In the words of former Ontario Premier David Peterson, who hailed from London, Canadian unity work this way:
The thing that keeps this great country together is that everyone hates Ontario; and the thing that keeps Ontario together is that everyone hates Toronto; and the thing that keeps Toronto together is that everyone hates Bay Street.
Toronto hating is an established Canadian tradition. Even back in the day when Montreal was Canada’s commercial capital, it could never prudence Hogtown level bile. Montrealers were just too much fun. That unique Toronto combination of smugness and earnestness — we’re better than you, just watch us be better than you — only exacerbated the envy of Toronto’s astonishing economic pre-eminence. If you can’t see the CN Tower on a good day, well buddy, you’re nowhere that matters.
Publius, “Love Thy Torontonian As Thy Self”, Gods of the Copybook Headings, 2009-10-07
October 8, 2009
QotD: Toronto as the centre of the universe
October 7, 2009
QotD: The essence of religion
The fuel of every religion, one way or another, is guilt. Properly indoctrinated — generally from birth — a religious individual cannot eat, sleep, work, make love, or do much of anything else, either as a living organism in general, or a human being in particular, without automatically accumulating a burden of guilt that has to be discharged somehow from time to time, preferably (that is, preferably to those in the guilt-discharging industry) through the heavenly apparatus, sacred plumbing, and holy mechanics of whatever religion controls the territory.
Throw a nickel on the drum, save another drunken bum.
Churches are generally in the business of peddling forgiveness — for having done things nobody can avoid doing if they’re a living, physical creature. They’re middlemen between God and sinner (this means you). They may only want you to come to church on a regular basis, sing the songs, say the prayers, drop a quarter in the plate. Or they may want something else, your witness, your testimony, your speaking in “tongues”. In this hemisphere, once upon a time, climbing to the top of a pyramid and having your heart chopped out was highly encouraged.
L. Neil Smith, “Time for Another Another Reformation”, Libertarian Enterprise, 2009-10-04
Jon writes to his Member of Parliament
I sent a link to Jon the other day, asking if he’d really voted for this guy. This prompted Jon to send this to his Member of Parliament:
Dear Mr. Van Loan —
Just wondering if you could comment on the Michael Geist article that appears at the following locations:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4424/135/
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/701824
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/curious+case+access+request+that+wasn/2045337/story.htmlI am wondering if you could elaborate on why you are using the kidnapping case mentioned in the article as an example of why law enforcement agencies require increased access to internet service provider (ISP) information without oversight by the courts. Considering that ISP information seems to have played no role in this case, the case does not sound like a particularly good example of why such access is required.
Also, should the “lawful access” legislation pass, what guarantees are there that government agencies will not abuse such access for political purposes? I suspect that this sort of thing already happens in Canada, but such abuse is currently (in theory) illegal. Removing the requirement for a warrant and providing open access to an ISP’s customer records is something that seems to be wide open to abuse.
Please advise as time permits.
Thanks and best regards —
Jonathan [Redacted]
In a separate email, he also explained that he’d met Van Loan once before, with less-than-perfect meeting of the minds:
Ah yes. We knew however many years ago it was when we first voted for the guy what he would be doing. That whole telepathy and prescient seeing thing is working very well for us. Explains my success at Casino Rama.
Snark aside, though, I will admit that I put on the badge of shame years ago when I asked the guy at a local event about the child care tax credit — you know, the $100-per-month-per-kid-beer-and-popcorn fund. When I asked why they did not just reduce parents’ taxable income by $1200 per year rather than give us back our own money (less interest and opportunity cost, of course), he said that “But then people who have no income wouldn’t get anything.” My wife and I responded in unison: “Well, that’s their problem!”<flea-asterisk>**</flea-asterisk>
Van Loan and I looked at each other and I think we both regretted that I had voted for him.
<flea-asterisk>**</flea-asterisk><flea-snark>That sentence could also be emphasised as “”Well, that’s their problem, [right there]!”</flea-snark>
Monday night’s Packers-Vikings game set new cable record
Who knew that the secret to setting cable television records was to pit a future hall-of-fame quarterback against his former team? ESPN reports:
ESPN’s “Monday Night Football” was watched by more than 21.8 million people. The previous record was more than 18.6 million viewers for last year’s Monday night game between the Philadelphia Eagles and Dallas Cowboys.
ESPN also said Tuesday that the game drew the highest rating in the network’s 30-year history. The 15.3 rating beat the 14.4 for a Bears-Vikings game on Dec. 6, 1987, during ESPN’s first season of televising NFL games.
Maybe they’re using these cases to train their lawyers?
Apple is litigating against another company for claimed infringement on their logo:
Hey, Apple, Inc.: Every apple can’t be yours.
The latest target of your intellectual property monopoly effort is Woolworths Ltd., apparently a shirttail sibling of the five-and-dime stores I remember as a kid, but which is no longer operating in the U.S.
It seems Apple, Inc., maker of iMacs, iPods, iPhones and, historically, Apple IIs and IIIs, thinks Woolworths’ clever stylized logo, wedding its “W” initial into a green image of the fruit, infringes on Apple, Inc.’s trademark.
There may actually be some merit in this case (although not enough to overturn common sense, I would hope), in that Woolworths is planning on using the brand on electronic devices as well as its more traditional lines of products.
October 6, 2009
If you can’t believe Xinhua, who can you believe?
Lester Haines had a lot of fun composing this, um, fascinating report from the Chinese news agency, Xinhua:
Chinese media finger Swedish lesbian enclave
Mythical city of Sapphic luuuurvChinese media have confirmed what we in the West suspected all along: that concealed in the northern Swedish woods is a city of 25,000 women, many of whom have turned to Sapphic love to satiate their natural Scandinavian sexual desires.
According to news agancy Xinhua, the all-female enclave is called “Chako Paul City”, and was founded in 1820 by a “wealthy widow”. The city is guarded by two blonde sentries who prevent men from entering. Those chaps who do unwisely attempt to force the issue risk being “beaten half to death” by Nordic gender police.
Women, though, are welcome to visit Chako Paul City, which boasts a burgeoning tourist industry with hotels and restaurants catering for international guests. Locals, however, are discouraged from leaving their female paradise, and those who do “are only allowed to re-enter Chako Paul City if they agree to bathe and undertake several other measures designed to ensure that their out-of-town trysts don’t negatively affect the mental state of other women in the town”.
Sounds like an old post in alt.sex.stories.swedish to me . . .
Another bulletin from the “Institute of Obvious Findings”
New York City has the most “progressive” laws on the books for labelling fast food menu items. The intent was to ensure that customers would be aware of the calorie and nutrition values of food before ordering, with the hope being that people would deny their tastebuds and order less fattening foods. A recent study found — to nobody’s surprise — that this hasn’t been working:
A study of New York City’s pioneering law on posting calories in restaurant chains suggests that when it comes to deciding what to order, people’s stomachs are more powerful than their brains.
The study, by several professors at New York University and Yale, tracked customers at four fast-food chains — McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken — in poor neighborhoods of New York City where there are high rates of obesity.
It found that about half the customers noticed the calorie counts, which were prominently posted on menu boards. About 28 percent of those who noticed them said the information had influenced their ordering, and 9 out of 10 of those said they had made healthier choices as a result.
But when the researchers checked receipts afterward, they found that people had, in fact, ordered slightly more calories than the typical customer had before the labeling law went into effect, in July 2008.
The laws were changed because paternalists in power thought that consumers were being gulled against their better instincts, and that merely pointing out the information in a hard-to-miss fashion would assist these poor, weak-willed eaters to trim back on calories and fat. It doesn’t work because people like eating food that’s calorie-rich and fattening. You’re not going to change that without instituting literal rationing: and don’t think they haven’t considered it.
The Guild, Season 3 Episode 6: Newbtastic
Parachutes also seen as harmful . . .
Following up on a report I blogged about a couple of days back, Jacob Sullum uses the same methodology to prove that skydivers would be better off without parachutes:
In Philadelphia, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania find, possessing a gun is strongly associated with getting shot. Since “guns did not protect those who possessed them,” they conclude, “people should rethink their possession of guns.” This is like noting that possessing a parachute is strongly associated with being injured while jumping from a plane, then concluding that skydivers would be better off unencumbered by safety equipment designed to slow their descent. “Can this study possibly be as stupid as it sounds?” asks Stewart Baker at Skating on Stilts. Having shelled out $30 for the privilege of reading the entire article, which appears in the November American Journal of Public Health, I can confirm that the answer is yes.
[. . .]
While the reseachers took into account a few confounding variables related to this tendency (including having an arrest record, living in a rough neighborhood, and having a high-risk occupation), they cannot possibly have considered all the factors that might make people more prone to violent attack and therefore more likely to have a gun as a defense against that hazard. To take just one example, not every criminal has an arrest record. Yet it seems fair to assume that criminals in Philadelphia are a) more likely than noncriminals to be armed and b) more likely than noncriminals to be shot. That does not mean having a gun increases their chance of being shot. Certainly they believe (as police officers do) that having a gun makes them safer than they otherwise would be. Nothing in this study contradicts that belief.
Of course, most people will only see the headline, so the underlying purpose of publishing the “study” has been achieved.
Fear the mullet!
Jared Allen had a career game last night, as the Vikings beat divisional rivals the Green Bay Packers at the Metrodome. As hyped as this game was, I was expecting it to be tense, but not particularly exciting . . . I was delighted to be wrong: it was a high-scoring game with lots of drama. Allen sacked Packers quarterback Aaron Rogers four and a half times, and added a forced fumble and a safety. Rogers had a miserable time, being chased all over, sacked eight times, but still managing to throw for 384 yards.
As Jim Souhan tweeted, “Rodgers is going to be dreaming about Jared Allen all week. How’d you like to be haunted by that mullet?”
Photo detail from the Star Tribune
Brett Favre had downplayed the confrontation with his former team all week, and he played very well indeed. His timing with wide receiver Bernard Berrian was everything he could hope for, unlike last week’s game, including a beautiful TD pass. His numbers for the night were 24 of 31 passes for 271 yards, three touchdowns, no interceptions, and an impressive 135.3 passer rating.
Adrian Peterson had a much less satisfying experience: the Packer defence bottled him up after the first drive, and he lost a fumble which was run back for a Packer TD by rookie Clay Matthews. His numbers for the game were a very un-Peterson-like 25 carries for 55 yards, with one (short) TD. He also appeared to injure his leg on the play, although he did return later in the game.
Favre got another record in this game:
Monday’s victory means Favre has now beaten all 32 NFL teams. The Vikings’ 4-0 start is their best since beginning 6-0 in 2003 and with a game Sunday at winless St. Louis (0-4) their chances to remain undefeated appear to remain strong. Childress also now has two consecutive victories over the Packers after starting 0-5 against them — Favre was the quarterback for four of those Packers victories.
There is little doubt at this point Favre appears to be a very solid $12 million investment. “I’m trying to not be surprised because it’s what we expected,” owner Zygi Wilf said. “I’m happy to say from last week to this week shows us that you can never be surprised. He’s a Hall of Fame quarterback. We’re just going to enjoy this win and move on to the next game. We have larger, bigger goals ahead of us and that’s what we’re going to strive for as a team.”
October 5, 2009
Maybe this is why some eBay sellers don’t ship outside the US
The six agents, wearing SWAT gear and carrying weapons, were with — get this — the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Kathy and George Norris lived under the specter of a covert government investigation for almost six months before the government unsealed a secret indictment and revealed why the Fish and Wildlife Service had treated their family home as if it were a training base for suspected terrorists. Orchids.
That’s right. Orchids.
By March 2004, federal prosecutors were well on their way to turning 66-year-old retiree George Norris into an inmate in a federal penitentiary — based on his home-based business of cultivating, importing and selling orchids.
[. . .]
Mr. Norris ended up spending almost two years in prison because he didn’t have the proper paperwork for some of the many orchids he imported. The orchids were all legal — but Mr. Norris and the overseas shippers who had packaged the flowers had failed to properly navigate the many, often irrational, paperwork requirements the U.S. imposed when it implemented an arcane international treaty’s new restrictions on trade in flowers and other flora.
H/T to Radley Balko.
Challenging Canada’s prostitution laws
Canada’s archaic laws governing the sex trade are being challenged in court:
If she could do it herself, Terri-Jean Bedford would strike down Canada’s prostitution laws, perhaps using the riding crop she plans to bring to court.
Instead, the Toronto dominatrix and two other sex workers have launched a sweeping constitutional challenge to the legislation, arguing it perpetuates violence against women.
The landmark case gets underway Tuesday in a University Ave. courtroom where Bedford, in a nod to traditionalism, is promising to arrive conservatively attired, even if she is packing a tool of her trade.
Prostitution is legal in Canada: that fact always seems to be a surprise to most people. What isn’t legal are all the other activities surrounding the act: soliciting customers, having a safe place to conduct your business, and so on. This has always made prostitutes more liable to be injured or killed because they have to ply their trade in unsafe conditions, and they are rarely taken seriously when they attempt to get the police protection they should be entitled to.
The 49-year-old Toronto grandmother, along with prostitutes Valerie Scott, 51, and Amy Lebovitch, 30, is asking Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice to invalidate Criminal Code provisions that serve as Canada’s policy response to the world’s oldest profession.
They argue that prohibitions on keeping a common bawdy house, communicating for the purposes of prostitution and living on the avails of the trade force them from the safety of their homes to the insecurity of the street, where they are exposed to physical and psychological violence.
Publius reviews Fearful Symmetry by Brian Lee Crowley
I tend to avoid reading right-wing rants about Canada, having had a surfeit of them in my youth. Publius makes a case for Fearful Symmetry being, perhaps, an exception to my general rule:
Crowley, a founder and long-time head of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, has spent decades preaching the free market gospel in some of the most inhospitable climes in North America for such a message. The theme of the book is tradition, Canadian tradition. A mental framework that dominated the first century of Canada’s existence as a federal state. Thrift, family, economic individualism and small and limited governments were the hallmarks of Canada then. A confluence of two powerful forces, the first the entrance of the baby boomers into the workforce, and second the emergence of Quebec nationalism in the wake of the Quiet Revolution, provoked a dramatic – and detrimental change in public policy and cultural attitudes. Crowley does not dismiss the importance of ideas in the shift to bigger and more intrusive government. He notes that Canada’s volte face from its traditional approach was more dramatic than other nations with a similar history, notably the United States and Australia. Broad intellectual trends set the stage, but it was specific Canadian factors that gave us our current Canadian sized government.
Crowley begins with demography; the baby boom. A jump in the birth rate in the fifteen or so years after the end of the Second World War. This major blip in the demographic charts was more intense in Canada than elsewhere in the developed world.
[. . .]
Economists have blamed this liberalization for Canada’s higher structural unemployment over the last forty years. UI, over time, also acquired regional variations, being especially generous to underdeveloped parts of Canada. In tandem with liberalized UI, straight welfare was also expanded. Combined they produced a gigantic welfare trap. The end result can be seen in Margaret Wente’s notorious, though accurate, description of Newfoundland as “the most vast and scenic welfare ghetto in the world.” To finance this generosity the federal government expanded equalization, the transfer of wealth between the richer and poorer regions of Canada. Until the mid-1970s there were only two “have” provinces, Ontario and British Columbia. The main weight of equalization, however, fell upon the Dominion’s largest, richest and most industrialized province, Ontario. When the province’s premier in the 1960s, the charismatic John P Robarts, was questioned about the burdens of equalization, he justified it thusly: Ontario was in effect exporting purchasing power to the other regions of Canada.
It really is just another game
Judd Zulgad on tonight’s Monday Night Football extravaganza:
The NFL’s version of the perfect storm is about to hit the Metrodome.
After a week of buildup, hype and denial of a quest for revenge, Brett Favre is finally going to get the chance to face his former team. And did we mention the Vikings will be playing host to the Packers, too?
Try as Favre might to downplay the magnitude of tonight’s matchup — “It’s just another game,” he said with a straight face last week — there is no denying what this means. Not only to Favre but to many others who have eagerly anticipated an event that will be as much theater as football. The scorned superstar, playing for his former team’s arch-rival, given his chance at redemption on a national stage.
It’s no wonder ESPN executives were giddy when Favre ended his retirement on Aug. 18. That made an already attractive Monday night game between the Vikings and Packers a must-see spectacle that could break the cable viewership record ESPN set on Sept. 15, 2008, when 18.6 million tuned in to watch the Eagles-Cowboys.
Anonymous and the Church of Scientology
Julian Dibbell looks at the beginnings of the “Anonymous” campaign against the Scientologists:
In the evening of January 15, 2008, a 31-year-old tech consultant named Gregg Housh sat down at the computer and paid a visit to one of his favorite Web sites, the message board known as 4chan. Like most of the 5.9 million people who visit the site every month, Housh was looking for a few cheap laughs. Filled with hundreds of thousands of brief, anonymous messages and crude graphics uploaded by the site’s mostly male, mostly twentysomething users, 4chan is a fountainhead of twisted, scatological, absurd, and sometimes brilliant low-brow humor. It was the source of the lolcat craze (affixing captions like “I Can Has Cheezburger?” to photos of felines), the rickrolling phenomenon (tricking people into clicking on links to Rick Astley’s ghastly “Never Gonna Give You Up” music video), and other classic time-wasting Internet memes. In short, while there are many online places where you can educate yourself, seek the truth, and contemplate the world’s injustices and strive to right them, 4chan is not one of them.
Yet today, Housh found 4chan grappling with an injustice no Internet-humor fan could ignore. Days earlier, a nine-minute video excerpt of an interview with Tom Cruise had appeared unauthorized on YouTube and other Web sites. Produced by the Church of Scientology, the clip showed Cruise declaring himself and his co-religionists to be, among other remarkable things, the “only ones who can help” at an accident site. For the online wiseasses of the world, the clip was a heaven-sent extra helping of the weirdness Tom Cruise famously showed on Oprah. But then, suddenly, it was gone: Scientologists had sent takedown notices to sites hosting the video, effectively wiping it from the Web.
Housh and other channers knew that Scientology had a long history of using copyright law to silence Internet-based critics. But this time, maybe because the church was stifling not just unflattering content but potential comedy gold, the tactic seemed to inflame the chortling masses. That evening, Housh logged in to an IRC channel frequented by like-minded chuckleheads and started talking with five others about the Cruise video. There was a sense that something must be done, but what? One of them logged out and posted a call to action on 4chan and some similar sites. By the middle of the night, 30 people had joined the chat. Within a couple of days, a consensus emerged: They would take down the main Scientology Web site with a massive distributed denial-of-service attack, or DDoS.
