Paradoxes of Our Time (redux)

The paradox of our time is we spend more, but have less, We have taller buildings, but shorter tempers, We have more degrees, but less sense, We have more healthcare, but worse health, We spend recklessly, drive too fast and rise quickly to anger, We've been to the moon and back, We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We've learned how to make a living, but not a life. We've done bigger things, but not better things. We've learned to rush, but not to wait. We communicate faster but connect less. These are times of fast foods, disposable diapers and more divorce We hear from tall men about mean character,	live in bigger houses, with smaller families. wider freeways,  but narrower viewpoints. more knowledge, and less judgment. more experts, yet more problems. yet we rarely laugh, smile less and forget to pray. but can’t cross the street to meet a new neighbour. We have higher incomes, but lower morals. We've added years to life, not life to years. We've become long on quantity, but short on quality. We talk too much and listen too little. We've conquered outer space, but not inner space. but less nutrition, slow indigestion and throw away morality. and read of steep profits from shallow relationships.
	NASA animation of Black Hole star Apologies to George CARLIN

Spotlight on failure in MADOFF disaster

The unraveling of the how the disaster occurred continues.

Apparently, a former assistant director of the office of compliance inspections and examinations in Washington at the SEC named Eric Swanson left in 2006 and in 2007 married Bernie MADOFF's niece, Shana Madoff.

Other personal connections are surfacing.

NY Times Tuesday Dec 16. "A Vienna bank, Bank Medici, became the latest major institution to acknowledge it was a client of Mr. Madoff, saying it had $2.1 billion invested with him. Institutions and individuals have now reported losses of more than $20 billion."

Other "Red Flags" are not that convincing to me, as the first 4 could equally apply to all Wall Street managers. For me the most telling is the rampant nepotism at MADOFF. There is a certain "intellectual Darwinism" that occurs in Money Management, in fact it should be embraced and it sends a troubling message when ignored by hiring your own kids. Now perhaps 1 or 2 of the MADOFF sons/daughters were pretty smart and skilled in the investment business, but not ALL OF THEM CAN BE. If they are THAT talented, Dad should help them fund their own enterprises outside of his operation. I see the same problem arose at Noel's Fairfield Greenwich Group.

The most important flag was that a very small accounting firm did the audit of a $17 bn fund! Come one now that is taking "friendship" (as I presume that would have been the response if queried") way too far. Another was this apparent reply to the question "why don't you charge fees?" in a May 2001 MAR/Hedge column, "Madoff Tops Charts; Skeptics Ask How". Get serious.

My previous "breaking" post on MADOFF.

Madoff Fraud

It is almost beyond belief - US$50 billion for upto 4 years!

Bernard L. Madoff's fraud is almost big enough to give "a Ponzi scheme" a bad name. The fact he was "turned in" by his 2 sons almost makes it read1 like a segment of TV sitcom "Arrested Development". The question on everyone's mind? How such an incredible manipulation so large, (itself suspicious as Madoff's firm reportedly only had US$17 billion last January) could have happened and been undetected for so long. This truely was a master stroke as it would have required massive complicity or gross incompetence by someone. The NYT has reviewed some client statements and notices without finding anything extraordinary, unless they were all completely false (I note that they were not custodial account statements, but brokerage account statements, itself a potential red flag as it is not common for brokerage account to segregated such accounts.) Another issue was the murky division of "trading from safekeeping" functions so activity can be properly audited. Madoff reportedly operated on the 17th floor, separate and distinct form the market-dealing/making operations below.

Among one of the largest effected is HSBC Bank who gave Madoff a $1 billion mandate. It is noteworthy that many of the investors were very large and sophisticated clients who would have been wise to any obvious fraudulent behaviour. Apparently there were rumours of some problems with Madoff in 2001 and a number of investigations were undertaken but nothing was found. The fallout will be to shake the confidence of many private money-management clients in their managers and raise the volume on demands for greater oversight of Wall St. from the SEC and other regulators.


Footnotes
1) In Season 1, the family patriarch George BLUTH (played by Jeffery TAMBORE) is arrested for SEC fraud.

Hello Bart Simpson - Goodbye Charlie Brown

B for just "Being" there?

John Martin has got it right - why should students not feel "entitled to their entitlements". Everyone else does. I happen to be from the generation that once aspired to be as diligent, hard-working, (stupidly) chivalrous and yes even altruistic as Charles SHULTZ's cartoon character, Charlie Brown. Now, popular cartoon culture is defined by "The Simpsons" - a sarcastic, white trash, dysfunctional family headed by Homer, his wife Marge, son Bart, daughter Lisa and baby Maggie created and drawn by Matt Groening.

But the problem of marking is making teachers crazy! Heck, even Barbra KAY has weighted in on the issue.


Adding to the distemper has been a rash of news items that just illustrate how disconnected from reality the current cohort of University students have become.

• Queens' Student Association plans to hire "dialogue monitors" to randomly intervene on Social Justice issues like if they hear "hate speech" against gays or women! (They also canceled the Annual Alumni Homecoming Weekend next Fall as they just discovered it involves drinking!) [Update: 2008NOV29 They have "reconsidered"]
  

• Carleton University Student Council has decided to drop sponsorship of their traditional Annual Cystic Fibrosis "Shinearama" fundraiser since it is not "inclusive" enough. After 20 years of support they determined that because it predominately affects "only white men1" they wanted to find something a little catchier. [Update: 2008NOV29 SC President "maybe impeached"]

• York University Graduate Student TA's - represented by CUPE - has gone on strike over demands to reduce work hours, pay raises of 28% over 2 years and medical/maternity benefits. There have been efforts to include other Universities - like UofT and Queen's - but so far they have not had success. YorkU talks have broken down so upto 50,000 students will likely not be able to sit for Exams before Xmas.
  

• University of Calgary has severely curtailed a campus Pro-Life group from mounting an extremely grisly photo display of the results of abortion procedures. They may be arrested if they breech the terms which requires the images to turned in so one must enter the display area to view, rather than facing outwards so everyone outside can see them. In the past similarly shocking gruesome photo images/displays have been undertaken by campus "Rape/Violence Against Women" groups as well as "Holocaust Awareness", "Stop Landmines" and various others that advocate "Anti-war" cause. I myself would not want to be subjected to any of those campaigns either. What is the difference with the Pro-Life group?
  

• [Update: 2008DEC04 - Lakehead University, Thunder Bay ON. "[Student Union funded] Clubs must make their messages “positive,” cannot be seen to be offensive or disparaging and they are not allowed to impose their views on anyone else." Or so the Lakehead Student Union leaders decreed yesterday. A campus anti-abortion group - who has been seeking "Club" funding for over a year - believes the new rules make it impossible for them to ever spread their message effectively. "[The SU is] working to create a simple happy world, where expressing a single critical thought that may upset anyone is banned, and where [the student union] will be the final arbiter of what is acceptable." The student body should check if Spine transplants are a procedure covered by OHIP in Tbay.

Indoctrinate U anyone?

Footnotes:
1) Not entirely true as it affects many girls/women, although the disease does seem heavily represented among Caucasians in Europe and North America it is also present in North Africa, Asia, Japan, Australia and South America.

Behaviour & Criminality

The term "Criminality" is of course derived from the word "crime" - itself a term rarely critically examined.

Crime consists of the breach of a rule or law for which some governing authority or force may ultimately prescribe a punishment. When society deems informal relationships and sanctions insufficient to create and maintain a desired social order, there may result more formalized systems of social control imposed by the State. Agents of the State thereby compel individuals to conform to behavioural codes and punish those that do not.

A normative definition views crime as deviant behavior that violates prevailing norms – cultural standards prescribing how humans ought to behave "normally". This approach considers the complex realities surrounding the concept of crime and seeks to understand how changing social, political, psychological, and economic conditions may effect the definitions of crime and the form of law enforcement, legal and penal responses made by society. Such responses can be very contentious.

For example, as cultures change and the political environment shifts, behavior may be criminalised or decriminalised, which will directly affect the statistical crime rates, determine the allocation of resources for the enforcement of such laws, and influence the general public opinion. Similarly, changes in the way that crime data are collected and/or calculated may affect the public perceptions of the extent of any given "crime problem". All such adjustments to crime statistics, allied with the experience of people in their everyday lives, shape attitudes on the extent to which law should be used to enforce any particular social norm.

There are many ways in which behaviour can be controlled without having to resort to the criminal justice system. But where there is no clear consensus on a given norm, the use of criminal law by the group in power to prohibit the behaviour of another group may be considered an improper limitation of the second group's freedom, and the ordinary members of society may lose some of their respect for the law in general whether the disputed law is actively enforced or not. [November 2008 - Wikipedia.org]

Therefore, "Criminality" refers to the measured condition of crime in a society according to the standards of existing law. When we discuss the level or degree of criminality in a society we are referring to a flexible barometer of criminal activity. Yet many people believe in an inherent condition of criminal behaviour - a "natural level of immoral aberrant behaviour" rooted in the collective DNA of society similar to the biblical story of Cain and his brother Able. Others conflate the two meanings.

Imagine if we made Jaywalking a crime, we should find the "level of criminality" very high as well as our law schools, courts and jails overflowing with new recruits and unfortunates. Tax burdens would rise to finance building jails to incarcerate the flood of new "criminals" and the economy would lose productive, tax generating members. On release, these ex-cons may have lost their old job, maybe sanctioned due to their criminal record or most likely would just be shunned by employers and former business acquaintances. Social dislocations like family poverty and lost parenting would present themselves. Psychological health consequences like loss of self-esteem, depression and suicide would increase. All because of a law.

In this article1 the authors designed six psychology experiments to test the "broken window" theory which - in their opinion - confirmed that people are more likely to break rules when they believe others have done so. This reinforces that the idea that maintaining social order prevents the spread of disorder.

[TBD = In our society, many laws are "civil" in nature and are largely administrative regulations intended to impose a monetary fine or punitive condition (like parking tickets or zoning regulations) and thereby inhibit citizens behaviours in some fashion. Other more serious laws address "criminal" activities/behaviour and are involve server sanctions needing the courts and penal system to determine guilt and punishment.]


Footnotes:
1) "The Spreading of Disorder" Kees Keizer,* Siegwart Lindenberg and Linda Steg, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Netherlands. Study Shows How Degraded Surroundings Can Degrade by Constance HOLDEN, Science Magazine, 2008 Nov 21. (also see National Post)

Michael Ignatieff - Volte Face?

Well, they're off! The next Liberal Leadership Race has begun.

Rae of Bob fired his opening salvo last week at the Ontario Caucus meeting where he changed his mind about allowing the media access to the closed door meetings at the last minute. For that party favour, he got the indulgence of the press to sling mud at Micheal Ignatieff, who suggested that the meeting was supposed to be like a meeting of "family" so they could privately discuss party concerns and issues. Seemed reasonable. He probably doesn't broadcast his call's to his wife either.

Yesterday Rae of Bob formally launched himself before Parliament opened - no doubt to dilute the massive press the Conservatives received from the Throne Speech. Basically, he is the only Liberal leadership candidate with the experience of leading a government during a recession (Premier of Ontario in October 1990 to July 1995). Umm. Not so fast Bob. Given that you will have to win seats back in Ontario and Quebec - do you have the undying devotion of the electorate?

Then today there was this "Where I Stand" piece in the National Post - honestly, I can't make head nor tail of it. Perhaps these gobbledy bits are better left as speeches?

But what about Iggy?

What do we know about him? Precious little. Here is Mike Janke's recent exploration of the man. Methinks there are worms beneath this stone best left undisturbed.

I have collected some background from a G&M profile in August 2006 by intrepid reporter Mike Valpy to provide some measure of the man, described as a genius by many Liberals.

There are some jarring vignette's.

Like when his younger brother Andrew recalled how Micheal explained how they could interact when he arrived to join Micheal at Upper Canada College in 1962.

"We went for a walk, and he said, 'I want to make one thing absolutely clear to you. When we're at Aunt Helen's house or Aunt Charity's house [Charity Grant, their mother's sister], you can say whatever you want to me. But if you ever see me on the school grounds, you're not to talk to me. You're not to recognize that I'm your brother. You don't exist as far as I'm concerned. Do I make myself clear?'"

Or when he volunteered to be a neutral observer after racial riots in a maximum security prison in Walpole MA near Harvard where he was taking his M.A in History.

"I'd had a sheltered Canadian middle-class life. I think my whole life I've been fascinated by this sense that the world is divided into zones of safety and zones of danger and violence, and the distance between the two is very small.

"In prisons, the violence is what maintains the social order. You can't think of these zones of safety as being happy, consensual, liberal. They're maintained with this, with violence."

The Walpole ordeal was a nightmarish experience for him, and back in the hallowed halls of Harvard, he was finding life brutal. He had come from provincial University of Toronto where he had been at the top of his class and was now discovering that everyone he met at America's pre-eminent institution of higher learning was smarter than he was.

Ignatieff was not well accepted at Harvard. A friend of the time believes he was betrayed by his aristocratic background. However perhaps it was good fortune as he soon landed a job teaching history at UBC and before school started, he took a break to visit his family's villa in France. En route he stopped in London and encountered Susan Barrowclough:

"a beautiful, vivacious film historian and rising young British intellectual who had studied under Federico Fellini — and sang Verdi off-key. Cupid's arrow whacked them both."

After a year of teaching, the couple found themselves back in London under a Cambridge fellowship. They found the period intellectually challenging. As Valpy recounts:

".... Michael's intelligence and knowledge, his supple political mind, his astonishing facility to write analytical prose and his rigorous discipline as an author. (He wrote two books in this period: Wealth and Virtue, on Scotland during the Enlightenment, and The Needs of Strange rs, on the philosophical conflict between individualism and communitarianism.)"

Yet the Thatcher Revolution of the time seems to have been a seminal moment. One in which Ignatieff realized that he was not a Socialist - he was a liberal.

"Mr. Ignatieff wrote an article for the December, 1984, issue of New Statesman stating that the coal miners were indeed acting against the national interest. But what his article fomented was a furor around its author. He was accused of betraying the cause. People severed friendships with him."

His writing career began - and his family life unraveled. In August 1984 at a rare family gathering where his mother's Alzheimer's condition was revealed, he denounced his father emotional detachment with wounding accusations. Other rifts developed.

"Writing about family," he says in our interview, "it's all about creating the ground under your own feet. It's kind of a process of self-invention, so that you're standing with your feet planted, you know who the hell you are, you know where the hell you came from, you know where the hell you're going."

Through the family stories he says, he gives himself away — whether they are biographical, fictional or some thicket of both fact and fiction. His relationship with George pervades much of what he writes, something he once called "working through stuff with my father."

By the summer of 1989, George Ignatieff - Micheal's father - was dead.

A man feels alone when his father dies, he says, "but I don't feel bereft, although I would give a great deal to spend another second in his company." His father, he says, taught him "ultimate loyalties — that's what fathers can do."

His brother, Andrew believed that when their father died, his own resentment toward Micheal vanished.

"I have reworked our relationship again and again. Michael floats above daily interaction and he thinks that force of will and force of intellect can override psychological and emotional factors. He's had to learn they can't. The thing that saves my relationship with him is that we can meet on an emotional level. His intellectual life is not real to me."

By 1992, their mother too has died - nursed to the end by Andrew. Micheal writes a semi-autobiographical fiction about his mother, her illness and his family. As a footnote a character that closely resembles him has an affair and is ordered out of their home by his wife.

Shortly afterward, a British newspaper gossip columnist trumpeted that Michael Ignatieff — "the patron saint of the New Man" — had left his wife for another woman.

In 1999, Michael Ignatieff married Suzanna Zsohar.

Ms. Zsohar came into Mr. Ignatieff's life at the right moment. On the crest of hard work, discipline and remarkable talent, he had travelled an awesome distance.

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the ensuing violent eruptions of ethnic nationalism in the Balkans and elsewhere propelled him on to the global stage as an eloquent and forceful proponent of the obligations of liberal democracies to intervene in failed states to protect their inhabitants.

In television documentaries and books — Blood and Belonging, Guardians of Chaos, The Warrior's Honour, Virtual War, Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry, The Trial of Freedom and The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror — he explored the new violence of ethnicity and terror and the failure of traditional multilateral means to contain them.

The Observer gave him a weekly column. He was invited to give lectures at leading U.S. and Canadian universities and offered visiting professorships at the London School of Economics and École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris. Blood and Belonging in 1993 won the $50,000 Lionel Gelber Prize for foreign-policy writing, beating out Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy.

He became a celebrity.

And then, seemingly as quickly as it began the media turned.

"critics called him pompous, tedious, long-winded, a bore — and worse, "a Canadian bore. One paper kept referring to him as "Big Ig."

"And so, two years later, after he and Ms. Zsohar married, Mr. Ignatieff was ready to make another radical change. He junked the fading media career; he junked the British, and he came back across the pond, having resurrected himself as an academic."

"A quarter-century after leaving Harvard convinced that it was overrated, pompous and arrogant, he was back — as director of the Carr Center of Human Rights Policy, an academic think tank tucked beneath the umbrella of Harvard's prestigious Kennedy School of Government."

"He turned the Carr into a dynamic intellectual salon, crackling with scholarly electricity in all directions — looking at human rights in the context of a global responsibility to protect, philosophically re-examining the social contract, investigating the failure of civil society in places such as the Balkans, analyzing how the strong use power on behalf of the weak."

And then in early 2003, he did something that not only shocked his colleagues but brought down on his head the condemnation of the entire U.S. left. In a Sunday magazine essay in The New York Times, he declared his support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

It was 1984 all over again.

"He eloquently defended himself, writing in The Guardian, for example: "Now that combat has commenced, those, like me, who support the war need to be honest enough to address some painful questions. Who wants to live in a world where there are no stable rules for the use of force by states? Not me. Who wants to live in a world ruled by the military power of the strong? Not me. How will we oblige American military hegemony to pay 'decent respect to the opinions of mankind'? I don't know."

"To support the war entails a commitment to rebuild that order on new foundations. To support the war entails other discomforts as well. It means remaining distinct from the company you keep, supporting a swift and decisive victory, while maintaining your distance from the hawks, the triumphalists, the bellowing commentators who mistake machismo for maturity."

Then, in 2005, he again did something shocking — he suddenly resigned from the Carr to return to Canada.

Denis Smith, emeritus professor of political science at University of Western Ontario, puts it another way.

"His writings would be of no public significance, if he had continued his academic and literary career in Canada or abroad," Prof. Smith writes in his new book, Ignatieff's World: A Liberal Leader for the Twenty-first Century, to be published next month.

"But once he became a candidate for the Liberal leadership and a potential prime minister, what he has said about world affairs over two decades becomes relevant to members of the Liberal Party and to the Canadian electorate."

The observer wants to be a player.

On the night of Jan. 23, 2006 Michael Ignatieff — after a slightly dodgy acquisition of the nomination in Etobicoke-Lakeshore (all possible opponents were declared ineligible) — was elected to Parliament.

We will find out more about him soon - just as we did about M. Stephane DION - as I predict he will be the next Liberal Leader. My only question is what shall be the next glorious about-face?

Quebec faces secular "crisis of values"

This article reminded me of another piece this week where the Catholic Bishop of Scranton PA warned the flock NOT to vote for any presidential Candidate who supported Abortion. In case it was not clear Barack OBAMA was identified as the candidate who would be denied the host (if he happened to be through Scranton!). That article highlighted the conundrum faced by Roman Catholics and shows the breakdown of traditional voting support for the Democrats.

Referring to Quebec Archbishop Cardinal Marc OUELLET the piece was timed - of course - to coincide with our Federal Election. In it Cardinal OUELLET warned that "the spiritual and cultural void is fueled by cliche-ridden, anti-catholic rhetoric that we often find in the media."

Strangely, a survey was released at about the same time, stating that "Quebecer's suffer greater levels of stress than other Canadians". (Is it possible that the two are related?)

Given that the BQ is a logical contradiction (they exist as a Federal political party to deny that Canada should exist) who's policies closely resemble the NDP (except in french) I found this of interest. The political history of Conservatism in Quebec has been closely aligned with the Catholic Church going back to the Dupleisse era. That Pierre TRUDEAU was one of the intoxicating ideologues who ushered in the "Quiet Revolution" is well remembered. (Now that his son - Justin TRUDEAU - is running in the Papineau riding of Montreal.)

Can these two strands of thought be woven together again?

[Addendum: Oct 16 National Post "Courting the religious right" by Fr. Ray de Souza discusses Senator OBAMA's courting of Catholic voters - traditionally Democrats. OBAMA is identified as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever - even more so than Hillary CLINTON or Joe BIDEN. 1) He is in favour of partial-birth abortion, 2) He is against parental-notification for minors seeking abortions, 3) He is against "conscience-clauses" for doctors who refuse to do abortions, 4) He favours federal funding of abortions, 5) He has committed himself to sign into law the "Freedom of Choice Act" which would eliminate any abortion regulations devised in all 50 states, and 6) if consistent with his past legislative actions he could vote against the "Born- Alive" Act that mandates full legal protection of any child who survives a late-term abortion - as he did when he abstained when the vote passed in the Senate and as he voted in a near identical bill before the Illinois Senate in 2003. By adopting the most extreme pro-abortion position of any presidential candidate he may have created an unbridgeable gap with pro-life voters.]

Those who refuse to pass their conceits are destined to be reminded?

Apologies to SANTAYANA1. I note that this book is coming out soon. Likewise, when Margaret MACMILLAN had her last book launched "The Uses and Abuses of History" she managed to have an excerpt printed in the National Post that highlighted the same controversy. Perhaps this is just opportunism?

However I am sympathetic to our veterans. My father was one of them until his death in 2000 - and he never spoke glowingly of his wartime experience. I think he was just glad to have survived - unlike many of his compatriots. Survivor guilt perhaps.

What I think is wrong is to re-evaluate the morality of war - after the fact. Revisionist History. War is hell - pure and simple - you either win and live or lose and die. How do we moralize that? I am sure there were probably alot of terrible things done by our us and our Allies, but they were also fighting against another tyrannical dictator who was ruthless. We now know more about the atrocity's of Buchenwald and Auschwitz that our parents did at the time - which was perhaps before the bombing of Dresden. I know that the London Blitz was as much a terror campaign as strategic bombing because my mother's family were subjected to it. My aunt patrolled the community weekly looking for anyone who had not put up blackout curtains for months on end. The fear of not knowing if your home would be hit was real. Do not tell me that was not Hitlers and Goering's intention.

[Addendum: Oct 16 A number of letters have been printed in the National Post - many from veterans - who object along the same lines. The one that was most satisfying was this one who throws the impertinant lines at the end of the article, back at them.]

Footnote:
1) George SANTAYANA The Life of Reason 1906. "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." This has produced numerous paraphraseings and variants.

Ontario Justice takes 2 body blows - same day.

Two scathing reviews of Ontario Government departments were released today.

The Province of Ontario's Ombudsman issued "Oversight Unseen" which was a review of the Ontario Attorney General's Special Investigation Unit (SIU) which investigates all police incidents that result in serious injury or death to a civilian. Established in 1990 the SIU has become "Timid and fearful of it's watchdog role". Charges are rarely laid - as in 2006 when only 2 were made out of 226 investigations. The Ombudsman, Mr. Andre MARIN made 46 recommendations to improve operations was also in charge of the SIU from 1995-98. To undertake new leadership of the department in order to study and possibly implement the review, the province has just named a Crown attorney and a former defence lawyer who has defended and prosecuted police officers - Mr. Ian D. Scott.

In addition the Goudge Inquiry released its report into Office of the Chief Corners of Ontario regarding their management practices and lack of proper oversight of pediatric forensic pathologist Dr. Charles SMITH. Retired Ontario Superior Court Justice GOUDGE indicated that the senior management of the Coroners Office failed the public.

Both cases reveal the systemic problems in the adminstration of justice and a public loss of confidence.

Is CBC a nest of left-wing vipers?

[Update2: Oct 2 - CBC said it will meeting a reporter - Isabelle Guilbeault, who reports on arts for the morning radio show in Quebec City - for recorded a 30-second filmed spot for a campaign called "Unite our voices" to protest Conservative cuts in culture subsidies and prevent the party's re-election.]

I am beginning to think that anyone who works for the Federal Government should be dis-enfranchised (not permitted to vote in Federal elections) due to the the conflict of interest they find themselves. Honest! Liberals and NDP mostly all work for the Government. If they really has to earn an honest day's wage they couldn't cut it.

[Update1: Sept 30 - CBC accepts the blog has generated substantial criticism and has "pulled the piece". Head of News - John Cruickshank states the problem lies not with the piece but editorial control and lack of diversity in viewpoint. ]

This blog by CBC Journalist Heather MALLICK raised a stink at the National Post. Johnathon KAY also logged in on basically the same topic. When she was at the Globe & Mail I rarely gave Ms. MALLICK much attention.



I do think that such unadulterated smears demean any news organization that allows them, but that is for the to CBC to decide. Sometimes news organizations hear from their readers via letter campaigns, from subjects in defamation and libel lawsuits, customers "voting with their feet" and even shareholders.

However the CBC is a different news organization than Canwest Global, the CTV/Globe & Mail or Torstar in as much as it is taxpayer funded. So I think the point made is "should our tax dollars be used against us?".

The breadth and power of the state to abuse should not be overlooked, under-estimated or unappreciated. I merely point to the antic's of the many HRC's across the country - which have allowed an instrument of the state to trammel unhindered over many innocent lives with little or no recourse to stop any abuse of individuals rights. We can see the same circumstances in Education, Law Courts and Healthcare - where rights of the majority have been subjugated to attack by various vocal minorities.

• In B.C., "Gay lifestyle" is being "promoted" in grade school under the domain of HRC-threatened "sexual equality". 1

• In Ontario, pediatric forensic pathologist Dr. Charles SMITH has been the subject of an inquiry for convictions from misleading evidence he presented during 1991-2001 acknowledging his disorganization, arrogance and the dogmatic manner in which he often presented evidence as an expert witness resulted in a "wrongful conviction factory". 2

• Incorrect testing by a lab at a Newfoundland Healthcare Region for 6 years led to 386 cancer patients receiving an improper diagnosis of their cancer illness. Clearly, bureaucratic procedures and attitudes protected the bureaucrats and inhibited discovery of errors that led to many untimely deaths. (It is very difficult to conclusively untangle exactly how many premature deaths occured from mis-diagnosis - or how much it may have directly reduced their lifespan and ending quality of life - versus what may have happened if the cancers were properly treated.) 3, 4

These are examples of government departments using rules and regulation created by other government departments to abuse it's own citizen's. Intervention in any of these situations is a Kafkaesque experience and practically impossible to effect except through a Supreme Court challenge. Personal accountability is removed from bureaucrats as they are merely following "the law". If they zealously "over-interpret the law" it is not possible for mere individual citizens to easily correct them until they have destroyed a vast number of people with their injustice. Such is the power of the state.

How are these issue relevant to the CBC? Many will defend the CBC as a top tier news organization, and I would not disagree. I depend on it mightily and I can usually count on them getting the facts right and eventually they get the context or interpretation right as well. Still others - supporters from left and right - will defend the CBC as being representative of many left and right-wing viewpoints. That would at least be fair. Sort of like the deary "free time political broadcasts" that used to clutter the airwaves just before the signed-off for the night. The full spectrum of political viewpoints should be represented at the CBC because it is a state run organization. Canada should not emulate Russia 's media control.

Unfortunately I believe the ranks of the CBC are filled with nothing BUT left-wing and liberal supporters - much like many other federal government departments. If they could be trusted to bring even-handed and balanced viewpoints to the table they would not be accused of political bias, but they don't and they haven't. There is no pressure to advocate for right-wing, conservative viewpoints at the CBC, just the need to sing along with their comrade brothers and sisters. They are subject to group-think of the worst kind. This is because they are - like the examples above - organized as instruments of the state and lack the controls that govern private behaviour and organizations.

Therefore, surgery is required at the CBC.

reference - http://www.heathermallick.ca/home/

Footnotes:
1) National Post Sept 2, 2008 "When Jill wants to be a Jack". According to Statscan "Gay Pride: by the numbers" 1.5% of the adult population +18 self identify as Homosexual (Gay or Lesbian). How is it that 98.5% of the population must bow to the apparent wishes of 1.5%?

2) National Post Oct 1, 2008 "Charles Smith Inquiry" 20 of 45 criminally suspicious deaths he investigated between 1991 and 2001 were found to be in error in reviews by other pathologists. Among these cases lie the wreckage of families destroyed by convictions of "shaken baby syndrome" where parents were sent to jail.

3) It is unknowable how many succumbed to the cancer due to improper treatment at an early stage, but one can assume it was - eventually - all of them (or whatever the incidence of untreated cancer is). Nurse tells Inquiry of painful calls to widowers - CBC News Sept 23, 2008

4) There must be some kind of "secret bee dance" among bureaucratic organizations that drives them to "play nice" with each other and adopt common legal barriers amongst themselves. To wit how the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons were on the brink of changing their Standards of Practice to prohibit Doctors from exercising their right of personal conscience in advising treatment for client's to avoid potential HRC prosecutions this summer. Opposition from members and the national organization led to the amendment being withdrawn.

Canadiana "odd but true"

Canada's foundation - permafrost - may be more solid than previously thought, scientists say.

University of Alberta geologist Duane Froese, lead author of a report today in the journal Science describing the ancient permafrost found just south of Dawson City. Scientists speculate that their results may cast doubt on a number of assumptions about past temperature measurement that predict immediate catastrophic Climate Change.

A swath of frozen mud and ice, inadvertently exposed by miners in the Central Yukon, is proving to be scientific gold. The permafrost turns out to be about 740,000 years old and contains the oldest ice yet uncovered in North America, researchers say. It predates the arrival of long-extinct creatures such as the woolly mammoth, and has weathered some remarkable swings in the climate, including two notable warm spells 120,000 and 400,000 years ago when temperatures were higher than they are today.

The discovery suggests permafrost more than a few metres below the surface, and the huge store of carbon it contains, may be more stable than previously thought.

Ocean's 11 hits Orillia

This article was too good! One wonders how long after the movie came out that someone twigged to the problem. The National Post has done a good job on covering this story. It seems to simple to take the Casino's on from this story.

World War II - VJ day

In reading about the end of WWII, I was intrigued about the race to Berlin by the Russian Red Army leading upto "Victory in Europe" Day (VE Day was May 9, 1945). I wondered why the Allies had faced greater challenges in terms of terrain and perhaps resistance. I am not sure if this really even relevant, but I will investigate further in another post.

I was , however, drawn to review developments in the Pacific Theatre that led to VJ Day on Aug 15, 1945 - some 4 months later. After the Japanese rejected terms of surrender proposed at the Potsdam Conference on Jul 26, 1945, President Truman was faced with the worst outcome as described by his military intelligence - that the Japanese would defend every inch of their homeland according to what Emperor Hirohito called the "One Hundred Million" honour. This meant a "kamikaze defense" to be mounted by all citizens to repel invaders known as Operation Ketsu-Go.

General McArthur expected his men to face fierce resistance and be virtually guaranteed hand-to-hand combat until he reached Toyko. The combined invasion force required for the U.S plan (Operation Downfall 1) was 766,700. From May until late July 1945, intelligence estimates of Japanese troop strength rose steadily from 500,000 to 750,000 (8 battle divisions to 10) reinforcing concern about the outcome of invasion. In addition the Emperor and Japanese High Command were strongly influenced by the fateful experience of the 1905 Russian-Japanese War in which a last decisive battle set the stage for a more generous peace settlement.

General McArthur anticipated casualties (killed, missing and wounded) in the final invasion forces to mirror those of the hard-won, sea-land battle for Iwo Jima and Okinakwa (U.S casualties of 20,000 and 46,700 versus Japanese 25,000 and 119,000 - a ratio of U.S/Japanese of 1:1 and 1:2). Losses were placed around 200,000 - 250,000 (50,000+ dead and 150,000+ wounded) - and deemed unacceptable to the American public. These considerations played heavily in the decision to drop the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima on Aug 6, and then Nagasaki on Aug 10.

Final Terms of Surrender were made on Aug 14, 1945.

Footnote:

1) Operation Downfall consisted of two plans - Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet - expected to begin in October 1945.

Map of 1) Completed Allied Operations in the Pacific Theatre - Jul 1945

2) Japanese Troops Dispositions + Plan for Operation Downfall

Sins of Commissions or Omissions

Today Aug 23 (tomorrow is the last day of the Beijing Olympics) is the 1st Anniversary of the Asset Backed Commercial Paper (ABCP) meltdown in Canada. And it looks like the end is finally in sight as most retail holders voted and approved the bailout package. Only Corporate (such as Robert Friedland's First Dynasty Mines, is a holdout as $200+ million in proceeds from an equity financing were placed in ABCP prior to project approval - but there is no sympathy for the devil) and large Institutions remains as holders.

Soon after this story broke I found myself wondering how some of these retail investors could sleep with themselves at night. In the old days, before the new cyber-sins were invented, sins fell into two categories; Sins of Commission - things you did but shouldn't have and Sins of Omission - things you didn't do but should have.

Yet, in every market cycle Financial Advisor's learn the wages of these sins the hard way.

Clients are often disappointed to learn that they can't get unlimited returns without undertaking higher risks. But for those truthful enough to reveal the truth are often fired for doing so or replaced by someone else who tells the client what he wants to hear.

There is lots of blame to go round when individual investors claim - as I have read in the past year - that 1) a retail investor placed 100% of his widowed father's home sale proceeds because ABCP had higher much yields that comparable GIC's or TBill's. This fellow acknowledged going against his advisors advice but still wants to be compensated!

HELLO! What was he thinking!

Can we BELIEVE?

I BELIEVE that every ACTION we take can ripple out farther than we realize

I BELIEVE that ORDINARY people can do EXTRAORDINARY things

I BELIEVE that COMPASSION is stronger than HATRED

I BELIEVE that KNOWLEDGE is stronger than IGNORANCE

I BELIEVE that UNDERSTANDING is stronger than FEAR

I BELIEVE that HOPE is stronger than DESPAIR

I BELIEVE that it is possible to change which PATH you travel

I BELIEVE that you have to LEAD by EXAMPLE

I BELIEVE you do unto OTHERS as you would have others do unto YOU

I BELIEVE Random Acts of KINDNESS make the world BETTER

I BELIEVE all INDIVIDUALS have a right to DIGNITY and RESPECT

I BELIEVE that each of us is connected by our shared HUMANITY

I BELIEVE that while countries declare WAR, individuals make PEACE

IF WE BELIEVE together, can we can Heal Humanity?

Text altered by CRJ, apologies to creators but I wanted to cut it down.
Youtube Video : Christopher B. Buck 2007 Copyright
Music Credit: Vangelis: Gladiator Soundtrack

also "One Voice [What have I Done? - Linkin Park] , "Change a Prelude to Growth" [Deliver Me - Sarah Brightman] and "The Rainbow Warriors" [Gravity of Love - Enigma]

90-Day-Jane, a distasteful hoax.

[Ed note: As of Feb 17, 2008, this site has been removed. See Webtards]



I read about this yesterday and it disturbed me as I lost a friend to suicide many years ago.

It appears I am not alone.

Well, at last the hoax is revealed - 90-Day-Jane was "a personal art piece".

Whew! I guess that is better than the alternative.

Yet, on the other hand, this kind of "emotional blackmail" sours me.

A number of years ago something similar happened.

I gave a "down-on-his luck" looking fellow who was panhandling on Whyte Ave. a fist of all my pocket change - it was all I had besides a twenty - and as I walked away I heard the "pinging" of copper pennies echoing around me. I looked back to see this fellow smirking at me as he skipped the pennies at me. He was throwing them away so he could keep the silver!

I was totally offended. He was obviously mocking me and I had been "flim-flam"ed.

Now I rarely give out cash to panhandlers on the street and sometimes challenge those who insist on approaching me with a sorry tale. I suppose it is my attempt to "shake-out" the near-do-well's from "legit" charity cases.

Yet being a "hard-a**" does not always play well.

On another very cold November night while picking up my daughter from Brownies at the church, a fellow approached me as we were getting into the car. (These guys know good "fishin-holes" - how does it look to deny a beggar in front of a church & young daughter!) He was "only asking" for $25 so he could afford to stay overnight at the YMCA for $60. It was cold so I told him to get in the car so we could talk. I was skeptical about the $60 when there were shelter's - and I offered to drive him to one - but on the way he changed his mind and just asked that I drop him off at the nearby strip-mall. I think he just decided to keep trying until he raised the cash. I have since learned that the "public shelters" are rife with gang crime, substance abusers, the mentally ill and dis-abused staff who function more like prison-guards than warm-hearted supporters. Ultimately, I believe he survived I caught a glimpse of him again that spring. Yet, did I really help him?

On still another occasion a young teen girl asked for money so "she could get some food" but was definitely less than interested when I led her into in the restaurant next door and bought her a take-out lunch. She left quickly and after consulting with her "boyfriend"resumed her campaign.

Perhaps it was such experiences that prompted me to participate in our communities "Out of the Cold" shelter project. It was a winter shelter that ran for 2 years but the NIMBY aspect eventually helped bring it down.

There is no resolution in such experiences, except that we must all learn from them.

90-Day-Jane's are in some way less harmful - but in creating "emotional fatigue" do they blind us when we are actually faced with a real "charity" situation?