Toronto Falling Apart

Yesterday, a chunk of concrete fell of the Gardener Expressway in Toronto, nearly missing a car. This chunk was said to be the size of a basketball. Many citizens who use the highway and nearby roads fear that what happened in Montreal a few months ago with a bridge collapse could happen to the Gardener. My Dad is a professional engineer who specializes in bridges. I asked him if he thought the Gardener was safe. His answer came in one word: "no". Even to the untrained eye, the stripped concrete and exposed rusty rebar is enough to start asking questions.

Most highways in the GTA are owned and operated by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO). Three notable exceptions are the 407, the Gardener Expressway, and the Don Valley Parkway. The 407, as most people know, is privately owned. The Gardener and DVP are owned by the city of Toronto. These two roads have become infamous in GTA commuter lore. The DVP is often referred to as the Don Valley Parking-lot for its jammed, slow commutes. The Gardener is not much better when it comes to traffic, and its downright frightening when taking its structural state into consideration. Construction of the raised causeway section began in 1955. I don't know its exact history, but I can tell by the architectural design that the highway today is the original. The highway cost $110 million to build in 1955 dollars, about $700 million today. The road itself receives patchwork repairs every so often but its getting to the point of being too dangerous to drive on, or under. The collapse of the Gardener is not a matter of if, but when.

Toronto in recent history has not been taking its crumbling infrastructure seriously. Once thought to be a clean city, Toronto's core areas are no better known by dilapidated roads, sidewalks, buildings, and a mysterious open sewer smell in the financial district. Old water pipes are constantly bursting, garbage is everywhere. Once proud buildings such as Maple Leaf Gardens have fallen into such a horrible state of disrepair. In an expose on CFTO News, it was found that there are still unwashed dishes from 1999 still in the arena. (Though to be fair, it's owned by Loblaws, but it's still a historical building)
Toronto's Mayor David Miller promised, broom in hand, that he'd clean up city hall in the 2003 election. Perhaps now he should take that broom and use it to clean up the rest of the city. The city has become a disgraceful mess, and it's no wonder tourists don't want to go there. Would you want to vacation in some place dirty with roads at third world country standards?
What's Mr Miller's argument about this? Well, he likes to scapegoat the McGuinty Liberals and Harris Conservatives for downloading costs onto the city and not giving them enough money to deal with the problems. It's quite clear that Big D is becoming irritated with Miller. The new City of Toronto Act gives Toronto huge amounts of revenue powers. Toronto does indeed collect vast amounts of money. Most of it gets wasted on hair brained, socialist schemes to help the homeless bums and Toronto's other human garbage, rather than tackling the city's most pressing issues. The Gardener needs to be torn down and rebuilt. There are no other options for Mr Miller. Take the highway away and make traffic worse, or let it collapse and kill possibly hundreds of innocent people. Think of the law suit there.
Unfortunately, transportation is not on the mind of Miller. He'd have us all riding our bikes to work, like people do in Bejing. Unfortunately for Miller, we are not in the People's Republic of China. Bicycles are not practical in Canada's harsh winter climate. Roads are needed to get goods, services, and people into and out of the city. Without the expressway, Toronto's economy would halt. Mr Miller better find some money soon, or Bay St could become a ghost town. Businesses and people won't want to stay in a city where transportation is a nightmare.

read more...

Not Fair for US To Pick on Canada

Today, the US now requires passports for Canadians flying into the country. Is there a legitimate security risk or is this simply the result of mass hysteria? I argue the latter is true. Arguably, the United States poses the bigger security risk to Canada than the other way around. After all, Canada is the new Mexico for America's criminals. That's mostly the result of our rather lax immigration laws and frightened, unarmed boarder guards than anything else. However, Canada still has the lowest crime rate in North America. Canada is also the leading nation in the war on terror. We've been left with an overwhelming burden in Afghanistan while the US fights their increasingly pointless war in Iraq.

So why has Canada been targeted as a possible security threat? There is simply no logical answer. Big business in the US, which relies heavily on trade with Canada, has been opposed to the idea since day one. So much for them being the driving force in American politics. Much of these decisions have been made unilaterally from the White House. George W Bush is somewhat of an enigma in US politics. They have never elected a leader quite like him. I have remained neutral on Bush politically. Analytically he's a bad leader and a bad politicians.
Canada seems to be an easy target in vain attempts to make it look like the government is improving national security. The problem with us is we are too nice, at least on the international scene. The US must be kept as a close friend and ally, but we must be firm with them. Canada therefore needs to institute strict laws for Americans coming north. After all, the US cannot punish us. It's generally thought that the US can do what it wants in regards to Canada but that's simply not the case. Canada and the US have an economically symbiotic relationship with each other. In other words, one country cannot survive, at least at its current standard of living, without the other. It's time we started letting them know that. I believe most Americans do realize this situation but their executive leadership still does not. Pressure from big business regarding the issue also needs to increase vastly if things are going to change.

In the mean time, the US needs to start concentrating on its southern neighbour. While hundreds of thousands of Mexicans stream across the border every year, taking American jobs and ghettoizing cities, you'd think they'd be the major security concern. It would be significantly easier for terror organizations to enter the US through Mexico than through Canada. We catch our terror suspects.

read more...

Science, Pseudoscience, and the Politics of Fear

Fear. It's driving our world. Not so much in Canada but its there none the less. This fear does not come in the form of Osama Bin Laden and the gaggle of other terrorists, though he's part of the equation.

This entry follows on the heels of my last one. My scathing expose of the world of academics and intellectuals in the realm of politics. Fear perpetrated by academics in the form of junk science. Global warming, for example, I believe to fall under this category. That along with all the other apocalyptic predictions today's academics are making in order to scare people. Whether or not there is truth to these claims is not as important. What is important is that this "science" is being done through partisan eyes. This is dangerous because it scares people out of their wits. Some 33% of Americans think the end of the world will come soon. That's one in every three people. People proclaiming the end of the world is nothing new. If you look back at the history of apocalyptic thinking, the world should have ended hundreds of times over. (I seem to remember the world was supposed to end on New Years Eve, seven years ago. The next possible date is 2012.) What sets today's thinkers apart from those in the past is that these people are scientists, supposedly employed by prestigious think tanks and universities. They spout total crap out of their mouths and people gobble it up like it's fillet minion.

Today, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved their Doomsday Clock to five minutes to midnight. Midnight being the doomsday. Obviously this does not represent real time, in fact, nobody knows what this means. Curiously, they ranked 1963 as being the second furthest point we were from nuclear disaster. The same year of the Cuban Missile Crisis where nuclear war was narrowly averted. Fidel Castro reportedly wished the Soviets to launch an attack but clearer heads prevailed. It does show how off base they are in their estimates. The Bulletin's "clock" is a perfect example of junk science.

Fear is a powerful political strategy. However, playing with fear is like playing with fire. Fear is being used by both the left and right wings. However, the left wing is presenting the the apocalyptic version. The fire part is that it starts a panic. It's similar to the riots you get in the wake of natural disasters. The worst part is that academics are using claims that cannot be verified to boost this fear. They simply lie through their teeth while in the employ of left wing political and special interest groups. Never take what the academics say as a given just because of their credentials. Always second guess them. You'll find their "facts" are often pseudoscience.

read more...

Academics Out of Touch With Today's Society

The university atmosphere is suffering a serious problem. This is a problem that has always been around, but it seems to be getting somewhat worse. It is that academics are out of touch with today's society. I consider myself a black sheep in this world. Not necessarily shunned but an outsider none the less. I've tried to write this blog in a simple language so everyday people can understand it, but are not being patronized. This doesn't come out of any comments directed at me, but is rather a critical examination of what is seriously wrong with education today, using the political science field as an example.

Drooling Idiot Syndrome: Academics (including students) tend to classify people into two camps. Those who attend/have attended university and those who have not. They tend to view those who have not attended as being very simple people digging in the manure pile. That belief is about as true as saying Liberache was strait. I think everyday people aren't given enough credit for what they actually know. Many academics in the political field think they won't understand politics unless its given to them in a watered down format like the Daily Show. My conversations with many people ranging from labourers to business people shows that this belief is simply not true. People are listening and they do know the issues well enough to have an engaging debate. Stop treating them as if they have downs syndrome.

"I'm Better than You" Disorder: One of the greatest delusions with academics is their elitist ego. They view themselves as society's upper crust. You must pay attention to them because they are the future and they know EVERYTHING. Simply put, it's impossible to argue with an academic because they view you as the drooling idiot while they consider themselves god's gift to mankind. Even if you know they're speaking complete rubbish, they'll keep insisting that they know more than you. After all, they've studied it. We all know how valuable studies are. Of course, them being the elites, they naturally view themselves as the world's future leaders and the only logical choice for those positions. Never mind the fact that some of the greatest men and women in history were not university educated. In this sense, academics amount to nothing more than snobs and busy-bodies. All they do is look down their noses at others. This whole notion started way back in high school while those who were not good with intellectual work were treated differently. Unfortunately, the real world does not function that way. Many of these academics, if they do leave the ivory towers of universities, may find themselves working for these shunned students. Then what will they do?

Libraganda: Libraganda (pronounced Lib-rah-gan-duh) is a word I made up to describe all the liberal, left wing propaganda being constantly directed at us by these people. Universities have been dominated by left thinkers since the 1960s. That's nothing new. However, combined with the two above states of mind, this makes things particularly irritating. Anyone who holds different views is thought of as a drooling idiot. Since the academics are the elite and they are left wing, then their ideology must be the only ideology. For a group of people who pretend to be tolerant to any and all, they are surprisingly intolerant of those who think differently. They like to group people based on labels, rather than the kind of person they are. This doesn't seem quite right to me, and is certainly counter to their own supposed belief system. I suppose though when you're safely protected within the walls of your ivory tower, you don't have to think about these things.

Keeping Knowledge from the Masses: My favorite website has to be Wikipedia. Why? Well I can get all the news and information on any subject I want for free. It's completely written by unpaid volunteers who want to share their knowledge. However, the site has become controversial in one circle. Yep, you guessed it. Academics hate Wikipedia. Why? Well, they cite plagiarism and inaccuracies. One news clipping that's been posted on a bulletin board at the University of Toronto since November claims that there are 150 articles containing plagiarism on the English version of the online encyclopedia. That's roughly 0.009% of the 1,585,000 articles on the site. Wikipedia maintains strict quality standards so it's likely these articles didn't stay that way for long. However, the academics make this sound like a huge issue. I have found that Wikipedia lives up to its claims as being just as good as any commercially available print encyclopedia. In many cases, its better since it can provide more information and web links.
So why all the fuss? Academics don't hate Wikipedia because they think it's providing false information, they hate it because they think people should be paying them (the academics) for the same information. If academics truly do have a problem with inaccuracies on the site, they could always edit articles to fix them. They purposely want to keep this stuff out of reach of ordinary people, since if people could learn online, this would make the academics obsolete. Indeed its already starting to.

So what to do? Well you can't stop this. For students in or going to go to university, I recommend do your best not to fall into this trap. You will catch yourself falling into this mindset. I know I have, but I've resisted. You must do the same. Trust me. You'll be more successful in the real world.

read more...

Is Mexico Safe?

Three Canadian tourists have died in Mexico. Both in the heart of the popular resort towns of Cancun and Acapulco. This has left some scratching their heads as to whether or not Mexico is a safe place to visit.

I have been to Mexico and studied its history. I went there in 1995. I was only 10 and that was my first vacation outside the US and Canada. I don't remember ever feeling threatened there. I do remember heavily armed police officers guarding the streets. It was during a festival week leading up to Christmas at the time. It was also just under two years after the EZLN's rebellion in Chiapas. This was while the group was still an armed rebel organization. They've since become a political organization.
We were always told that to stay safe in Mexico, one should not venture outside of the hotel area. Sound advice. However, both recent crimes did happen in resort areas. So is Mexico dangerous? In my opinion, Mexico is a dangerous country. Mexicans are xenophobic. Although they like the tourist dollars, they strongly dislike foreigners being in their country. Foreigners in these countries should always watch their back. Though there are many friendly people, when in any strange place, you should treat everybody as though they're about to stab you. People who become too trusting are the ones who get targeted. Mexico is not like Toronto. It has a tradition of violence and has a very high crime rate, even in supposedly safe tourist areas.

Would I advise my fellow Canadians not to travel to Mexico? Depends. Those who are quick to let their guard down should stick to traveling in Canada and the US. Mexico is a very beautiful, rich, and diverse country, but it has a lot of social problems. It's a nice place to visit, but you have to be careful.

Tips for safe traveling:
-Always travel in groups, never go alone.
-Keep all valuables locked in a hotel safe. I recommend taking only costume jewelery and a minimum amount of cash. Use credit cards and insured traveler's cheques whenever possible. Don't bring debit cards with you. If you run out of cash, use your credit card. Carry some sort of photo id on your person at all times.
-Take tours offered by your hotel or travel provider. Don't go out on your own.
-The legal and health systems are nothing like those in Canada. The law is often corrupt and abusive to foreigners. Familiarize yourself with the country's laws and stay out of trouble. There is little the Canadian government can do in these situations.
-Travel only in licensed taxis that are clearly marked.
-Stay in resort areas unless going out on a travel provider's tour.
-If you are unfamiliar with the language, purchase a phrase book before you go and become familiar with it.
-If there is a Canadian embassy in the country, make an effort to find its location and phone number. If you run into trouble, contact the embassy before anybody else.
-Don't get too friendly with the locals. In places like Mexico, many people strongly dislike foreigners.

read more...

Climate Porn?

Toronto Sun columnist Lorrie Goldstine wrote an interesting article about the over-hype of the global warming "crisis". A good read.

read more...

Mom and Mom and Dad

A rather interesting court ruling this week. Apparently, it is now legal for a child to have three parents. No, not in the sense of a step parent, but three full fledged legal parents. That's odd.

An Ottawa area lesbian couple had been fighting for this for a number of years. The biological mother's lesbian partner wanted to become the adopted mother of the child. The father is still alive and heavily active in the child's life. The reasoning behind this is that if something were to happen to both biological parents, the child would still have a mom. That does make sense in a way. The father was married to the biological mother and they are divorced. (I don't know why, two women is every man's dream, right?)

Well, this other woman has finally been granted the right to be the child's full fledged adoptive mother. This opens an interesting can of worms. It's interesting to note that this trial happened with a homosexual couple, rather than a heterosexual relationship. It leads me to believe that judges are being a bit too "pro-active" on the whole gay rights agenda. Something that is not their job. Why do we elect MPs anyway? Secondly, it creates a few legal problems. Does this new ruling apply to strait couples as well? Was it right to do so? I personally found the ruling unnecessary. There are already laws in place that would give the child to a step-parent provided this be noted in the will. Both biological parents did want this women to be the mother if something were to happen.
It's more pushing the whole gay agenda than anything else, with the legal consequences not even being considered. The judge should be disbarred for that in my opinion. This ruling has one major flaw. That is, what happens if the relationship between the two women were broken off. The other woman would still be the child's legal parent. That likely means back to the courts to decide who gets custody, and then the child ends up getting bounced back and forth between three people. That is hardly fair to the child, who has already had to deal with such adult issues at such a young age. Though I think it's possible for a child to have caregivers outside of their two biological parents, it's wrong to start making these caregivers the legal status of biological or adoptive parents, it goes against nature as well. In the human species, it's only possible to have two parents.
Speaking of which, what about adoptions. Something else that wasn't considered that definitely should have been. If say a woman gives up her child for adoption, does she still remain a legal parent? This case opens the door for something like that. Take the US women who recently kidnapped her kids she gave up for adoption and fled to Canada.

I definitely question the Judge's motives on this ruling as it is highly irresponsible. It is always wrong to use children as a pawn to push political agendas.

These sorts of decisions should be left up to the legislature to decide. It's alright for judges to bring up these issues but its wrong in a democratic society for them to have the final say.

read more...

Death of a Tyrant

As I'm sure most know by now, former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussain has been executed. Stick a fork in him, he's done. Too bad the debate over his death is still as fresh as my Christmas tree, still going but stale.

I for one think Saddam being executed is the first positive thing in Iraq since the war started. It finally closes a chapter on the nation's violent past. Saddam was born a thug, he was already a killer by his teens. He ruled his country like a mafia don. The loyal were well treated, those he doubted were murdered en mass. Definitely not a very nice man. He's finally hung for his crimes. If anything, Iraqis can be safe in knowing he'll never be coming back.

However, the debate as to whether or not he should have been killed still continues. Many claim that executing him is in itself a human rights violation, committed by the imperialist United States. Never mind Saddam was tried and executed by his own people, and not the Americans. I suppose mass murdering Kurds and pitting Shiite against Sunni in a brutal civil war is not enough justification. As I hinted at earlier, the Iraqi people would not have accepted anything less than death in order to make sure he wouldn't return to power.

To those who still rant against him being killed, Saddam is dead. Nothing can bring him back to life so you're just beating this issue like a dead horse. Where were you before they were going to hang him?

read more...

Spewing Hot Air

I wish I had the ability to lie and keep a strait face. Too bad I can't so I can't be a politician, or a "scientist". Yes, it was warm today. January 5th and it got up to 11 degrees today. Of course you know what this means? We can't ski! Oh well, I hate skiing. No wait, that's not it. Oh yes, the apocalypse. Yes, this might be my last post on Martin's Mill News. I might be dead tomorrow, and so will you. The world is ending! It's all over people, we don't have a prayer!

Am I crazy? Probably. Does the above statement sound crazy, definitely. Coming for me, it's no different from the homeless guy on the street corner who hasn't taken his meds today. Coming from psudo-scientists, it makes perfect sense. Yes, it's warm today so the world is going to end. Global Warming. A convenient issue. A convenient lie. Especially if you're considering running for the democratic presidential nomination in 2008...*cough*. Global warming is an issue that is really starting to bother me. What bothers me is that it shouldn't be an issue at all. It's all a lot of hot air. I've talked about this before but its dominating the news again. Why won't people just come out and admit it doesn't exist! Why, because they're making too much money and getting too much attention over it. If you read my October 2006 article about it, you'd know my position. Of course reducing pollution is important but telling people we'll all die tomorrow if we don't is pure insanity, and people don't even see it.

read more...

Reflections on 2006, Thoughts for 2007

The world greets 2007 today. One year over and another begins. 2006 was certainly an interesting year to be alive in. We saw the Conservatives rise to power for the first time in 13 years. The Democratic party took control of congress in the US. Saddam Hussain was finally executed for his crimes. War in Lebanon, natural disasters, the deaths of many big names in recent history. It's amazing how much we can cram into 365 days, whether for good or bad.

I think we should look at 2007 on a positive outlook. Recent polls done in the United States show Americans fear an approaching dooms day. For some reason though, I highly doubt the second coming of Jesus is in the cards for the next year. I predict we've still got a solid 5 billion years before we have to worry about the end of the world. So what are my predictions?
-Weather will return to normal with the end of the El Nino cycle, ending global warming fears.
-No chance for peace in the Middle-East but with Saddam Hussain out of the picture in Iraq, at least there will still be hope for that country.
-There will be no terror attacks on US soil this year. Terrorism world-wide will be below normal this year.
-Fidel Castro will die. Cuba will either become democratic or adopt post-Mao Chinese style "communism". US Embargo against Cuba will end.
-Canada will not go to the polls for another Federal election as predicted by some political scientists. With Canada's two biggest provinces already going to the polls for provincial elections, opposition parties will likely hold off until early 2008, or face voter backlash. Dalton McGuinty will (unfortunately) win the Ontario provincial election but will only hold a minority government.
-Caledonia will not be resolved. The OPP will be sued over it.
-Milton will fall further into the sinkhole it dug itself.

read more...