UoG Politico

Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, B of A, Credit Suisse

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 03:45:00 +0000

Just following up my last post regarding campaign donations. I think contributions to political campaigns are usually self-interested endeavours. We support a political party because we want them to represent us.

That being said, here are the top 5 contributors for Obama and Romney. I wouldn't identify as someone who entirely distrusts big banks, but having 5 big banks as Romney's top campaign donators is not confidence inspiring.

*stats taken from: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php

Campaign finances

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 03:04:00 +0000

The campaigns of people running for office, whether locally or nationally, are usually funded by their supporters in the form of donations. If a candidate has more money to spend on their campaign, they will have more opportunities to spread their message, become well-known, and increase their proportion of the vote. Political scientist Gary Jacobson has noted that increased campaign financing results in larger and more pervasive campaigns and increases a voter's recognition of a candidate. Greater voter recognition of a candidate allows a voter to more easily present an evaluation of a candidate. More evaluations usually means more positive evaluations in total, and therefore more votes. I made a splendidly diagram:

If you're interested in how the campaign finances of Romney compare against Obama, check out the screen capture below from www.opensecrets.org

The cost of university tuition, opportunity cost, rationalizing university, and cleaning puke.

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:19:00 +0000

Hello blog readers,

As a self-loathing university student struggling with the cost/benefit ratio of attending university, I found this video particularly interesting. In the video below a past university graduate rationalizes the positive effects of attending university against the costs; keep in mind, he is located in the United States where tuition costs are much higher than Canada. University is still a worthy pursuit despite the over-commidification of university degree programs and the exceeding commercialization of quickly turning out over educated people with undergraduate degrees :) Yippeeee!

Bring your gun to the Republican National Convention. Why? Because you can!

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 03:40:00 +0000

On August 28th-30th The Republicans are having their National Convention in Tampa Bay, Florida. With such a large collection of political leaders and the Presidential hopeful himself, Mitt Romney, you can bet security will be at a maximum. All the standard potentially hazardous things will be banned from entering the convention; like knives, machetes, aerosol cans, long pieces of rope, mysterious liquids, and dynamite. But don't dismay: if you were planning on bringing your concealed weapon you can still attend. After all, thanks to the second amendment, it is your right to bear arms. The second amendment slowly blurs the line between idiot and ideologue, allowing any sane American to carry a concealed weapon if they have the corresponding permit in the State of Florida.

If you think this is stupid, picture this: the convention is going along cordially when the Queen of England herself comes in and starts bossing everyone around. We must expect, nay demand, Americans to defend themselves against tyranny accordingly... right?

High-rises in Guelph

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Tue, 22 May 2012 20:11:00 +0000

How high should buildings in Guelph be? Should we allow high rises (10+ stories) in the downtown core? The answers to these questions are highly contentious, depending on who you ask.

There are many benefits of tall buildings; they house lots of people in a dense space allowing efficient service delivery, they can provide affordable accommodation, they can bring people back into the downtown core and move away from Guelph's "bar driven" downtown economy, and they can offer students housing away from the student-centric neighbourhoods of Scottsdale, Ironwood, and Cole Road.

There are problems associated with high rises in the downtown as well; they disrupt the skyline, they cast foreboding shadows across the landscape, they may become large bland monoliths that fail to integrate with their surroundings. There is no correct answer.

Provincial pressures, such as the Places to Grow Act, mandate that Guelph must provide a certain amount of housing. One way to meet this demand and escape the sprawl of subdivisions (à la the Southend) is to intensify the accommodation of people in high rises.

I can't really say if I agree with the proposed high rise at the corner of Wellington and Macdonell. I don't live nearby, and my interaction with the space is limited to infrequent drive-bys. However, I do feel the scale of a high rise in that location is not keeping with the current trends of downtown. John Galt's original plan for Guelph was low-rise developments, similar to those of liveable European cities. I wonder if it is still possible to maintain that vision, while supporting growth.

Aerial view of Guelph

Aerial view of Paris

learn about Adrienne Clarkson. why? why not.

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:47:00 +0000

Adrienne Clarkson, the first visible minority and second female appointed to Governor General. She's totally cool! critics will be critics.

SOPA is DOA

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 06:40:00 +0000

boy: I'm bored. I think i will go on the internet.
   boy: HELLO? INTERNET?!
   boy: I love the internet
   Congressman: Hello Ben,
   boy: Who the hell are you?! How did you get in my computer?
Congressman: My name is Lamar Smith, Texas Congressman. I introduced the SOPA bill. Your version of Beyonce's Single Ladies was pirated. Get off the internet.
   boy: THIS IS WHAT I THINK OF SOPA!

*The push for SOPA has stalled. Now we can all worry about ACTA* acronyms are oppressive.

SOPA and PIPA are two different things.

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 06:30:00 +0000

PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.

Do you steal music off the internet? Be honest.

I used to, but then in the summer of 2011 I decided to download Windows Vista and reformatted my computer. I also forgot to back up any files. I lost my entire music collection, slowly stolen off the internet since grade 7.

If you regularly consume media over the internet, chances are you visit websites that host copy-write infringing material. What does this mean? When someone creates something original they have the right to legally protect the their work. Copy-right or "the right to copy", gives the creator control over their work in many forms:

-They have the right to control any reproductions of their work

-They have the right to be credited for their work

-They have the right to control who financially benefits from their work

The internet, in it's current form, has so much copy-righted material everywhere. In most cases without the owner's permission. YouTube, Wikipedia, Ebay, Craiglist, etc, all feature content the original owners never granted permission to use. This blog features lots of content I post without asking the owner's permission.
The Stop Online Piracy Act gives the rightful owner's of intellectual property more power to go after people infringing on their content. It is a complicated bill with lots of implications. Check out the edu-cartoon above; it can explain techno jargon better than myself.

Blogger, Jason Harvey of Reddit.com, gives a thorough explanation of the Stop Online Piracy Act, and the Protect IP Act here: A technical examination of SOPA and PROTECT IP

slippery slope

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 06:32:00 +0000

sad reality of war

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:12:00 +0000

Why is something popular referred to as "viral"? As in, "this internet video has gone viral".
I think it has something to do with the infectious nature of a virus. "Infectious" also confers a negative spread; a spread of sickness and sadness. Rebecca Black's video, "Friday" has all of those characteristics. But I digress...

Recently, a video of US Marines urinating on Afghan corpses has gone "viral". I have not seen the video, as I cannot bring myself to watch it. An event like this has serious repercussions for all stakeholders in the ambiguous War on Terror. The American effort to win the hearts-and-minds of Afghans will suffer. The reputation of the American military will suffer. More people may take up arms against the United States. The international community will shame the war effort because this is a disturbing reality brought into the public's homes via computer screen.

Unlike the Gulf war, which was highly televised, the Afghan and Iraq campaigns have remained sheltered from the public's view. Time magazine recently did a piece on the growing separation between the military and the public, and this video is a jarring reality of being conscious about the war.

I found a lot of the press to shame the soldiers in the video. No doubt, their actions are despicable. But how can I begin to comprehend the circumstances that led to that video? War takes a toll on the mind, and people of differing mental fortitude go off to fight war. I don't mean to apologize for the soldiers in the video, but rather apologize for the circumstances in which their actions were committed. I assume watching scores of people die from bombs and bullets could rework the reality of the brain; make someone crazy. The reality of war could make urinating on your supposed enemy commonplace. This is not the first time something like this has happened. Who am I too say? I can't. We need to rethink how we fight these wars.

National Post -
Video of Marines urinating on dead insurgents won’t harm peace talks: Taliban

Globe and Mail -
Video of U.S. Marines urinating on Taliban dead causes uproar

republican primary

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 07:25:00 +0000

Triptych of Haywain by Hieronymus Bosch. It's a crazy painting! The tadpole mouse is making a getaway!

Often, it is the loudest voices that carry the day. Popular media can have a way of sensationalizing the loudest voices, however extreme they might be, while the best voices become marginalized. I am referring to America's Republican Primaries, currently taking place. GOP candidates campaign to represent the Republican Party against Obama in November; if you didn't think the GOP was a breeding ground for unqualified leaders during the 2008 election (Palin), you will after the Republican Primaries (Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, Perry, etc).

The "media" (ambiguous, I know), presents us with politically themed stories, that have little bearing on the actual issues at hand. For example: Herman Cain's sexual harassment accusations. Why did this dominate news headlines for as long as it did? Our infatuation with reading about Cain's sordid personal life is pathetic. Headlines were made when he said pizzas with few toppings are for sissy's... I'll admit it, I ate it up. I had a great time laughing about Herman and all his nonsensical junk. The same thing happened with Sarah Palin in 2008. The media needs to do its job and clear its palate of these candidates who clearly do not stand a chance. The void created by the lack of non-pertinent distractions could be filled with stories that actually inform (I'm looking at you FOX NEWS). We need to do our job, and not give the soap-operaesque tabloids credence.

We have some similar political personas in Canada, although not as extreme. The closest thing Canadians have to the political carnival characters from the States, is Don Cherry. Unfortunately, he garners more respect and attention than many of our top ranking public servants. And he doesn't even practice politics. We laughed along when Peter Kent apparently didn't know what ozone was, but unfortunately that is a much more serious issue than Herman Cain's mistress(es). Peter Kent's issue is actually rather sad, and not something to laugh about.

It's not about a left-versus-right thing either. I would certainly vote for some of the Republican contenders over the Democrat's Obama. It is about intellectual honesty, and separating fact from drivel.
I encourage you to look into the United States' electoral race, starting with the Primaries right now. The changes taking place across the border are inevitably going to affect Canadians, and we should do our part to get informed and advocate for the change we want.

As of writing this, Cain and Bachmann have dropped out. Below I have posted a video from Rick Perry... scary I know. I have also posted a rebuttal I found on youtube, which sums up my feelings more eloquently than I can express.

i still appreciate Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, even though it presented negative enjoyment

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 05:22:00 +0000

I did not enjoy reading The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I give it a thumbs-down. Also, doesn't the hand on the cover look vaguely erotic?

I recently read The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. It chronicles a man who escapes the Earth's destruction, and his interstellar voyage. The book forced me to suspended my disbelief to uncomfortable levels, and I had a hard time identifying with the characters (aliens).

This book is a metaphor for political preference. Even though The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy presented absolutely no value to me whatsoever, I still need to recognize a lot of people absolutely adore this book. 14 million copies have been sold, since it was first published in 1979. Do I begrudge the people that purchased this book? No.

This is a message to people that ardently take a political side, needlessly vilify the opposition, and fail to fully inform themselves. We all know people like this; on occasion we are all guilty of this. We need to constantly remind ourselves that both sides of the political spectrum are needed for healthy democracy and debate.

another chapter in city politics draws to a close

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 17:53:00 +0000

photo courtesy of Dodge Baena

Winter is oddly depressing and comforting. It is the season of emotional senescence, whereby we retreat inside and reflect on the year that passed. At least it is that way for me; I don't ski or snowboard. Snow irritates my ankles.

The winter break has provided me all the free time university siphons away. My casual rejection of being outside in the winter has loosened, since I have discovered pleasurable free outdoor activities, like the Nicholas Lambden rink in front of City Hall.

This rink (hopefully), represents a closing chapter in the City of Guelph, as is naturally expected in the season of Winter. The implementation and construction of the new rink, City Hall building, and Market Square space has been a point of contention between the public, downtown merchants, and city hall, for several years. Anyone who frequents downtown can attest, Carden St. has been in a perpetual state of construction every summer for the past several years. The construction was blamed for driving away customers and putting merchants on the verge of bankruptcy. The situation between merchants and the city was poorly handled; at one point the city threatened to sue business owners over a defamatory comparison made between city councillors and the three stooges. .

The negative impacts of Carden's (re)construction have been used as fodder by the anti-Farbridge groups to support the claim that the City of Guelph is anti- business, as was mentioned in a leaked report earlier this year. To truly determine if this is correct, I feel more time is needed to see the change in business on Carden St.

I understand all the arguments against the reconstruction of Carden, but after visiting I find it harder to convince myself it was a bad idea. It's a beautiful space, and attracts a diverse selection of Guelphites. It is endearing to see new Canadians strapping on skates and embracing a Canadian pastime. It is endearing to see wobbly-footed children coached by their grandparents. It is endearing to see young couples hold hands and weave their way around the ice.

Was the cost/benefit of the new space worth it? I don't know, but I am definitely going to be spending more time in that space, and hopefully I will buy a thing or two from the shops there (Hempire, anyone?).

Q: who should be the lamp lighter? A: taxpayers

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:47:00 +0000

The City of Guelph is run like a conglomeration of companies all working to provide city services in exchange for tax dollars. If you haven't heard, the city of Guelph is a little short on cash lately and is looking for new ways to fund some capitol projects.

Council has the bright idea to sell off the city's street lights to Guelph Hydro, the electrical provider. Currently, the street lights are owned by the citizens of Guelph, and their upkeep is paid for by tax dollars. Under the proposed system, the City of Guelph would sell the lights which would free up approximately $10 million dollars in the operating budget. Guelph Hydro would control the street lights, and the cost of maintenance would be included in the electrical bills. So what seems to be the problem?

The City of Guelph owns Guelph Hydro. No new money is actually being created, and tax payers are still forced to bear burden of new capitol projects. This is a complex legal shell game used by city hall to move funds around.

Selling off the street lights would give city hall a big bag of money to put towards things like a new downtown library, the Wilson Street Parkade, a skatepark (maybe), and a south end recreation centre (not likely). In the future, I imagine municipalities selling off most of their infrastructure and utilities to private enterprises (I don't necessarily agree with this, Im just continuing with the trend). This street light issue is the continuation of municipalities slowly selling themselves off to private firms; its a drop in the ocean given the larger context. Toronto sold off its street lights in 2005 for $60 million dollars... Toronto will now pay over $420 million over the next 30 years to rent them back. It doesn't seem wise to echo the same actions taken by Toronto, in Guelph.

im going to decapitate you. jk, Halloween!

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:40:00 +0000

I have a love/hate relationship with Halloween. I love trick or treating, carving pumpkins, wearing costumes, the festivities, and thinking of spirits. I hate the commercialization of cheap plastic crap adorning people's lawns and the glorification of brutality and violence. The type of society that casually enjoys decapitation, gore, and skeletons, is a society that is far too comfortable. It is a society that has never truly experienced actual hardship or brutality. We need to stop normalizing violence in society, especially in Halloween advertising. You know where they don't have such violent Halloween media? Answer: In places where there is actual violence. In Mexico and the Philippines, where people actually get beheaded, Halloween or All Saints Day, is a celebration of lost spirits. People gather for potlucks in cemeteries and remember the spirits of lost family and friends.

I hate the proliferation of cheap costume stores popping up around Halloween. I understand everyone has to make a buck, but I certainly won't be spending my dollar there. How many junky costumes, and plastic accessories end up in the trash? All of it. Don't even get me started on those full face plastic makes; I can think of no better way to encapsulate your head in chemicals. Be original; make your costume at home and put some make up on.

thoughts from last night's council meeting: noise by-laws

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:46:00 +0000

Last night at council, there were two delegations from concerned citizens regarding excessive noise at night. The concern stemmed mainly from motorcycle engines at night, but eventually extended to all vehicles as the discourse on the subject developed.
During the second citizen's delegation, a well spoken senior lady brought up previous recommendations to the city, from a subcommittee, regarding excessive noise. The woman's area of concern was along the Speed river's walking trails west of Gordon St. Obviously she lived there, and has claimed to walk the trail over 15 000 times since she moved to Guelph. Some of the suggestions for dealing with the noise pollution included:

1) Increased police enforcement of noise violations.
2) Increase police training with "decibel rating" devices.
3) Create the motivation for neighbors to snitch on their nosy nieghbours. When the vehicle in question is parked in a driveway it becomes easier to locate.
4) Create a sound certification system for vehicles that wish to operate within city limits. This requires the cooperation of mechanics to certify automobiles.
5) Reroute truck traffic from Wellington to Stone Road

The current by-law is very vague because it states vehicle exhaust systems must operate in an "effective and working" manner. This leaves much to debated. The factory default settings on a 2011 Yamaha R6, or Harley Davidson Fat Boy are already ultra loud. Although they meet the DOT decibel regulations, they're not something that should be prowling a residential neighbourhood at 2am. To compound the problem, aftermarket exhausts crank the volume up to 11.

The issue of motor vehicle noise is similar to that of the ruckus caused by students. Towns-folk get pissed-off and demand the city do something about it. My main contention with the solutions offered by the citizen delegate and city's sub committee on the issue, is No. 5. When the citizen delegate described the fifth option, rerouting trucks from Wellington to Stone, she said: "the noise of the trucks would drown out the noise of the students". I have a problem with this, and not because it marginalizes students. A statement like this marginalizes the families and communities living amongst students. Rerouting trucks down Stone Road would punish a group of citizens that have already felt the brunt of noise and disturbance that comes from students.

who is responsible for all the shit in downtown Guelph?

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 04:50:00 +0000

Below are some thoughts on Guelph's downtown scene from a letter to the tribune, way back when...

Barkeeps are big part of downtown problems

Re: Dino Busato’s letter to the editor “Nail the core offenders not city bar businesses” (Tribune, Dec. 7).

The onus of destruction and debauchery downtown every weekend cannot be placed solely on poor enforcement issues and lack of bathroom accommodation.

It is very irresponsible to confront only the “customer” side of Guelph’s nightlife.

While I do agree people should be fined for doing bad things, enforcement is more complicated.

It is easier to find people urinating, fighting, throwing up and littering at 2 a.m. in downtown Guelph than it is to find Waldo in his wonderfully illustrated environments.

Are these people being fined? No. For whatever reason (lack of police resources, lack of police diligence, lack of people’s respect, etc), these people are not being fined. It is a fantasy to hold every person accountable for their actions when several thousand people shuffle into downtown every weekend.

That being said, I have spoken to downtown business owners who say the police are scared during the downtown scene. I’ve seen police just stand there while people fight.

I rarely see police walking around; mostly they just sit in their cruisers. That being said, they have an immensely difficult job and I respect what they do, although I think a more “pro-active” stance needs to be adopted by the police.

It is a bone-headed minority that is reeking chaos downtown. It is also a minority of bars responsible for producing the majority of boneheads. I’m a university student. I go to bars, and overserving is rampant.

Several clubs downtown have signs around the bar reading “Two-drink maximum after midnight.” I have never once seen the rule enforced by the servers, who fulfill orders for several drinks to overly drunk individuals – myself included.

People throw up when they drink too much, and if they bought a drink downtown then an irresponsible server contributed to the problem. It does not take an undercover sleuth to determine who is making people drunk downtown.

People pre-drink before they go downtown.

They are already drunk when they get there, and yet several servers will still provide drinks.

This places more trouble in the hands of security, who just throw drunks out into the public.

I feel the city made a terrible call when setting up the pissoirs and made a another terrible call with their subsequent removal. I feel the burden of rampant public urinating falls on the bar owners and the City of Guelph. It is cruel to expect people to drink beers and then lock them out of every washroom downtown when the bars close.

Bar owners and the city must provide a place to relieve oneself if they are profiting from pumping us full of liquid. Ensure adequate washroom facilities after the bars close, and then start fining people for urinating.

Ben Baena Guelph

http://www.guelphtribune.ca/news/barkeeps-are-big-part-of-downtown-problems/

city councillor’s ‘joke’ gives a bad impression

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 05:23:00 +0000

Re:

At the Sept. 26 city council meeting, there was discussion around the city providing home energy audits. They are going to implement a pilot program that provides these audits, and the debate surrounds the cost of providing the audits. It was also noted the pilot program would take place in a neighbourhood heavily populated with students.

Coun. Bob Bell recommended a price of $20, at which point other councillors weighed in on the issue. When setting the price of the program to homeowners, it is important to consider whether the property is leased to tenants.

When it was Coun. Karl Wettstein’s turn to speak, he jokingly remarked that he “would charge students double,” after which he gave a chuckle and assured looks to other councillors around the horseshoe. I am not offended by his comments. I am both a student and a full-time permanent citizen — probably for several more years after I graduate. My concern is that these comments, jokingly or otherwise, represent underlying tensions between Wettstein and his ward, which has a high population of students.

His “joke” was not very funny, nor in good taste. To suggest that anyone would discriminate in price, and unfairly charge a specific group of people more than normal, is to cast aspersions on that group.

If he brings this attitude forward in council, what does he say in private?

Ben Baena, Guelph

http://www.guelphmercury.com/opinion/letters/article/602354--city-councillor-s-joke-gives-a-bad-impression

Guest Post: Paul Wartman on Foodstock

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:49:00 +0000

Sarah Harmer at Foodstock, photo by Diogenes Baena

Hello All! Today's post is a thoughtful contribution from Paul Lion Wartman, a 4th year undergraduate student at the University of Guelph. Mr. Wartman is engaged with local organic food production, sustainable living, promoting social and environmental justice. Below are his thoughts from Foodstock:

Last Sunday, October 16th, a counted 30,000 people came together in the forested, agricultural land of Honeywood, ON to celebrate Foodstock. Community members of Guelph jumped on their bikes, hopped in their cars and piled, literally, into buses with family and friends to join the festivities. Everyone was gathering there to support the provincial efforts to stop a local issue - the Mega Quarry… as well as to enjoy the local bounty prepared by 100+ chefs from across Canada, which was complemented by the musical talent of Jim Cuddy, Sarah Harmer and many others!

Once there, people trekked across farm field paths to the entrance of the forest. Greeted by friendly volunteers that were collecting registration donations, "pay what you can" with a recommended donation of $10, we chirped with excitement. Upon entering the forest, people stopped and stared. It was as if entering a dream! Amongst the stands of fall coloured trees were pockets of tents that had chefs crafting together their meals to share. Many were cooking the locally produced food over fire pits, which added multiple streams of aromas that pulled you in different directions. With home-brought plates, cups and cutlery in hand we gathered our senses and galloped towards the smells. First table had little tarts filled with goat cheese, produced just 3 km away, mixed with berries it was quite the treat! Next was squash gnocchi! I don't know if you can imagine how it tasted swirled with maple syrup and sage! Ah! Plates moved, pulling their human parts from location to location being settled by the warm pockets of sunshine and acoustic tunes during their short journeys.

Grazing throughout the art stands and mud-jumping children, eating mouths took time to discuss the issues at hand. Where would all this amazing food come from if this class A farming and ranching land turned into a quarry? We enjoyed our vegetarian poutine, those potatoes grew here. What about the water? Wouldn't digging 200ft below the water table in the headwaters of 5 major river systems affect the flow? These are all important issues to be pondered.

Overall, it was a fantastic experience, rich with culture, that left you feeling satisfied. We left with new energy and hope that our efforts here today and our continued efforts will help prevent the proposed Mega Quarry and to create new policy to help make the necessary process of aggregate production less destructive to the environment.

For more information on the Mega Quarry and the efforts surrounding it, check out these links:

http://ndact.com/

http://www.highlandcompanies.ca/index.php/companies/melancthonquarry/

-Paul Wartman

Oct 19, 2011

occupy wall street.

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:10:00 +0000

I like the Occupy (insert developed world city here) movement. Something in the capitalist system is not working, and it needs to be addressed. I'm not claiming to have any answers about what exactly the problem is, but I know something is wrong. I can feel it my bones.

At the heart of the Occupy Wall St. Movement is the complaint that current financial markets are not regulated properly. Archaic banking practices, high-risk investments, and a bottom line driven solely by profits have combined to create a system vulnerable to exploitation by greedy goblins. Wall street occupiers claim old economic rules no longer apply; for example: rational expectations, which are: "economic situations in which the outcome depends partly on what people expect to happen".

What I don't like about Occupy Wall street, is how other advocacy groups have attached their agendas to the occupation movement. In order to bring about meaningful and effective change to the West's banking systems the message cannot be diluted with things like: climate change, social injustice, and environmental concerns. All of these things are inextricably attached to the impacts of capitalism, they are important and deserve attention; but let's just focus on bad banking practices (hasn't that been the major inconvenience of the past 5 years?). Policy makers will take the movement more seriously and it will be easier for them to affect change, if the priorities are direct and specific.

I also don't like references in the media relating Occupy Wall St to the Arab revolutions. They are entirely different. Arabs have faced decades of stagnation and oppression, while Wall Street occupiers have only been affected for the past decade (the major shift coming after 9/11).

I have two videos that compare the political media perspective from the left and right. Notice how each media group, from opposite ends of the political spectrum, uses people at rallies to portray their message. The first video is of left-leaning media interviewing stupid people at a Tea-Party rally and the second video is of right-leaning media interviewing stupid people at the Occupy Wall Street movement. Media from across the spectrum are guilty of interviewing a small select sample of individuals and using that to represent the entire movement.

It just occurred to me this video may not play on all computers, try the link:
Ari Horowitz on GBTV

p.s. I am well aware that 95% of what comes out of Glenn Beck's mouth is garbage.

dolime sounds like the name of a tropical beverage

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:37:00 +0000

Hey everyone, this here is a shout out to all the students in undergrad public policy programs. You should go to your city's council meetings. Practically no one shows up, so you're guaranteed to get a good seat. Also, it is not as boring as it sounds. The discussion that goes on is directly relevant to the courses you are studying, and it beats the hell out of reading a textbook.

Last night at Guelph's city council meeting, there was a presentation about the Guelph Dolime Quarry. I feel this is significant to bring up, aside from the striking environmental concern, because of the recent discussion of the Melancthon Quarry in Honeywood, Ontario

Guelph's Dolime Quarry has sat for the past several years departed of any mining activity. Recently, it became economically viable to use deeper methods of mining to extract aggregate from beneath a protective layer of the hard rock lining the bottom of the quarry. The hard rock, otherwise known as the aquitard, lies above the underground aquifer and prevents its contamination from surface waters.
The governance of aggregate extraction permits in Ontario is entirely out of date, and the dilemma faced by Guelph reflects that. Dolime has put forward a proposal that seeks to expand the scope of the current Dolime quarry and mine for aggregate at continually deeper levels. Dolime seeks to excavate beneath the aquitard, and refill any created hollow space with back fill. Last night at council, I think the date referenced for the current legislation regarding aggravate removal was sometime in the 1980's, and Wellington Water Watchers lists The Water Resources Act of 1990 as lacking safeguards as well. There is no current protection in legislation that prevents a pit operator from piercing through the aquitard.
Currently, the city is going back and forth between the Ministry of Natural Resources, Dolime, and environmental consultants to determine the risk and consequences of deepening the Dolime quarry into the aquifer.
When a huge hole is dug, not in terms of credit card debt, the groundwater can come into contact with contaminated surface water. As a result our tap water needs extra purification after it is pumped out of the ground and before it goes down our throats. City staff indicated 8 wells, or 25% of Guelph's water supply could be affected by pit expansion below the aquitard. Costs associated with retrofitting the wells to handle a new load of contaminants are estimated around 2-3 million per well. This does not take into account the time Guelph would spend with a greatly diminished water supply nor the public unrest surrounding possible contaminated drinking water. But maybe the aggregate beneath the aquitard is made of solid gold and every Guelph citizen will receive a 100oz gold bar. That would be wicked.

thoughts on the crime bill

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 02:35:00 +0000

a new comic for you.

I know y’all be thinking of the upcoming provincial election and I don’t mean to distract you. But this is important; do you remember all that talk during the Federal election about a massive omnibus crime bill proposed by the Conservatives? Well this past Tuesday, the Conservatives dropped the third piece of legislation in their “omnibus”.

Before all this was in the news, I thought “Omnibus” was an East German Volkswagen knock-off.

So what’s changed in the “Crime Landscape” since last May? Lots. I have taken some excerpts from a CBC article that outlined the changes, I have added my thoughts below in red.

Mandatory minimums: a range of drug, sex, violent and other serious offences will now have longer stipulated jail sentences, leading to questions about dramatic increases in the costs of incarceration for both federal and provincial prisons.

Justice needs to be conducted on a case-by-case basis. Mandatory minimums (key word = mandatory) are not what we need. I agree mandatory minimums may be helpful for some violent and sex crimes, but mandatory minimums for growing 6 pot plants are going to put people in jail that shouldn’t be there. This part of the Bill doesn’t even consider popular opinion regarding certain drug crimes. I think the federal government should hold a referendum on this issue just to prove me correct.

Tougher penalties for drug offences, including a potential doubling of sentences for the production of drugs such as marijuana, to target the role of organized crime in the production and possession of illicit drugs and to crack down on marijuana grow-ops.

I sort of touched on this above. This approach is misguided. The limit set for a mandatory minimum is 6 plants. If you want to target organized crime, set the limit at 2000. Give mandatory minimums to people who keep guns beside their stash. Don’t send the local mom and pop grow shop, college kids, and medicinal users (that failed to jump through the paperwork to get their MMAR license) to jail.

Tougher penalties for sexual offences against children, and the creation of two new offences related to the planning or enabling of sex assaults against children.

I don’t know the particulars of this, but I agree with the statement as it stands. There is no excuse for hurting children.

Long-gun registry Ended

I agree with the Conservatives ending the long-gun registry. I agree with the “idea” of registering all guns, but not if it costs a billion dollars. Besides, who commits crimes with long-guns nowadays? This isn’t 1912. Today’s criminals pack semi-automatic handguns.

More power for police to conduct internet surveillance (known as "lawful access") — a controversial step that would compel Web service providers to hand over information even without a search warrant has been feared by internet experts. But the government said Wednesday it has no plans for such measures. "Outrageous claims like that one, that private communications will be intercepted without a warrant, is a complete fabrication," said Public Safety Minister Vic Toews Wednesday, responding to a question from the NDP.

In other words, don’t post stupid shit on Facebook. Don’t plan crimes over email. Don't wire money to terrorists.

Mandatory jail time for repeat offences in trafficking contraband tobacco and a new RCMP anti-contraband force.

This just sends an already marginalized group to jail for something trivial. Don’t quote me on this, but I’m pretty sure the people couriering cigarettes across the St. Lawrence are poor native groups being exploited by people higher up in the gang chain. 1 out of 3 cigarettes enjoyed by Ontario are “illegal”. Is the government targeting the right people? Big tobacco gets paid either way.

Stiffer sentences for violent and repeat young offenders for serious crimes, to protect the public from "out of control" young offenders

I get the whole “stiffer sentences for repeat violent offenders”. I don’t get the “out of control youth” part. Where does one draw the line between bad kids and bad parents? The law should punish people who fornicate, have children, and can’t take care of them. How can we punish youth crimes, when a youth’s entire environment may have been filled with violence? Instead of punishing young offenders more harshly, we should save ourselves the legal fees. Let’s plant a garden in every school, and give every child a free, hot, and nutritious meal for lunch.

I took the italicized part from an article by CBC. It can be found here. I only covered a brief portion of the legislation that was passed. And I didn’t look very deep to find the particulars. I think the government should get “tough on crime”, but I think they should do it by getting “soft on people”. Take a more proactive approach and stop crime before it happens. The Netherlands is literally closing jails because they don’t have enough prisoners. They are importing prisoners from Belgium in order to pay for the Jail’s hydro bills. Aside from the recent massacre, Norway typically experiences 50 murders a year. Norway has a population of 5 million, which makes about 1 murder for every 100,000 people. Canada and the US do not even come close to the this number, so how can we get “tough” on crime, when we are perpetuating a system that creates criminals by definition?

hudak will not raise taxes. or expectations.

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:19:00 +0000

Taxes. I have a love/hate relationship with taxes. I hate paying them, but I love the services they provide. Fundamental to every political campaign is taxes; whether to raise them or not. The more rightist parties want to keep taxes low, while the leftist parties want to increase taxes and pay for more social services. It is a time-old debate.
In an interesting turn of events, Tim Hudak announced yesterday that his party will not raise taxes. He sent an explicit letter to the Chief Electoral Officer that declared his position. There are loop holes around this, such as downloading taxing responsibilities to the province *cough*Mike Harris*cough*. But Mr. Hudak also stated he would not increase the tax responsibilities of the province. woo hoooo!
You may be asking yourself, "Why would a party leader explicitly state their intentions during a campaign? Isn't it better to use vague political mumbo-jumbo and leave the outcome open-ended; so no matter what you do, you can say you met your "goals"? That may be so, but under the Tax Payer Protection Act parties are forced to announce their tax intentions before an election.
I admire Mr. Hudak's goals. Taxes suck. But let's be realistic. Taxes go up because government plays an increasingly bigger role in everyone's lives, whether we like it or not. More of us are crowding into increasingly smaller spaces, and the government sorts out the repercussions. Maybe if everyone just stopped making babies we could expect government to play a smaller role and taxes to go down.
I don't mean to say the Conservatives are off the mark, in terms of their ideology, but let's be serious. No tax increases for the next 4 years? seriously? You better not close my hospital... or let bums control my water supply.

compare party platforms. easily.

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:04:00 +0000

You want a job? I want a job! Hopefully we don't want the same job, or else one of us is going to be unemployed :(

No, that was a poor joke; but job creation is a major policy area being explored in each party's platform. All the parties have the overarching goal of keeping everyone employed, at a decent wage, but the mechanisms they use differ between parties. Should we hire more underutilized immigrants? Should we cut corporate taxes so they can expand their business and hire more employees? or should we hire more bureaucrats to help promote small business on a national and global scale?

The Globe and Mail has compiled party's Provincial platforms for specific policy areas. It is nice to see all the headlining grabbing proposals all in one place. It is limited in scope and there is no way to tell what was left out without actually reading their platforms in their entirety. But who cares? It is so easy to use! Below I have copied the policy proposals regarding Job Creation.

Ontario Liberal Party

-Create a tax credit for businesses that hire skilled newcomers

-Double the premier’s trade missions to eight, to help businesses access new markets

-Make the Northern Ontario Heritage fund and Eastern Ontario Development funds permanent, as well as create a new Southwestern Ontario Economic Development Fund

-Move ahead with the Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act to develop innovations in clean water technology, with the goal of of creating clean water jobs

-Reduce small business tax rates to 4 per cent

Ontario PC

-Create a tax credit for employers who sponsor language training for newcomers to Ontario

-Introduce a small business “bill of rights,” guaranteeing small businesses a greater voice in new legislations and regulations

-Appoint a minister responsible for eliminating red tape for business owners

-Create a Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, to assist farmers and small business owners

-Reduce the basic corporate income tax rate from 11.5 per cent to 10 per cent by 2013

-Create 200,000 new apprenticeships over four years for skilled tradespeople

Ontario New Democrats

-Create a 10 per cent tax credit for companies that invest in buildings, machinery and equipment in the province, and for companies who provide training for staff to upgrade their skills

-Create a new 'Job Creation Tax Credit' that would reimburse employers 20 per cent of wages for a new hire's first year, up to $5,000 per employee.

-Reduce the small business tax rate to 4 per cent

-Raise corporate tax rate back to 14 per cent, where it was in June of last year before the implementation of the HST

-Make it law for government contracts to be rewarded to Ontario companies

-Reject the London Stock Exchange’s takeover of the Toronto Stock Exchange

-Amend Ontario’s mining act to make it law that resources mined in Ontario must also be processed in Ontario

Check out the rest of the policy areas and each parties stance, by clicking HERE

candidate meet'n' greet and other stuff

noreply@blogger.com (Bae) — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:29:00 +0000

On Thursday night, the CSA and Civic Engagement held a meet and greet with Guelph’s MPP candidates, in the Bullring. Candidates were on hand to speak about their platform, issues pertaining to students, and answer questions. After the meet and greet student representatives from each party addressed generic questions regarding major policy areas; education, environment, economy, energy, etc.

It is very exciting to see other students hushed and huddled around political candidates, discussing the direction of Ontario’s future.

Aside from questions regarding each party’s platform; it was interesting to note the body language and demeanor of each candidate and the students who listened to them. The most obvious and interesting contrast is that of the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives. Liberal Liz Sandals sat in an armchair encircled by students on couches, while PC Greg Schirk stood closely surrounded by students. When I stood listening to Mr. Schirk, the audience seemed tenser than with other candidates. I feel for him, he is up against a tough crowd. Guelph is a swing riding with a history of electing NDP, Progressive Conservative and Liberal MPPs; but the university student body is more left leaning. Mr. Schirk handled himself very well when a student became slightly confrontational regarding Mr. Schirk’s use of the term “red-tape reduction”. In a casual style, he gave the student his business card and asked to set up a future conversation. Very classy.

A consistent point of contention between the Liberals and Conservatives is the Green Energy Act. While some praise the act for “greening” the province’s energy sources, Conservatives claim the act has been responsible for raising the cost of energy in Ontario. I feel conflicted, as per usual, about the act. My understanding is that the Green Energy Act was sort of getting-ahead-of-itself. The essence of the Act was that the Liberal government would offer a subsidy to the construction of “green” energy projects and purchase energy from them at a grossly inflated rate.

Ok, that sounds awesome, but it was apparently too successful. Now the government is locked into long term contracts, paying a premium for energy.

Ok, that’s all fine and dandy; I understand that the investment helps the environment in the long term. The problem is this, as Liz Sandals explained: so many projects were built in rural areas and the existing grid infrastructure could not handle the power delivered from the subsidized projects. As a result, we have a bunch of useless green energy projects sitting around, taking up space, and not adding power to the grid.

Now let’s get back to reality; the Conservatives claim this project has been responsible for raising the energy costs. This may be partly true, but to what degree? Energy prices are constantly increasing; natural gas becomes harder to find, coal is more expensive to mine, and oil… don’t get me started on oil. The Green Energy Act may have under preformed its expectations, but not because it exorbitantly raised your electrical bill. When I asked Mr. Schirk about the act he said it was unfortunate that the government was locked into the contracts, and the project would not be sustainable in the future.

The NDP’s James Gordon, Green’s Steve Dyck, and Communist Drew Garvie were also on hand, but due to lack of time I couldn’t listen to them in-depth.