-35?
And finally, the sole sourcing issue is profoundly disingenuous. The whole process with many countries getting together to develop a plane for a cost of 300 billion is rich even for the trillions the US has been throwing around lately.
Yes, Lockheed isn't a Canadian company. Neither is Crysler or GM. But Canada makes lots of parts for all of them. Stronach and Magna come to mind with his billion dollar handshake.
I posted this earlier: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/business/global/17fighter.html
Its an article from the NY Times.
Lockheed is on record it expects to spend 10 billion dollars in Canada.
We pay 8.7 billion, we get 10 back.
The reason is, Lockheed expects to build and maintain 3,000 of these.
We buy 65 but get to supply parts for 3000. Its an incredible deal.
Employment for over 100 Canadian companies, high-tech jobs, great wages, big ripple effects, and yes even taxes garnered.
I am truly puzzled why we aren't ecstatic about this
I don't care what sort of procurement experience you claim to have so boldly on a blog no one can check out. The math really is quite simple.
More fighter for less money? I was always taught you get what you pay for. It is delusional to think there is a better option. Here is why:
We have committed to pay 8.7 billion for 65 planes, (133m each)for the F-35. The F-22, a better plane by some standards is unobtainable. No one aside from the US has been able to procure this plane. Besides, what kind of hysteria would we have if we were paying 250 million for each f-22 instead of 133 million for the F-35?
And finally, the sole sourcing issue is profoundly disingenuous. The whole process with many countries getting together to develop a plane for a cost of 300 billion is rich even for the trillions the US has been throwing around lately.
Yes, Lockheed isn't a Canadian company. Neither is Crysler or GM. But Canada makes lots of parts for all of them. Stronach and Magna come to mind with his billion dollar handshake.
I posted this earlier: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/business/global/17fighter.html
Its an article from the NY Times.
Lockheed is on record it expects to spend 10 billion dollars in Canada.
We pay 8.7 billion, we get 10 back.
The reason is, Lockheed expects to build and maintain 3,000 of these.
We buy 65 but get to supply parts for 3000. Its an incredible deal.
Employment for over 100 Canadian companies, high-tech jobs, great wages, big ripple effects, and yes even taxes garnered.
I am truly puzzled why we aren't ecstatic about this
I don't care what sort of procurement experience you claim to have so boldly on a blog no one can check out. The math really is quite simple.
WillM, the F22 is unobtainable. The program was unfunded this year, the factories mothballed. It would cost 4 billion just to reopen the factory.
It is a very nice plane, no question, and we could use a few of them. BUT the US has refused to sell them to anyone. Not to Israel, Britain, Australia or us, and we have asked. It is an air-superiority plane. While it can bomb, it is a waste of its strong points.
The f-35 is slightly less stealthy.
The f-22 tracks like a speeding marble, the 35, like a baseball. That is the relative difference in stealth.
The US has halted its production of F-22s for many reasons. One is, the F-35 is seen as a better option. It is more sophisticated on many levels.
Its price per unit is over 100 million dollars less to produce.
So, if you think the whining is bad because we agree to spend 8.7 billion for 65 planes, (133 each) what kind of hysteria would we have if we were paying 250 million for each f-22?
And finally, the sole sourcing issue is profoundly disingenuous. The whole process with many countries getting together to develop a plane for a cost of 300 billion is rich even for the trillions the US has been throwing around lately.
Yes, Lockheed isn't a Canadian company. Neither is Crysler or GM. But Canada makes lots of parts for all of them. Stronach and Magna come to mind with his billion dollar handshake.
I posted this earlier: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/business/global/17fighter.html
Its an article from the NY Times.
Lockheed is on record it expects to spend 10 billion dollars in Canada.
We pay 8.7 billion, we get 10 back.
The reason is, Lockheed expects to build and maintain 3,000 of these.
We buy 65 but get to supply parts for 3000. Its an incredible deal.
Employment for over 100 Canadian companies, high-tech jobs, great wages, big ripple effects, and yes even taxes garnered.
I am truly puzzled why we aren't ecstatic about this. Of course I had to go to the NY times to get the appropriate inf
It is a very nice plane, no question, and we could use a few of them. BUT the US has refused to sell them to anyone. Not to Israel, Britain, Australia or us, and we have asked. It is an air-superiority plane. While it can bomb, it is a waste of its strong points.
The f-35 is slightly less stealthy.
The f-22 tracks like a speeding marble, the 35, like a baseball. That is the relative difference in stealth.
The US has halted its production of F-22s for many reasons. One is, the F-35 is seen as a better option. It is more sophisticated on many levels.
Its price per unit is over 100 million dollars less to produce.
So, if you think the whining is bad because we agree to spend 8.7 billion for 65 planes, (133 each) what kind of hysteria would we have if we were paying 250 million for each f-22?
And finally, the sole sourcing issue is profoundly disingenuous. The whole process with many countries getting together to develop a plane for a cost of 300 billion is rich even for the trillions the US has been throwing around lately.
Yes, Lockheed isn't a Canadian company. Neither is Crysler or GM. But Canada makes lots of parts for all of them. Stronach and Magna come to mind with his billion dollar handshake.
I posted this earlier: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/business/global/17fighter.html
Its an article from the NY Times.
Lockheed is on record it expects to spend 10 billion dollars in Canada.
We pay 8.7 billion, we get 10 back.
The reason is, Lockheed expects to build and maintain 3,000 of these.
We buy 65 but get to supply parts for 3000. Its an incredible deal.
Employment for over 100 Canadian companies, high-tech jobs, great wages, big ripple effects, and yes even taxes garnered.
I am truly puzzled why we aren't ecstatic about this. Of course I had to go to the NY times to get the appropriate inf
Guantanamo said: "alethia, I have read all the posts since my comments, yet I have not seen one response that gives a possible scenario when we would shoot down Russian or American jets. So do you have a response? I would love to hear it."
God forbid that would never happen.
The world has changed so much in the past 50-80 years, its hard to comprehend it in retrospect. I remember the cold war, when North America was at Def-con4. And bombers rose to the skies from coast to cost on both sides of the world.
And today we sit post-Soviet era with relatively little anxiety compared to those days. Who knows, is the entire Western economy going to collapse as it did in Russia precipitating the dissolution of the
Soviet empire?
I can tell you, no one in 1964, 1969, 1973, could imagine that the Soviet empire would collapse as it has. No one would imagine that we are building bridges together with them. Its the problem of the unimaginable that calls a country to build a military force.
I can't imagine being drawn into another gulf war. It would take something like a nuke going off in an American city. How long would it take for NATO to be in Iran if that were the case? If New York were nuked with a strong NW flow, we would be effected, if Chicago did likewise. God forbid that any of these scenarios occur.
One of the most peaceful countries in the world: Switzerland, has universal compulsory conscription of all citizens. And everyone who has done their service has a gun in their home.
___________
I have posted at length, about the question about the implications of a Russian bomber off of Canada's east coast. I have posted what is happening from a military perspective: How these incursions gather strategic data. So I won't go over them again.
God forbid that would never happen.
The world has changed so much in the past 50-80 years, its hard to comprehend it in retrospect. I remember the cold war, when North America was at Def-con4. And bombers rose to the skies from coast to cost on both sides of the world.
And today we sit post-Soviet era with relatively little anxiety compared to those days. Who knows, is the entire Western economy going to collapse as it did in Russia precipitating the dissolution of the
Soviet empire?
I can tell you, no one in 1964, 1969, 1973, could imagine that the Soviet empire would collapse as it has. No one would imagine that we are building bridges together with them. Its the problem of the unimaginable that calls a country to build a military force.
I can't imagine being drawn into another gulf war. It would take something like a nuke going off in an American city. How long would it take for NATO to be in Iran if that were the case? If New York were nuked with a strong NW flow, we would be effected, if Chicago did likewise. God forbid that any of these scenarios occur.
One of the most peaceful countries in the world: Switzerland, has universal compulsory conscription of all citizens. And everyone who has done their service has a gun in their home.
___________
I have posted at length, about the question about the implications of a Russian bomber off of Canada's east coast. I have posted what is happening from a military perspective: How these incursions gather strategic data. So I won't go over them again.
Sue2 said: "do you have an opinion as to why the DND in Ottawa have been caught trying to change any critical information about the Conservatives on Wikipedia ....this just one more reason for me not to fully trust these media stories."
At first blush the natural reflex is to say Ya those bad conservatives.
I was thinking about that. So I went and had a look at the Wiki article. Not only does it bring onto the world stage the leader of the opposition--which is not part of the government of Canada, but then it explicitly threatens to defeat the government over this issue.
Now one might think it not so bad, particularly if you are leaning that way anyhow. But Wikipedia is what it is because it is open-sourced information. Wiki didn't write that article. Someone else posted it.
Wiki is supposed to be largely self editing, but in this case there was a big to do about it. Without even mentioning how Wiki works. Its not the encyclopedia Britannica, if that still exists, with tight editorial control. But it is the opposite.
However the matter is settled, when it comes to current politics, shutting down the normal editing procedures so that the very threat of the collapse in government is in the balance for all the world to see... is not appropriate, because it becomes a political tool rather than a reporter of information. If this wiki article were written 10 years from now, there would be no objection because there would be not political points to be gained. But now there is a published threat not even spoken about in parliament yet.
So some Liberal hack got in there first and got to put the spin on it, and no one else can change it any more. That is NOT how Wiki is supposed to work.
At first blush the natural reflex is to say Ya those bad conservatives.
I was thinking about that. So I went and had a look at the Wiki article. Not only does it bring onto the world stage the leader of the opposition--which is not part of the government of Canada, but then it explicitly threatens to defeat the government over this issue.
Now one might think it not so bad, particularly if you are leaning that way anyhow. But Wikipedia is what it is because it is open-sourced information. Wiki didn't write that article. Someone else posted it.
Wiki is supposed to be largely self editing, but in this case there was a big to do about it. Without even mentioning how Wiki works. Its not the encyclopedia Britannica, if that still exists, with tight editorial control. But it is the opposite.
However the matter is settled, when it comes to current politics, shutting down the normal editing procedures so that the very threat of the collapse in government is in the balance for all the world to see... is not appropriate, because it becomes a political tool rather than a reporter of information. If this wiki article were written 10 years from now, there would be no objection because there would be not political points to be gained. But now there is a published threat not even spoken about in parliament yet.
So some Liberal hack got in there first and got to put the spin on it, and no one else can change it any more. That is NOT how Wiki is supposed to work.
Canada1: Its great dialoguing with you. You said: "Alethia.........A bit over-simplistic. Canada doesn't fly incursions into Russian airspace
Neither did Russia.
An “area of interest” – about 250 nautical miles, or 460 kilometres, away from Goose Bay, Nfld. –is not our territory, but rather something we are "hoping" to become our territory.
________________
Something piqued me about the location. 250 nm from Goose Bay isn't that far. What is far is the distance those bombers flew to get there. Take a look. Did they fly undetected by Norad? Did they fly over Greenland's space unchallenged?
Or did they do the loop de loop west of Ireland and south of Greenland and northwest to the point of intercept? Or did they come across the Canadian Arcti--the shortest distance to travel. If they tried to fly between Canada and Greenland, they would have trespassed on someone's airspace. Hmm. Denmark is considering buying these planes too....
Neither did Russia.
An “area of interest” – about 250 nautical miles, or 460 kilometres, away from Goose Bay, Nfld. –is not our territory, but rather something we are "hoping" to become our territory.
________________
Something piqued me about the location. 250 nm from Goose Bay isn't that far. What is far is the distance those bombers flew to get there. Take a look. Did they fly undetected by Norad? Did they fly over Greenland's space unchallenged?
Or did they do the loop de loop west of Ireland and south of Greenland and northwest to the point of intercept? Or did they come across the Canadian Arcti--the shortest distance to travel. If they tried to fly between Canada and Greenland, they would have trespassed on someone's airspace. Hmm. Denmark is considering buying these planes too....
F-22/35 comparison
Matrix Dwelleer said: "The Canadian government should have considered the F22 instead of the F35 IMO. Of course the ban on exporting them and the higher cost might have been a hindrance. We're their #1 neighbor however so maybe they would make an exception."
The F-22 is an exceptional plane. However, despite big lobbying pushes from Britain to Australia, the US has stubbornly refused to sell them.
The production line to build them is now shut down. Start-up costs would be 4 billion dollars before a plane would be built. There was no provision in the US budget to make any more F-22s.
Even though the F-22 has some superior specs, its widely understood it is not as technologically advanced as the F-35.
Some call it a 4.5 generation plane.
While its stealth signature is better than the f-35 right now, it is likened to the difference picking up a speeding marble compared to a speeding base ball.
Perhaps there are some here that haven't checked the specs, but an F-35 offers about a 50% larger combat range over the F-18s we are currently flying. Its the ferrying range that many people look at--the range it can fly with no armaments and with external fuel tanks. Because the F-22 can fly a bit higher their efficiency in ferrying range is better. But drop down to Combat ranges, and the f-22 and the F-35s are not significantly different.
The F-22 is an exceptional plane. However, despite big lobbying pushes from Britain to Australia, the US has stubbornly refused to sell them.
The production line to build them is now shut down. Start-up costs would be 4 billion dollars before a plane would be built. There was no provision in the US budget to make any more F-22s.
Even though the F-22 has some superior specs, its widely understood it is not as technologically advanced as the F-35.
Some call it a 4.5 generation plane.
While its stealth signature is better than the f-35 right now, it is likened to the difference picking up a speeding marble compared to a speeding base ball.
Perhaps there are some here that haven't checked the specs, but an F-35 offers about a 50% larger combat range over the F-18s we are currently flying. Its the ferrying range that many people look at--the range it can fly with no armaments and with external fuel tanks. Because the F-22 can fly a bit higher their efficiency in ferrying range is better. But drop down to Combat ranges, and the f-22 and the F-35s are not significantly different.
Rationale for Canadian intercepts of Russian bombers.
Canada1 said: "What did you want them to do?
They fly missions in the Arctic, we fly missions in Europe as part of NATO.
They spy, we spy.
Do you ever wonder why the Canadian/US/UK embassies have "military attaches"?
_____________________________
A bit over-simplistic. Canada doesn't fly incursions into Russian airspace. These "training exercises" are used to discover response times. How long it takes us to scramble interceptors, what level of def-con this elicits, what kind of plane we are responding with.
Which they can factor in range and velocity and time to intercept.
The question might be asked, why don't we just refuse to play? The main reason is these brief incursions around the edges demonstrate our sovereignty. The Russians would be happy colonize this side of the pole, given the vast wealth underneath. If they did, who would know? We wouldn't be flying up there for any other reason than this.
They fly missions in the Arctic, we fly missions in Europe as part of NATO.
They spy, we spy.
Do you ever wonder why the Canadian/US/UK embassies have "military attaches"?
_____________________________
A bit over-simplistic. Canada doesn't fly incursions into Russian airspace. These "training exercises" are used to discover response times. How long it takes us to scramble interceptors, what level of def-con this elicits, what kind of plane we are responding with.
Which they can factor in range and velocity and time to intercept.
The question might be asked, why don't we just refuse to play? The main reason is these brief incursions around the edges demonstrate our sovereignty. The Russians would be happy colonize this side of the pole, given the vast wealth underneath. If they did, who would know? We wouldn't be flying up there for any other reason than this.
ShootMessenger said:So tell me again why we are wasting $16 BILLION on these F-35 jets that no one else wants to buy?
__________________
The purchase price is 9 billion. 16 is the figure that includes maintenance. When you buy your car, do you add the cost of maintenance for 40 years?
For the sake of rational argument, lets say we must consider the number 16 billion. Is the reader aware of the NY Times report that quoted Lockheed-Martin as saying they expect to spend 10 billion buying "Canadian made parts*? Over a hundred Canadian companies will employ hundreds and maybe thousands of Canadians in the high-tech industry. Anyone from Ontario should be doing a dance, since they will get the majority of that 10 bil.
Unions should be salivating.
This week over a thousand auto workers received layoff notices as GM and Ford shuts down Canadian factories. I would think that any Ontarioans who are blogging here today should be saying "Hallelujah!"
A thousand highly skilled high paying jobs have serious ripple effects, and that works both ways.
So, while auto workers line up for night jobs at Timmies this Canadian will be supporting any Canadian industry, science and technology to see us turn this around.
*10 billion? 3,000 F-35s expect to be made in this production run. So Canada's industry isn't supporting 60 odd planes. Its supplying our allies with 20x the demand we would exert ourselves that needs be considered.
__________________
The purchase price is 9 billion. 16 is the figure that includes maintenance. When you buy your car, do you add the cost of maintenance for 40 years?
For the sake of rational argument, lets say we must consider the number 16 billion. Is the reader aware of the NY Times report that quoted Lockheed-Martin as saying they expect to spend 10 billion buying "Canadian made parts*? Over a hundred Canadian companies will employ hundreds and maybe thousands of Canadians in the high-tech industry. Anyone from Ontario should be doing a dance, since they will get the majority of that 10 bil.
Unions should be salivating.
This week over a thousand auto workers received layoff notices as GM and Ford shuts down Canadian factories. I would think that any Ontarioans who are blogging here today should be saying "Hallelujah!"
A thousand highly skilled high paying jobs have serious ripple effects, and that works both ways.
So, while auto workers line up for night jobs at Timmies this Canadian will be supporting any Canadian industry, science and technology to see us turn this around.
*10 billion? 3,000 F-35s expect to be made in this production run. So Canada's industry isn't supporting 60 odd planes. Its supplying our allies with 20x the demand we would exert ourselves that needs be considered.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
21,000 Jedi Knights:
The response to religious questions.
I support a compromise. Perhaps for different reasons than most. There is the myth of pure census data from the compulsory long form. The myth is substantiated by a kind of randomness that determines who gets the long form is evenly distributed among the populus. I think Stats Can got the randomness right. The problem is the corruption in the uptake of data.
Do we know how many Canadians intentionally lie in the census? Apparently, one group of francophone data was "highly suspect" to have been fraudulently answered for its pull of Federal dollars.
How many other deliberate untruths in the census data pool? Are people relying on that information aware of the degree of corruption?
This is an important question unanswered.
How much of the long form could be dropped in favor of Revenue Canada data. They know ages, wages, taxes, native or non-native status',locations, zip codes, employment status, disabilities,
business gross and net figures, investment levels, capital cost allowances and so on.
I wonder if Canadians in the hew and cry of this have missed this. I don't see it being discussed at any level.
Revenue Canada Data would be at least 5 times more pure than census data, for while the long form would hit 1/5 Canadians, the RevCan data would be 100% On top of that while perhaps some might lie about their taxes, the probability of coming up better data with tax returns of 21,000 Jedi Knights might be somewhat less...
Finally, Statscan does censuses once in 5 years. This data could be annual data, that stays current every single year, unlike census data quality which decays over the previous 5 years.
This sort of data should be managed by Stats Can, because they are able to assure that the information we give is entered into the data pool with no personal attachments. It would be good if the privacy commissioner looked at this as well.
The response to religious questions.
I support a compromise. Perhaps for different reasons than most. There is the myth of pure census data from the compulsory long form. The myth is substantiated by a kind of randomness that determines who gets the long form is evenly distributed among the populus. I think Stats Can got the randomness right. The problem is the corruption in the uptake of data.
Do we know how many Canadians intentionally lie in the census? Apparently, one group of francophone data was "highly suspect" to have been fraudulently answered for its pull of Federal dollars.
How many other deliberate untruths in the census data pool? Are people relying on that information aware of the degree of corruption?
This is an important question unanswered.
How much of the long form could be dropped in favor of Revenue Canada data. They know ages, wages, taxes, native or non-native status',locations, zip codes, employment status, disabilities,
business gross and net figures, investment levels, capital cost allowances and so on.
I wonder if Canadians in the hew and cry of this have missed this. I don't see it being discussed at any level.
Revenue Canada Data would be at least 5 times more pure than census data, for while the long form would hit 1/5 Canadians, the RevCan data would be 100% On top of that while perhaps some might lie about their taxes, the probability of coming up better data with tax returns of 21,000 Jedi Knights might be somewhat less...
Finally, Statscan does censuses once in 5 years. This data could be annual data, that stays current every single year, unlike census data quality which decays over the previous 5 years.
This sort of data should be managed by Stats Can, because they are able to assure that the information we give is entered into the data pool with no personal attachments. It would be good if the privacy commissioner looked at this as well.
Pipeline debates
One thing I do know is that modern pipelines are now made with a Molybdenum allow--somewhere about 8% moly. Moly makes steels extremely corrosive resistant. Only Duplex Steel is better. They make Oceanic drill rigs with Duplex Steel, (Moly content between 16-20%).
Moly Steel can be dropped in the ocean for 100 years with no corrosion. If anyone has any experience with ships at sea, they will realize how significant that is.
Moly steel also has increased tensile strength. For that reason it is the steel of choice to build high-rise buildings, especially super hi-rises.
Will the use of this guarantee no problems ever? No. But people need to appreciate how the science has advanced. 40 year pipelines are a worry. In my opinion the variables should be tightened on them, and parts replaced with high priority.
Compared to Shipping and especially trucking, pipelines are incomparably more safe. However, one points out, while it is safer to fly in a jetliner than cross the street... but then again people are hit crossing the street occasionally--and if that happens to you, probability is little comfort.
Moly Steel can be dropped in the ocean for 100 years with no corrosion. If anyone has any experience with ships at sea, they will realize how significant that is.
Moly steel also has increased tensile strength. For that reason it is the steel of choice to build high-rise buildings, especially super hi-rises.
Will the use of this guarantee no problems ever? No. But people need to appreciate how the science has advanced. 40 year pipelines are a worry. In my opinion the variables should be tightened on them, and parts replaced with high priority.
Compared to Shipping and especially trucking, pipelines are incomparably more safe. However, one points out, while it is safer to fly in a jetliner than cross the street... but then again people are hit crossing the street occasionally--and if that happens to you, probability is little comfort.
G&M article reporting Jack Layton seeks a compromise with the PM.
Jason Ray said: "This isn't a coalition...
...a coaltion is when two or more parties actually govern together...
...not seek consensus on a case by case basis."
________________
I agree with you on this on Jason.
In fact this is the sort of willingness to cooperate Canadians have been wanting from Parliament.
I give Jack points on this one, and I have been a chief critic of the man.
I think most people on either side of this issue would rather some sort of middle ground or 3rd option be explored.
Most of the essential information apropos for a census is already in government data banks. I would see no problem implementing the use of it under the watchful eye of the privacy commission.
I feel quite strongly about these intrusions already. But since they are there, so long as the data is collated without my ID attached, they might as well go for it.
Many countries in Europe have gone this way... Germany is next, a fact not often reported in the media... kinda removes the sensationalism of the story I guess....
...a coaltion is when two or more parties actually govern together...
...not seek consensus on a case by case basis."
________________
I agree with you on this on Jason.
In fact this is the sort of willingness to cooperate Canadians have been wanting from Parliament.
I give Jack points on this one, and I have been a chief critic of the man.
I think most people on either side of this issue would rather some sort of middle ground or 3rd option be explored.
Most of the essential information apropos for a census is already in government data banks. I would see no problem implementing the use of it under the watchful eye of the privacy commission.
I feel quite strongly about these intrusions already. But since they are there, so long as the data is collated without my ID attached, they might as well go for it.
Many countries in Europe have gone this way... Germany is next, a fact not often reported in the media... kinda removes the sensationalism of the story I guess....
Friday, July 23, 2010
Barnsey said: "Surely I am not the only one to protest such invasive irrelevant questions?"
The two sides of this debate are talking at each other rather than listening and compromising.
The one side is talking about feeling violated by the state, the other is talking about statistical viability.
The one side sees freedom above information, the other sees information more important, quite rightly perhaps pointing out one's information is so confidential in this case,freedom is never compromised.
One side however feels like it has heard all this before. Does anyone else remember the debate surrounding social insurance numbers? How they were supposed to be totally private, and no one had the right to ask it of you, aside from the Canada Pension plan... then that changed into Revenue Canada, and now it is required for everything from Bank loans to provincial institutions.
It is this sort of background that fuels the suspicion. Many have grown up seeing private information, and identification as a given... given to whomever wants it, without realizing from whence it came.
So it is easy to accept what ever is required to have a good census.
People who's education gives them a good understanding of statistics and how particularly Stats Can's handling of data don't feel as threatened. But there are others who dislike globalism, world banks, fiat currency, Bilderburg,the Illuminati etc--that find this but one more thing to add to the list.
The one thing I think has come out of this, is an important discussion:
Whether we go back to the old way of doing things or try something different, may not be as important as the process of finding our way there.
The two sides of this debate are talking at each other rather than listening and compromising.
The one side is talking about feeling violated by the state, the other is talking about statistical viability.
The one side sees freedom above information, the other sees information more important, quite rightly perhaps pointing out one's information is so confidential in this case,freedom is never compromised.
One side however feels like it has heard all this before. Does anyone else remember the debate surrounding social insurance numbers? How they were supposed to be totally private, and no one had the right to ask it of you, aside from the Canada Pension plan... then that changed into Revenue Canada, and now it is required for everything from Bank loans to provincial institutions.
It is this sort of background that fuels the suspicion. Many have grown up seeing private information, and identification as a given... given to whomever wants it, without realizing from whence it came.
So it is easy to accept what ever is required to have a good census.
People who's education gives them a good understanding of statistics and how particularly Stats Can's handling of data don't feel as threatened. But there are others who dislike globalism, world banks, fiat currency, Bilderburg,the Illuminati etc--that find this but one more thing to add to the list.
The one thing I think has come out of this, is an important discussion:
Whether we go back to the old way of doing things or try something different, may not be as important as the process of finding our way there.
Barnsey said: "Surely I am not the only one to protest such invasive irrelevant questions?"
The two sides of this debate are talking at each other rather than listening and compromising.
The one side is talking about feeling violated by the state, the other is talking about statistical viability.
The one side sees freedom above information, the other sees information more important, quite rightly perhaps pointing out one's information is so confidential freedom is never compromised.
One side however feels like it has heard all this before. Does anyone else remember the debate surrounding social insurance numbers? How they were supposed to be totally private, and no one had the right to ask it of you, aside from the Canada Pension plan... then that changed into Revenue Canada, and now it is required for everything from Bank loans to provincial institutions.
It is this sort of background that fuels the suspicion. Many have grown up seeing that information, and identification as a given... given to whomever wants it, without realizing from whence it came.
So it is easy to accept what ever is required to have a good census.
People who's education gives them a good understanding of statistics and how particularly Stats Can's handling of data don't feel as threatened. But there are others who dislike globalism, world banks, fiat currency, Bilderburg,the Illuminati etc, that find this but one more thing to add to the list.
The one thing I think has come out of this, is an important discussion.
Whether we go back to the old way of doing things or try something different, may not be as important as the process of finding our way here.
The two sides of this debate are talking at each other rather than listening and compromising.
The one side is talking about feeling violated by the state, the other is talking about statistical viability.
The one side sees freedom above information, the other sees information more important, quite rightly perhaps pointing out one's information is so confidential freedom is never compromised.
One side however feels like it has heard all this before. Does anyone else remember the debate surrounding social insurance numbers? How they were supposed to be totally private, and no one had the right to ask it of you, aside from the Canada Pension plan... then that changed into Revenue Canada, and now it is required for everything from Bank loans to provincial institutions.
It is this sort of background that fuels the suspicion. Many have grown up seeing that information, and identification as a given... given to whomever wants it, without realizing from whence it came.
So it is easy to accept what ever is required to have a good census.
People who's education gives them a good understanding of statistics and how particularly Stats Can's handling of data don't feel as threatened. But there are others who dislike globalism, world banks, fiat currency, Bilderburg,the Illuminati etc, that find this but one more thing to add to the list.
The one thing I think has come out of this, is an important discussion.
Whether we go back to the old way of doing things or try something different, may not be as important as the process of finding our way here.
Canadian Deficit
Jimcanyou said: "When liberals were in we had 13billion surplus now that conservatives are in we have over 50billion deficit and growing more every day time to get rid of the conservatives before it's too late"
Yawn, in other words, when the Liberals were in they gouged us 13 billion.
Then when they were in minority, they joined with the other minorities to force the government to implement 50 billion in stimulus spending.
What irritates me when this comes up, is the NDP and Libs seem to either forget that they were clamoring for deficit stimulus spending, or they think Canadians are too stupid to remember.
I look at this set of numbers, and it would appear Canada will have a deficit of under 30 billion this year, which is an improvement of 40%, and is in line with what the government is projecting to reduce the deficit over the next few years as the economy improves.
Yawn, in other words, when the Liberals were in they gouged us 13 billion.
Then when they were in minority, they joined with the other minorities to force the government to implement 50 billion in stimulus spending.
What irritates me when this comes up, is the NDP and Libs seem to either forget that they were clamoring for deficit stimulus spending, or they think Canadians are too stupid to remember.
I look at this set of numbers, and it would appear Canada will have a deficit of under 30 billion this year, which is an improvement of 40%, and is in line with what the government is projecting to reduce the deficit over the next few years as the economy improves.
More on Census Debate
TSimba said: "as a visible minority citizen i feel marginalized by the stupid decision of Tony Clement ...he should resign immediately as he does not represent the best interests of Canada ... there is no such thing as a voluntary census unless there is an agenda to hide the nature of our ever changing Canadian society ...Tony Clement, you do not speak for me!!!"
I commiserate with you. I am a visible majority person who feels marginalized as well. I grapple with a disability.
This brings out one of the challenges of census processes in the Western world. Perhaps most pronounced in Britain, where there has been massive immigration from Eastern Europe. Apparently, the census utility is pretty much useless over there. Comparatively, Canada's immigration is more stable so it isn't as bad here.
A copy of an article by the Economist can be found on my blog here: or on their site if you are a paid customer: http://paradoxicalx3.blogspot.com/2010/07/from-economist.html. What is very interesting is the list of European countries dropping mandatory census'. Apparently Germany has announced they are dropping it next.
The logic goes that apparently the essential data the government needs from its citizens is already in the data banks already. They then will supplement that data by conduct polls-- sort of like political polls, on an expanded scale with an accuracy say of 99/100, if ever they want to count bedrooms or something.
Anyway... just putting out info...
I commiserate with you. I am a visible majority person who feels marginalized as well. I grapple with a disability.
This brings out one of the challenges of census processes in the Western world. Perhaps most pronounced in Britain, where there has been massive immigration from Eastern Europe. Apparently, the census utility is pretty much useless over there. Comparatively, Canada's immigration is more stable so it isn't as bad here.
A copy of an article by the Economist can be found on my blog here: or on their site if you are a paid customer: http://paradoxicalx3.blogspot.com/2010/07/from-economist.html. What is very interesting is the list of European countries dropping mandatory census'. Apparently Germany has announced they are dropping it next.
The logic goes that apparently the essential data the government needs from its citizens is already in the data banks already. They then will supplement that data by conduct polls-- sort of like political polls, on an expanded scale with an accuracy say of 99/100, if ever they want to count bedrooms or something.
Anyway... just putting out info...
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Friday's Census thoughts...
Let me say I would favor some sort of compromise. I had a coffee with my MP the other day. The story had just broke. I pointed out the problem relates to randomness. I don't know why no reporter gets into this.
In order for the various long forms to have significance for everyone else. That is done by an attempt at random sampling. The holy grail is the pure-raw data. Pure in that it samples people across Canada in such a way so they can do a statistical average... and infer for example the average Canadian has 2.3 bathrooms lets say. The only way you can deduce this is if the sample is random.
Here is the problem, and its one I haven't heard stats-can own yet. The sample isn't pure. Stats Can tries to make it pure, hence the mandatory aspect. How many homeless people do the census? How many migrant people perhaps with extended visas. ( The implication is that they may be on a path to citizenship, have their own house, bank accounts, jobs, etc.
How many lie in protest to the whole procedure? How many people refuse to do the census and get away with it? Jail is not enforced.
I am only taking a stab at some of the problems that impact the purity of the data.
I was surprised to read this article in The Economist: ...Gah it won't let me have it unless I subscribe.
You can see the article at http://paradoxicalx3.blogspot.com/2010/07/from-economist.html
In it it mentions that a number of Scandinavian countries have ceased to use a mandatory census. A very puzzling piece of info. But apparently Big brother over there is so big, that they are tracking their citizens all the time.... gah!
Apparently Germany is next...
It is going to be interesting watching this unfold.
In order for the various long forms to have significance for everyone else. That is done by an attempt at random sampling. The holy grail is the pure-raw data. Pure in that it samples people across Canada in such a way so they can do a statistical average... and infer for example the average Canadian has 2.3 bathrooms lets say. The only way you can deduce this is if the sample is random.
Here is the problem, and its one I haven't heard stats-can own yet. The sample isn't pure. Stats Can tries to make it pure, hence the mandatory aspect. How many homeless people do the census? How many migrant people perhaps with extended visas. ( The implication is that they may be on a path to citizenship, have their own house, bank accounts, jobs, etc.
How many lie in protest to the whole procedure? How many people refuse to do the census and get away with it? Jail is not enforced.
I am only taking a stab at some of the problems that impact the purity of the data.
I was surprised to read this article in The Economist: ...Gah it won't let me have it unless I subscribe.
You can see the article at http://paradoxicalx3.blogspot.com/2010/07/from-economist.html
In it it mentions that a number of Scandinavian countries have ceased to use a mandatory census. A very puzzling piece of info. But apparently Big brother over there is so big, that they are tracking their citizens all the time.... gah!
Apparently Germany is next...
It is going to be interesting watching this unfold.
From the Economist...
GOD is, according to the Bible, in two minds about censuses. The Book of Numbers is so named because of God’s command to Moses that he should count the Israelites in preparation for war. Years later when King David does the same thing, the Lord wastes no time in smiting him for his trouble.
Perhaps God’s ambivalence springs from uncertainty about whose side He is on. Historically, rulers liked censuses, because they enable them to conscript and tax their people. Citizens disliked them for the same reasons. But, as governments became less malevolent, an exercise designed to extract value from the populace became one whose purpose was to improve the quality of administration.
Now this centuries-old tradition is slowly coming to an end. If statisticians in Britain get their way, for instance, the census planned for next year could be the country’s last. Instead, they are considering gathering information from the vast, centralised databases held by government, such as tax records, benefit databases, electoral lists and school rolls, as well as periodic polling of a sample of the population. It is a global trend, pioneered, inevitably, in Scandinavia. Denmark has been keeping track of its citizens without a traditional census for decades; Sweden, Norway, Finland and Slovenia, among others, have similar systems. Germany will adopt the approach for its next count, also due in 2011.
There are two reasons for the change. The first is that computerisation allows statisticians to interrogate databases in a way that was not possible when information was stored on cards in filing cabinets. The second is that counting people the traditional way is getting harder, and less useful. Rising labour mobility and the accelerating pace of societal change mean that information goes stale more quickly than ever. Since its last census in 2001, for instance, Britain has seen hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrive from new eastern European members of the EU. Local governments complain that out-of-date information ignores these newcomers, leaving schools overcrowded, budgets stretched and houses scarce. At the same time, filling in the forms has become more onerous: what started as a short questionnaire about who lived where has turned into an inquisition about everything from toilet and car ownership to race and religion. As a result, compliance rates are falling. The decline of deference raises worries about reliability: last time, when asked about their religious affiliation, 0.7% of Britons replied that they were Jedi Knights.
Give the shoes a rest
There is some resistance to change. America’s constitution requires it to conduct a shoe-leather census, which is why this year’s effort is going to cost it over $11 billion. The Finns, by contrast, spent about €1m ($1.2m) on their last one. That’s about $36 per head in America and 20 cents in Finland. Historians, and some statisticians, bemoan the impending loss of a continuous data series that, in some cases, goes back over two centuries. Civil libertarians with an eye on the historic misuse of census data—by everyone from the Nazis to the Americans, who rounded up and imprisoned Japanese-Americans in the second world war—worry about the growth of government-by-database, and fret that a database census is another step on the road to an omniscient state.
Government misuse of data is an ever-growing danger, certainly, but one to be combated by strong rules on freedom of information and eternal vigilance, not anachronistic and increasingly inaccurate headcounts. The prize is the goal of every sage and seer: self-knowledge. (And, more prosaically, better and cheaper government.)
Perhaps God’s ambivalence springs from uncertainty about whose side He is on. Historically, rulers liked censuses, because they enable them to conscript and tax their people. Citizens disliked them for the same reasons. But, as governments became less malevolent, an exercise designed to extract value from the populace became one whose purpose was to improve the quality of administration.
Now this centuries-old tradition is slowly coming to an end. If statisticians in Britain get their way, for instance, the census planned for next year could be the country’s last. Instead, they are considering gathering information from the vast, centralised databases held by government, such as tax records, benefit databases, electoral lists and school rolls, as well as periodic polling of a sample of the population. It is a global trend, pioneered, inevitably, in Scandinavia. Denmark has been keeping track of its citizens without a traditional census for decades; Sweden, Norway, Finland and Slovenia, among others, have similar systems. Germany will adopt the approach for its next count, also due in 2011.
There are two reasons for the change. The first is that computerisation allows statisticians to interrogate databases in a way that was not possible when information was stored on cards in filing cabinets. The second is that counting people the traditional way is getting harder, and less useful. Rising labour mobility and the accelerating pace of societal change mean that information goes stale more quickly than ever. Since its last census in 2001, for instance, Britain has seen hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrive from new eastern European members of the EU. Local governments complain that out-of-date information ignores these newcomers, leaving schools overcrowded, budgets stretched and houses scarce. At the same time, filling in the forms has become more onerous: what started as a short questionnaire about who lived where has turned into an inquisition about everything from toilet and car ownership to race and religion. As a result, compliance rates are falling. The decline of deference raises worries about reliability: last time, when asked about their religious affiliation, 0.7% of Britons replied that they were Jedi Knights.
Give the shoes a rest
There is some resistance to change. America’s constitution requires it to conduct a shoe-leather census, which is why this year’s effort is going to cost it over $11 billion. The Finns, by contrast, spent about €1m ($1.2m) on their last one. That’s about $36 per head in America and 20 cents in Finland. Historians, and some statisticians, bemoan the impending loss of a continuous data series that, in some cases, goes back over two centuries. Civil libertarians with an eye on the historic misuse of census data—by everyone from the Nazis to the Americans, who rounded up and imprisoned Japanese-Americans in the second world war—worry about the growth of government-by-database, and fret that a database census is another step on the road to an omniscient state.
Government misuse of data is an ever-growing danger, certainly, but one to be combated by strong rules on freedom of information and eternal vigilance, not anachronistic and increasingly inaccurate headcounts. The prize is the goal of every sage and seer: self-knowledge. (And, more prosaically, better and cheaper government.)
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
On the Canadian Census
The ideal census involves a purely random sample. I believe this is why the director resigned. A voluntary statistics gathering from a statistical point of view violates randomness. The problem with the Canadian census is that purity. As was pointed out by
Anthony in Ontario, no matter how "mandatory" was every Canadians requirement to provide census data, you can never get pure compliance.
Particularly when it comes to certain people-groups like the homeless, with almost 100% non-compliance the whole purity of the process is statistically corrupted. The homeless remain invisible to Canadian society as a result.
Then there is the people-group of the stubborn, who will go to jail rather than comply with such a violation of free speech. How many of those long forms are swept under the carpet? Then there are people who live in such remote places, they are never touched by the census taker. There are people in Canada like that. Then there are the ex-pats. Some live outside Canada for 6 months less a day. They may be missed. I could go on.
While statisticians say that they can calculate out the anomalies of the impurity, they really can't without becoming a problem--tinkering with what is supposed to be pure data. That's the thing about samples, you touch them to allow for this or that, and they are not the same. People and companies who push for the census don't want to hear about that.
If this whole census phenomena is driven by big business, how did that happen? Why does the government need to know how many toilets I have? Big business might want to calculate toilet paper... but why should that be pried from Canadians under threat of censure?
Ironically then, wouldn't the government quite rightly be standing up to big business? Shhh....big business doesn't want to hear that stats-can's data is "massaged".
For me, I wish we could dump the whole thing. Its an invasion of my privacy that I and many other Canadians deeply resent.
Anthony in Ontario, no matter how "mandatory" was every Canadians requirement to provide census data, you can never get pure compliance.
Particularly when it comes to certain people-groups like the homeless, with almost 100% non-compliance the whole purity of the process is statistically corrupted. The homeless remain invisible to Canadian society as a result.
Then there is the people-group of the stubborn, who will go to jail rather than comply with such a violation of free speech. How many of those long forms are swept under the carpet? Then there are people who live in such remote places, they are never touched by the census taker. There are people in Canada like that. Then there are the ex-pats. Some live outside Canada for 6 months less a day. They may be missed. I could go on.
While statisticians say that they can calculate out the anomalies of the impurity, they really can't without becoming a problem--tinkering with what is supposed to be pure data. That's the thing about samples, you touch them to allow for this or that, and they are not the same. People and companies who push for the census don't want to hear about that.
If this whole census phenomena is driven by big business, how did that happen? Why does the government need to know how many toilets I have? Big business might want to calculate toilet paper... but why should that be pried from Canadians under threat of censure?
Ironically then, wouldn't the government quite rightly be standing up to big business? Shhh....big business doesn't want to hear that stats-can's data is "massaged".
For me, I wish we could dump the whole thing. Its an invasion of my privacy that I and many other Canadians deeply resent.
CBC's blog on catching the G20 vandals.
The thing that galls me the most are the pro-Iranians who feel vindicated now, because see, Canada has problems too. One poster today said Iran only arrested 60 protesters post election, where Canada arrested 1000.
That bothers me. And when I point out that 60 was the number of protesters that were executed... they say sure sure.
Then I reflect that of the thousands who came and used their constitutional right of free speech, I thank God--no matter how much vandalism that happened, no one died; and no one has to fear execution.
Then I am very very glad to be a Canadian
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/07/21/g20-protests-pictures653.html#socialcomments#ixzz0uMmM30j5
That bothers me. And when I point out that 60 was the number of protesters that were executed... they say sure sure.
Then I reflect that of the thousands who came and used their constitutional right of free speech, I thank God--no matter how much vandalism that happened, no one died; and no one has to fear execution.
Then I am very very glad to be a Canadian
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/07/21/g20-protests-pictures653.html#socialcomments#ixzz0uMmM30j5
More Canadian debate on the F-35
Last Week the NY Times announced that Lockheed Martin intends to spend 10 billion dollars to the 100+ Canadian companies which work on this plane.
Canada's 65 planes is pathetically small, when you consider the US, 10 times our size is buying 2000. Since the total number of planes is projected to be 3000, it seems few Canadians appreciate Canadian industry is supplying parts for all of them.
Finally, under the Liberal watch there was a competitive bidding process. Boeing lost, Lockheed won.
So we have ordered our Big Mac, agreed to pay the price, all that's left is the tray to put them on, and pay the nice person, and get our change back.
Pay 9 billion get 10 back. Sounds like a deal to me. So what if repair for the 40 year life of the plane costs 7 billion...40 years people!
Henry Ford used to say he could give away his Model T, and make enough money on the parts alone. Lockheed is in effect, paying us a Billion dollars to take these planes and look after them.
I say again: Sounds like a deal to me....
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/07/liberals-want-kevin-page-to-go-all-maverick-on-the-f-35-fighter-contract.html
Canada's 65 planes is pathetically small, when you consider the US, 10 times our size is buying 2000. Since the total number of planes is projected to be 3000, it seems few Canadians appreciate Canadian industry is supplying parts for all of them.
Finally, under the Liberal watch there was a competitive bidding process. Boeing lost, Lockheed won.
So we have ordered our Big Mac, agreed to pay the price, all that's left is the tray to put them on, and pay the nice person, and get our change back.
Pay 9 billion get 10 back. Sounds like a deal to me. So what if repair for the 40 year life of the plane costs 7 billion...40 years people!
Henry Ford used to say he could give away his Model T, and make enough money on the parts alone. Lockheed is in effect, paying us a Billion dollars to take these planes and look after them.
I say again: Sounds like a deal to me....
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/07/liberals-want-kevin-page-to-go-all-maverick-on-the-f-35-fighter-contract.html
Confronting Anti-Semitism
VeryBig Said:
"The last I hear the Aspers were jewish"
So? Your posting in the Globe and Mail, owned by BCE, not the National Post. Is that a Jewish company too then?
See, this is what I am saying? When ever someone says the media is controlled by the Jews, he is instantly lying and it is easy to verify. Anyone with half a brain can check it. So, what is it? Do you guys think Canadians too stupid? Or perhaps you feel that your lies are too slick to be checked?
Yes Canada has free speech. Anyone in Canada can use it to tell however many lies he wants. So long as they don't promote hatred.
While it is true that Arabs maybe Semitic, the Semitic people include ancient Akkadians, Chaldeans, and Baysian dialects C 5750BCE. And any good Muslim will know by the Koran that Ishmael was born to Abraham around 1800BCE. Now check my math but that looks like 3900 years after the rise of identifiable Semites. So while Arabs are Semites, they are a branch of the Semitic lingual tree.
While there are denotations which are definitive and precise, there is a common usage of the term: semite/anti-semite that is used to slur Jewish people.
It was used in this sense in 1879 by: German journalist Wilhelm Marr in a pamphlet called, "The Victory of Germandom over Jewry". Using ideas of race and nationalism"
Since then, this idea espoused in this writing has cast a shadow and a pall on Western Civilization, for in the psyche of the West, anti-semitism refers to anti-jewish concepts.
That said, I would oppose hatred of Arabs under the umbrella of antisemitism so long as they don't mind being grouped with the Jews
"The last I hear the Aspers were jewish"
So? Your posting in the Globe and Mail, owned by BCE, not the National Post. Is that a Jewish company too then?
See, this is what I am saying? When ever someone says the media is controlled by the Jews, he is instantly lying and it is easy to verify. Anyone with half a brain can check it. So, what is it? Do you guys think Canadians too stupid? Or perhaps you feel that your lies are too slick to be checked?
Yes Canada has free speech. Anyone in Canada can use it to tell however many lies he wants. So long as they don't promote hatred.
While it is true that Arabs maybe Semitic, the Semitic people include ancient Akkadians, Chaldeans, and Baysian dialects C 5750BCE. And any good Muslim will know by the Koran that Ishmael was born to Abraham around 1800BCE. Now check my math but that looks like 3900 years after the rise of identifiable Semites. So while Arabs are Semites, they are a branch of the Semitic lingual tree.
While there are denotations which are definitive and precise, there is a common usage of the term: semite/anti-semite that is used to slur Jewish people.
It was used in this sense in 1879 by: German journalist Wilhelm Marr in a pamphlet called, "The Victory of Germandom over Jewry". Using ideas of race and nationalism"
Since then, this idea espoused in this writing has cast a shadow and a pall on Western Civilization, for in the psyche of the West, anti-semitism refers to anti-jewish concepts.
That said, I would oppose hatred of Arabs under the umbrella of antisemitism so long as they don't mind being grouped with the Jews
Anti-Semitic comments response
VeryBigBig said: "North America's press is controlled by the jews.
That's true in the US and it certainly true in Canada."
Ok you idiots get this straight Canada doesn't stand for hatred.
It doesn't stand for holocaust deniers. Unlike you, we were there, our boots in their blood: trying to cover mass graves. That was before you or your family immigrated here.
This sort of hatred and out and out lies has no place here. And that is why these "reporters" were fired.
Hate speech is criminal in Canada. Your posts border it. I am not Jewish, nor in the employ of any entity. Why don't you go post on the boards of Press TV (Iran's pseudo news broadcaster.) They like your hatred there.
Your anti-Semitic rants spew ridiculous none-sense not realizing I suppose that any Canadian can check ownership of any media outlet.
You like Islamic countries so much go back there. Your speech has no place here.
That's true in the US and it certainly true in Canada."
Ok you idiots get this straight Canada doesn't stand for hatred.
It doesn't stand for holocaust deniers. Unlike you, we were there, our boots in their blood: trying to cover mass graves. That was before you or your family immigrated here.
This sort of hatred and out and out lies has no place here. And that is why these "reporters" were fired.
Hate speech is criminal in Canada. Your posts border it. I am not Jewish, nor in the employ of any entity. Why don't you go post on the boards of Press TV (Iran's pseudo news broadcaster.) They like your hatred there.
Your anti-Semitic rants spew ridiculous none-sense not realizing I suppose that any Canadian can check ownership of any media outlet.
You like Islamic countries so much go back there. Your speech has no place here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)