A Republican Win's Teddy's Old Seat In Mass.

I think hell just froze over. I guess this is why the United States has been getting so much snow this winter. Republican Scott Brown has taken the Massachusetts Senate seat long held by recently deceased senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy. The state is considered to be a left-wing Democratic stronghold. Though this will be little more than a footnote in Canadian news, it represents a significant even in American politics. Kennedy, a life long and unabashed liberal, held that seat for 46 years. Teddy was a larger than life figure in American politics so if his supporters turncoat, things cannot be good. It's a major blow to the Obama administration. Many Americans are worried over the health reform bill and potential tax increases. Polls estimate that 54% of Americans are opposed to the health care plan. Obama has gone from an approval rating of 84% by the time he was entered office (according to a CNN poll), down to a low of 41% just last month.

It's notable that in such a short period, less than a year, things have shifted from one of the strongest Democratic showings in over a decade to at the election to a point where no seat is safe. It will be interesting to see how the Obama administration reacts to this.

read more...

Why I'm Hesitant to Donate to Haiti

This week, I've realized what a truly awful person I am. No matter how much tragedy I see about the Haiti quake that happened last Tuesday, I just cannot be convinced to donate. Is it because I'm greedy and lazy? Probably. However, I also feel that no matter how much I give, that money will not be put to good use, if it's put to use at all.

Haiti is the poorest nation in the Americas, in line with some of the poorest African states. It also rates the lowest in the UN's Human Development Index for the Americas. To put this in perspective, the next poorest country, Nicaragua, is 30% better off in terms of life expectancy, GDP, and literacy. The irony is that Haiti is sandwiched between two of the wealthier nations in the Americas: Cuba and the Dominican Republic. These nations both have access to the same resources Haiti does.

Much of Haiti's problems can be attributed to it's high level of corruption and political instability. After the quake, the UN is scrambling to re-establish the rule of law in Port-au-Prince. However, it can be argued that the rule of law has never existed in this country. It is estimated that a third of the population in the capital live under the boots of violent gangs who hold their iron grips on the poorest slums. Rape, theft, murder, and machete attacks are common place and the government does little to try and stop them. Approximately 30 armed factions rule over them like medieval feudal lords ruled over their serfs. They exist only to profit off the backs of the country's destitute. The gangs obviously have no respect for law but are the only real government in places like the notorious (and ironically named) Cité Soleil shantytown.

According to several news reports, these gangs seem to be the only ones benefiting from the disaster. Several hundred of them escaped from prison during the earthquake and have now re-established their stranglehold on the slums. Small turf wars have already broken out and violence is expected to escalate as people become more desperate. The sad truth behind so many of these aid operations is that the food, money, and supplies destined for the truly needy ends up, more often than not, in the hands of these soulless monsters. Even with the US and Canadian troops on the ground there, I just cannot feel guaranteed that aid will not end up in the hands of gang lords and raiders. Unfortunately, this is the case in so many similar situations. It happens in Africa all the time. Aid, particularly food, gets stolen and is sold back to the same destitute people it was meant for, on the black market, for several times its actual worth. This puts the wealthier nations between a rock and a hard place and discourages many who truly want to help.

This is the time where I usually suggest solutions but I just can't in this case. For the foreseeable future, all I can see is things getting worse before they get better. I think we need to start considering that Haiti may never recover. Even before the earthquake, the government had no economy whatsoever. 30-40% of the government's budget was already coming from foreign aid. Current exports, aside from a small coffee industry, are mainly low income agricultural goods. The country has almost no industrial capacity. It also lacks the tourism industry that so many Caribbean nations have built themselves on. The tourists stay away for obvious reasons. It is estimated that half of all Haitians were unemployed prior to the quake. Two thirds were thought to be without formal jobs. What economy it had is now all but gone, and has taken the lives of countless with it.

I cannot be optimistic. After studying the history and politics of the region all through university, I know a failed state when I see one. There have been so many. Haiti though is as textbook an example of one as you can get. As sad as it sounds and as awful as it sounds, perhaps it's time we abandon the Haitian people. We in the West and the world at large have done all we can to help these people but none of it seems to be working to build a stable country and improve the lives of its people. Many of the poorest areas resent our "interference". All I can say is may God have mercy on their souls.

read more...

Google vs China: A Battle of Two Evil Empires

Google did something rather unexpected this week. They told the People's Republic of China where to stick their censorship. Google's Gmail service had a major breech of security several months ago. It was discovered last week that the Chinese government had been behind it. Of the email accounts hacked, several belonged to Chinese democracy advocates. Google claims that no critical information was stolen.

In response to the hacking, Google launched back more than a warning shot. They shut down all censorship on Google.cn, the Chinese portal. Several years ago, the company had instituted censorship on the search engine to appease the PRC. People visiting Google.cn were barred from searching for terms such as democracy and the Tienanmen protests. That is until last week when Google refused to comply in retaliation. The company is now debating whether they should continue to operate in this country. Google's mission has always been to give people free and easy access to information. That's why they came under such heavy criticism from Western human rights and free speech activists when they volunteered to comply with Chinese censorship in the first place.

There is some debate as to why Google is pondering leaving the PRC. Some say that it's because rival Chinese search engine Baidu is taking over their market in that country. Regardless of the case, it's a major blow to a country who has often considered itself invincible to foreign criticism over its poor human rights track record. If Google pulls out, it leaves a huge gap in Chinese access to information. China has been aggressively attempting to muzzle anything online that sheds the Communist Party in a bad light, that the government finds immoral (such as pornography or Falun Gong), or inspires reformers and democracy advocates. However, much like in Western nations (such as wired neighbour's South Korea and Japan), the Chinese have come to rely on the convenience and economic benefits that the internet provides. Much of those benefits are provided through companies like Google. Stopping the information flow would be a major setback.

Of course Google leaving does benefit the PRC somewhat, in that they can gain tighter control content through domestic, or even state owned search providers. It's bad for people who were talking advantage of Google's supposed security to hide their pro-democracy and pro-human rights activities. In fact, the Communist Party may end up on top eventually should Google leave. In the mean time, they've exposed themselves wide to attacks from reformers and Western critics after this little international incident. Maybe more will be inspired to oppose the socialist oligarchy that has held an iron grip on the country for 60 years. Now if only other Western IT companies would show the same balls and refuse to bow to censorship, we'd be laughing. I'm looking at you Mr. Gates and Mr. Balmer.

read more...

Idiots Hall of Shame September to December 2009 Archives

That's a wrap for this bit


September Inductees
Cyclists -- For not abiding by the rules of the road and then wondering why they get hurt

Michael Ignatiff -- Federal Liberal Leader. For gambling with voters and making a mockery of Canadian Democracy

Jim Flaherty -- Federal finance minister. For endorsing controversial HST plans in Ontario & British Colombia

The UN and every other idiotic Climate activist-- For wasting our precious time and resources when they could be put to far better use. You know, actually helping their fellow human beings instead of polar bears. Stop distracting the rabble with your nonsensical rubbish.

October Inductees
Nobel Prize Committee -- For giving Obama the peace prize without him actually doing anything.

read more...

War on Terror Ends: Bin Laden Victorious

I'm declaring the War on Terror over today and it looks like underdog Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda are victorious. I'd send him a poisoned cake to congratulate him but it seems the US doesn't know where he is.

The Western world has finally reached the point where protection against terrorism has broken constitutional law for the average citizen. Airport security will now be allowed to break Section 8 of the constitution by conducting body scans and pat downs without probable cause to make sure you're not going to blow up a plane. This truly sickens me. It is placing a major limits on our rights to be secure from unreasonable search and freedom of movement. Perhaps what sickens me even more is how apathetic the Canadian and American public feel towards their constitutional rights being violated. If there's any questions about how dictators rise to power with wide public support, this answers it. People won't resist as long as the changes happen slowly enough.

I have decided that I will not fly period if I am to be subjected to this kind of treatment. I'd rather take a train or a ship. Sure it takes longer but consider the advantages of sailing to Europe on a luxury liner. It costs the same but you get world class food and entertainment, and the ability to stretch your legs. Plus, you're only subject to your bags being scanned by an x-ray when you board. The trip is a vacation in itself, compared to flying which is more often than not a nightmare. Believe me, I went through my own airport hell just days before this "attempted attack" happened, though it had nothing to do with security. Still, the way things are being dealt with bothers me a lot.

Airport security has been largely a joke in the years following 9/11. Statistics show that you are no more or less likely to be in a terror attack today than you were 20 years ago. The folks at technology site Gizmodo estimate the odds of being a victim in an airborne terror attack are 1 in 10.4 million. You are 20 times more likely to be struck and killed by lightning. Not including the people in the WTC, only 647 people have died worldwide in such incidents from 1999 to 2009. The airline industry averages 7 billion passengers a year. They colourfully state that the you could flytwo round trips from Earth to Neptune before being in an attack. Wikipedia (not a reliable source but good enough for quick info) states that there were 13 major hijackings in the 1990s compared to 12 in the 2000s.

So with these statistics, it would seem that terrorism is not a major issue at all. We have poured billions of dollars into security and we are now forfeiting basic human rights and dignity to secure our airliners. It has gotten increasingly difficult to support anti-terror measures when all the hard facts are considered.

It leads one to question whether the measures put in place since 9/11 are doing anything at all. We are no longer allowed to bring bottled water, we must walk through security barefoot, we used to joke about being susceptible to patdowns. Yet somehow, someone managed to elude dutch security and smuggle a firecracker onto an airplane. Yes, the "bomb" was probably no more than an M-80 or something similar. Unless he was lucky enough to get this thing near a fuel line, it probably wouldn't have brought down a plane, or killed anyone but himself. No one has ever heard of these measures stopping an attack. It would seem like that would be something the government would brag about.

One security expert cited in a recent news article noted that the only realistic improvements to security in the last eight years have been reinforced cockpit doors and passengers knowledge that they must resist attackers. Reading between the lines, this translates to the other stuff just being fluff. It's designed to make civil servants look like they're actually doing something when they're not doing anything. Indeed, the only reason this man, a known threat, got on the plane with the firecracker is because some Dutch civil servant failed to do their job. I could go further and say 9/11 was caused by the exact same thing. How on earth could a group of men get on a plane with box cutters? It's not like they didn't use metal detectors or x-ray bags at the time. It's not exactly an object anyone would conceivably need on a plane.

Obviously the problem doesn't lie in more stringent security measures but rather better training for security guards. There was nothing wrong with the measures in place before 9/11, just in how they were being executed. It is well known that Canada Customs uses students during the summer to man land border crossings. With such little training, how can these people be effective or trusted? I believe that to be an airport security guard, or any border agent, one should have the exact same training that a police officer does. They should be subjected to the same privileges and legal limitations that they are as well. Further intensive training should be given to teach guards how to spot suspicious behaviour. Beyond the baggage x-rays and metal detectors, they should have no right to search you without reasonable cause. You should also have the right to refuse if they don't give cause. If explosives are an issue, begin using trained dogs. Finally, get rid of those full body scanners. I don't want some stranger looking at my private areas. I don't care what the privacy commissioner says, these are illegal.

These changes I'm recommending would relax security to the point where it doesn't affect law abiding passengers, and only singles out those who may be up to something. Airports would be more efficient, we'd still be secure if not more so, and we wouldn't be subjected to the violation of our rights and dignity.

I don't blame the Harper government for enacting these ineffective and undignified measures. They were forced into it. I do blame them for folding so easily to pressure from Homeland Security and the Obama administration instead of resisting it. The US cannot be allowed to dictate to us like this. 9/11 was terrible but not terrible enough for us to abandon the principles that our two great nations were built on. For any doubts, I leave you with a quotation from one of America's own founding fathers. Written in 1775, Benjamin Franklin said this. "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".

read more...