The love of a father

Is glorious.

Welcome to our lives Sam.

I am opposed to Security, Prosperity and the harmonized Jelly Bean

Absolute idiocy. The only thing dumber is taking a bunch of cops and sticking them into a protest to make it rowdier. God, I wish I was in the room when some mandarin spoke up at a security meeting and said "Hey, I have an idea..."

I can understand protesting against the war. You want to send George Walker (R - occupation if necessary but not necessarily occupation) a message and you can't get an appointment so you show up in the middle of the woods with a few of your unwashed friends to create a hullabaloo.

I can understand general anti wto protests that (which usually incorrectly) lambaste leaders for trying to expand market opportunities at the peril of local jobs.

I can even understand the ENGO picketers who can't seem to get their message across despite the fact that three opposition parties, the CBC, and the Toronto star essentially read from their song sheet.

But, why would anyone be opposed to removing regulatory hurdles on the transportation of goods across borders?

The SPP joint statement had a lot of content in it - but the message that YOU should take from it is that government is trying to pool its massive resources together with other governments and make the most of investing your money into your infrastructure. On behalf of industry in Ontario I say - thank you. The companies/employers who have to follow at least six sets of regs for every good they import/export within NAFTA - (Can fed/prov, US fed/state, MX Fed/tribe) none of which are remotely similar, and most of which demand different reporting requirements - have been calling this for a long time. So doing will make things cheaper for you. The number one impediment for doing business in Ontario these days is regulatory compliance. The SPP isn't about less regulation - it is about efficient/streamlined and enforceable regulation. Having one set of rules will help ensure that they get followed.

And maybe we should invite Chinese Toy-makers to participate. I prefer my toys to be like my gas - unleaded. I say that tongue in cheek because we don't really know what happens in Mexico - the SPP would work to ensure that kind of crap doesn't happen.

The Maude Barlow's of the world who think the SPP is the next nail in the coffin for the Canadian identity should have another swig of the Kool-aid. If anything, SPP allows for Canadian ideas to be adopted elsewhere- bolstering the strength of regulatory innovation in areas where we have expertise. For example, the Chemicals Management plan is going to be the baseline for the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) review in the states. Let me tell you how much better that is when compared to European Regulation, Evaluation, Assessment and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH.)

AND ONE REGULATOR WILL RULE THEM ALL!

I think the problem is in how people define sovereignty, which if you say it fast enough, sounds like Sauron-ty. The same Maude Barlow's who think that this is really about selling water, believe that sovereignty is defined based on how we are different and how we can keep our toys. Bollocks.

Sovereignty is about the ability to chose to work together when it is in our best interests - understanding that mutual strength can bolster sovereignty and allow the government to focus on other areas that matter most. Despite their limitless resources, there are limits on government resources. By having congress (pun intended) on one series of technical regulations - which are very costly to both the regulator and regulatee - those limited resources can be refocused on other issues of national importance - like, say, Arctic sovereignty.

Do I think the PM dropped the ball? No - I think he picked up a ball that the Liberals were playing catch with not so long ago. While his jelly bean example was trite, comical and dismissive of the concerns made by the left - it did an excellent job at quickly explaining what the true nature of the problems really are.

The Real Threat of Global Warming

I was reviewing some documents on the warming of the world's oceans this morning, and I came to an inescapable conclusion through what I call "Logo Logic"

0 - Assume this tripe I am reading is accurate.

10 - The world's oceans are warming up

20 - Canada has relatively cool oceans, but is an important part of the world oceanic system

30 - As the world's oceans warm up, Canada's oceans will warm in concert with oceanic pattern changes

40 - Warm oceans are home to sharks.

50 - More sharks will move northward to Canadian waters

60 - End global warming now!!!

70 - GO TO 40

Nothing Al Gore has said resonated so loudly.

Sexual Politics- Redux

Chris Matthews has asked every week for the last year "Is America ready for a woman President." My question for Mr. Matthews is why isn't America ready for a woman President?

Prime Minister Harper's (C- the middle ages) Cabinet shuffle notwithstanding, Canada has had very strong female representation in its government. As had England - and yet, both England and Canada have problems too. They are diverse and multifaceted. The new Chancellor (The New New Labour) in England had her top described as a "photo finish in a Zeppelin race" - something that men don't have to put up with. It is deplorable, but that is the way it goes until someone says something. I have said something for some time, and for the same reasons I hurled David Emerson (C - Pacific Rim Job) the same vile words that were cowardly smeared at Belinda Stronach (L - I am sorry for what you had to put up with), we need to recognize the a double standard exists, and we have to work to ameliorate it. One ignorant back-room boy at a time.

That having been said, let me state that I have never voted for a woman in either a federal or provincial election. Why? Well, the political party which I chose to support in each of those elections wasn't fielding a female candidate in my riding. The closest thing I have done in terms of voting for a woman is to vote in favour of the Charlottetown Accord to impress a woman. It didn't work out for the government, but I did alright.

So, now that I have admitted that a) I am not perfect and b) illustrated that the party system is part of the problem - where does this leave us? Mr. Matthews statement is actually a very fair one - and I don't think the answer is yes.

On the one hand, the Democrats need to nominate a candidate that will encourage people to vote for them - not vote against them. Love 'er or hate 'er - Hillary Clinton (D - NYC by way of Little Rock and Chicago) is one of the most polarizing figures in American Politics. Ignorant and mobilized voters do not need another excuse to either not vote or vote republican. On the other hand, America, particularly the Red States, is still a very spiritual, traditional, puritan society where outdated stereotypes about the role of the woman in the home significantly affect voting behaviour.

That said, based on the current slate of declared candidates, Hillary is my second pick after the Governor of New Mexico (D - Energy Stability 101 - he actually gets it), who was also part of the Clinton Cabinet. It isn't a sexist thing, it is a "I think Richardson is smarter" thing.

The Red State problem with Hillary isn't that she is a woman, it is the woman that she is. She carries with her the baggage of the Clinton Presidency, with none of the benefits. Her husband doesn't even carry the baggage of his Presidency anymore- because so many Americans long for that time when they had that feeling of "je ne sais quoi" about the Presidency. Hillary is still seen by many as the meddler who fucked up health care in 1993, and doesn't have a fraction of her husband's charisma. Others see her only as ambitious. How fair is that?

Feminists, of all ilks, should be wary of the symbolism in a second Clinton Presidency. While we will never be able to prove it empirically, there can be no dispute to the fact that her success is due entirely to the high profile she enjoyed in the 1990s as a result of her husband. While I am confident that Hillary is smart enough and affable enough that she would be able to start at the bottom and work her way up to the top (just like her husband did) ultimately, we will never know if she could- she started at the top, and it was her husband that put her there.

That said, I am positive she would be a giant leap forward for the other equal rights problem in America, and her candidacy (successful or otherwise) is proof that a woman can compete in a man's game.

But, the contradictions abound- when Bill ran, he held Hillary up as part of his team. Hillary, for obvious reasons, can't do the same thing for fear that undecided voters may believe what many decided voters want to believe: a Hillary Rodham Clinton administration would be the third term of Clinton/Gore, and that in the back rooms would be William Jefferson Clinton. If *I* believed that, Hillary would be my first choice - not because I am sexist and don't think she could do the job, but because I think her husband was the best President in 65 years.

So what is a girl to do? Frankly, after the last eight years, what would be so wrong with the closest advisor to the President being the former President? Kids never listen to their parents, but husbands and wives talk, right?

An inconvenient candidate (D- Tennessee, Academy Award, Future Nobel Laureate) aside, Hillary will easily win the nomination and then face the most...unique electorate in American history. Starving for a stark change in direction, many voters will remember the good times of the 1990s. Red State so-cons - who are ostensibly the manifestation and creation of the Clinton scandals - will rally their troops to do anything they can do to keep her out of the White House.

Her success really depends on the Republican Candidate - If it is Rudy (D - NY) the same Red State so-cons will have to either a) accept the lesser of two evils or b) ensure her victory with a third party candidate. If it is Fred Thompson (R - Reagan's California) Hillary is in a lot of trouble because he has all of the benefits of Ronald Reagan, all of the charm of Ronald Reagan, and none of the baggage of eight years of republican rule. If it is Mitt Romney (R/D - Utah this week, Mass last week) it is a total toss up because of his propensity to go back on his word, and make both of his positions seem silly.

But, to answer the question, American isn't ready for a woman President - if it was, no one would ask such an asinine question. People ask dumb questions like - can a woman go to war? Can a woman drop the bomb? Can a woman deal with terrorists? So far, we have seen a man (R - Daddy got me a job!) fuck up the job for eight years - but nobody ever asked if he could do it because he was a man- and they shouldn't have - they should have asked if he was smart enough.

Conventions of Convenience

I am not impressed. There is now one less woman at the Cabinet table. Yes, we have an extra Secretary of State- but come on, even the title is sexist.

Notionally, I have always been a fan of the "meritocracy" but I think that there is a cart/horse issue here: women are significantly disadvantaged within the political process - there are few people who will challenge this assertion. Maybe raising their profile with an appointment here or there would help rectify that problem?

There is a well-established convention that a Prime Minister can draw from outside of the elected pool of MPs to strengthen Cabinet. This happens when the pool is shallow, and let me assure you, it is indeed. The PM will only do it, apparently, to ensure that his Quebec campaign manager can also be a Cabinet Minister. He didn't appoint anyone from PEI or the North either. It is hypocrisy, and it sucks. Well established conventions are only acceptable when it is convenient for my own personal goals, which do not include, apparently, striving for gender parity.

There must be literally hundreds, if not thousands, of qualified female conservatives who the PM could elevate into his Cabinet and have them seek election the next time around. This would demonstrate to NACSOW that a) he understands the problem and b) thinks that female representation at the Cabinet table is a good idea. To date, he has done neither. If you really want to know how sexist he is, look at the Cabinet Committee structure.

Until then, he will continue to be criticized for it. Not that he seems to care.

Four Games Back

I still believe.

And besides, they are tied for the wildcard!

Show Gun

Yesterday was the anniversary of the dropping of the second bomb.

I am a committed pacifist, but I am resolute in my position on two things relating to the use of nuclear weapons on the Empire of Japan - Little Boy ended the Second World War and despite the massive loss of human life - the use of a Nuclear Weapon at such an early stage of the technology's development gave the world a first hand look at the carnage that was wrought, and as such, no responsible government will ever do it again. Imagine what would have happened if the first bomb had not been dropped until (say) 1965? Our civilization would no longer exist.

The use of fat man and little boy actually saved lives. Instead of both sides losing soldiers and civilians for the following three to six years as the Americans slowly beat back the inferior and under-resourced Japanese Navy and Air force, the Americans limited their exposure by swiftly demonstrating their superiority. It is unfortunate that those who died were civilians, but when you wage war - an enemy civilian is worth less than a man with a family in Kansas. That may sound disgusting, but the bottom line is that America did not attack Japan. They brought that shit on themselves.

Revisionists who believe that the use of atomic technology on "civilians" constitutes a war crime are naive and are taking a deliberately narrow view of waging war. Berlin, Dresden, Paris, London, Pearl Harbour, etc all had collateral damage. The Great War was worse. Before the 20th Century, all civilians were also soldiers whenever their King/Queen said so. Waging wars has dramatically changed in my life-time, and I would agree that yes - when looking through today's kaleidoscope- using nukes on cities would be horrific - but that doesn't make it a war crime. It makes it an "effective deterrent."

Where Mr. Truman and I split, however, is where you drop the bomb. I think the Americans should have used an intermediary to get a Japanese Scientist and Diplomat to a deserted island in the Pacific, or to a minor military installation with few/if any civilians. Tell them to watch the island from a secure location at 12:00. After the island is incinerated, tell the diplomat he has 24 hours to secure a surrender, and if it isn't achieved, the same thing will happen to Hiroshima. Tell the Diplomat that any new escalation or advances in that 24 hour period would be met with an immediate incineration of ten cities (even though they couldn't do it because they didn't have enough bombs). With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, we can do anything.

In the real world, it didn't take long for Japan to formally surrender after the second bomb dropped. The result of the surrender was a boom in tourism for P.E.I. and the now famous Article 9 of Japanese constitution. Today, that same article is the object of significant debate in Japan as the populace is openly questioning the value of relying on the Americans for defence from North Korea and, more importantly, China. The last two decades have seen Osaka based Marines involved in disgusting incidents with locals, and a lot of residents want them out. Given recent history, would YOU trust the U.S. military to protect you?

Seriously, many of whom believe the Americans would no longer engage to protect Japanese sovereignty if not because of their blossoming economic interests in China, because it is now a nuclear power with the largest standing army in the world. China has demonstrated military ambitions facing East and South, and might not stop there. There are many people who feel that the U.S. would rather get out of the way leaving the land of the Rising Sun open for an eclipsing wave from the West (puns intended).

Atlas Hugged - Renovations

I have received a lot of emails from you lately wondering "what the FRACK is wrong" with you.

Nothing is wrong- I have just been trying some new writing styles. Your emails, however, have reminded me that I have some pretty distinct set of readers. Some who like me personally, and others who don't know me and just like my rants and don't give a shit about creativity.

To that end- I have made a NEW blog for what I would describe as more creative material. I am not the most e-proficient person in the world, so it is simply called

http://atlashuggedfiction.blogspot.com/

Enjoy!

It is never easy

http://www.legacy.com/can-ottawa/Obituaries.asp?Page=Notice&PersonID=91991648

I am not entirely sure where to begin. I haven't seen Scottie for three years.

From the age of 14-18 I looked up to him. From the age 18-25 I would have a great time with him- either working at the T&L or somewhere on the course.

Tell your friends how special they are. Every chance you get.

Scottie didn't know how many people really liked him.

755*

It happened yesterday. The "greatest" record in American sports fell.

The same day, the A-Rod passed the 500 home run mark faster than any person before him. The stats don't lie- the only thing that will stop A-rod from breaking Bonds' record is a crosstown bus hitting him.

That said, it took Aaron 12,364 at bats to get his 755. It has taken Bonds 9,768.

Guess what two players have the best at bats to home runs hit ratio? Mark McGuire (10.61 at bats for every HR) and Babe Ruth (11.76 at bats for every HR hit). Bonds is third, and A-Rod is 10th. That is the secret to why the records are falling - players are starting younger and playing for an extra four/five years. A-rod is 32, barely, and he has played 12 full seasons.

The great Hank Aaron isn't even in the top thirty.

There are two other players who have to be factored into this conversation - Albert Pujols (274 HRs) - who is only 27 and is hitting a home run every 14.15 at bats, and Ryan Howard who is hitting a jack every 11.3 times he comes to the plate. Sure he behind the pace because of his "late" start. He is 28 - but look when Barry hit most of his homers- after 35.

It is still too early to tell how these kids will last. Ken Griffey Jr. was dogged by injuries after busting out to 300 in seven years. Arod started younger (18) and has a much life left in him as he wants - that is how great shape he is in.

I find it particularly rich that when Mark McGuire broke a record that would never be broken, it was Barry Bonds who took it away from him just a few years later. It is likely that Bonds will lose both records in the next few years.

That said, I think the "*ers" are just blowing smoke. Unfortunately, the steroid era of baseball will leave a very black mark on the game - kind of like when the players got involved with mobsters to fix games. At the end of the day, roids don't help you see the ball, of help your timing in a millisecond to get the ball out of the park. Maybe steroids helped him train harder and compete longer - but he still broke the record in less at bats than Aaron - and regardless of his steroid use- it was something that "everyone" did for the better part of a decade. There is no evidence that he ever broke a single MLB rule.

Bud Selig can rumple up his face all he wants- its HIS fault that Barry was able to use steroids and continue his career into his mid 40s. The Commissioner's office knew about this issue a long time ago. The problem was they didn't WANT to do anything about it when it was getting out of control because guys like McGuire, Bonds, Sosa and the like were saving the game after the 1990s disruption. They didn't act then, so they can't pout now.