John L. Jarvis

Hey John,Thanks for the link to Bridgehead... I fo...

2008-03-12T11:02:00.000-04:00

Hey John,
Thanks for the link to Bridgehead... I found my new source for coffee! When we were in El Salvador you could go to the farmers in person and buy beans picked that day, unroasted, and pay them directly in US dollars. That was cool.

If you're interested in proportional representatio...

2008-01-07T18:02:00.000-05:00

If you're interested in proportional representation, the Center for Range Voting offers some cool solutions:

http://rangevoting.org/RRVj.html
http://rangevoting.org/Asset.html

There's also a proportional representation version...

2008-01-07T17:58:00.000-05:00

There's also a proportional representation version called Reweighted Range Voting, and another simple P.R. system called Asset Voting (originally invented by Lewis Carroll, but then recently re-invented by Warren D. Smith).

Believe it or not, I was in the process of updatin...

2007-10-01T20:50:00.000-04:00

Believe it or not, I was in the process of updating this post with your first link as I realized I had a comment pending moderation. (I saw the signs for voteformmp.ca on this morning's commute.)

First, to quote your post, you got me: I have yet to read the Ontario Citizens' Assembly's report, but plan to do so shortly.

Second, I know a heck of lot more about this now - including the 3% threshold that mitigates Warren's "fringe" fears, as you say - thanks to The Agenda with Steve Paikin. I've included links to his show in my shared items to the left.

Third, thanks for pointing me to the second link: a withering critique to be sure.

Food with little flavour and no nutrition. Here ar...

2007-10-01T01:05:00.000-04:00

Food with little flavour and no nutrition. Here are a couple of responses:

http://www.voteformmp.ca/en/node/605

http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2007/09/your-weekly-smile-david-warren-on-mmp.html

Stewart: Coalition pretends to control Iraq... The...

2007-04-28T11:56:00.000-04:00

Stewart: Coalition pretends to control Iraq... The mission was a failure... [would've been] even if we got those things [don't abolish army, Baath Party, etc.] right.

Intuitively, that makes sense to me. Iraq was a cobbled-together country long before the U.S. invaded. A natural end to Hussein's regime probably would've been bloody anyway. In the end, I think Iraq's neighbours will determine its future, in the same way that they determined Palestine's half a century ago.

On Afghanistan, I wouldn't want the sentiment "Bring back the Russians; at least they built bridges" to be prevalent as the NATO mission finishes up. And I honestly can't see that being the case: didn't Canadians build a major highway recently?

As for the counter-insurgency battle, I don't know enough to say whether we can win it (or should even be trying). I will say that intelligence-led operations against training camps and the like make a lot of sense to me. Allowing these groups to operate with impunity in Sudan and Afghanistan in the 1990s was a mistake.

Interesting that Rory feels we should be spending ...

2007-04-22T09:50:00.000-04:00

Interesting that Rory feels we should be spending all our time in Afghanistan working on solving the everyday problems like garbage and not be "chasing taliban in a counter insurgency effort that we're never going to win". These two ideas are not mutually exclusive, were it not for the NATO troops enforcing security there would be no safety for the NGOs to go in and do their work. And yet he does acknowledge that fact so I'm not entirely sure I understand the man at all...

Interesting fellow though and I was very surprised to hear him talk about how pulling out of a southern Iraqi province led to an improvement of the situation there. That is definitely great to hear; however, I'm not convinced that because it worked there that a complete pullout of American troops is warranted. The overall situation if far to complex and there's too much at stake here. If the US pulls out and the country falls into a massive civil war no amount of garbage collecting NGOs is going to be able to repair the situation.

Obviously this problem is very complex, so I'll stop pretending that I understand it now.

Thanks for your comments, Tavis. I wasn't familia...

2007-04-16T20:04:00.000-04:00

Thanks for your comments, Tavis. I wasn't familiar with Kevin's writing prior to this press reporting, but I see no reason to doubt your assessment, given what I've now read; in fact, I'll be checking The Republic... regularly from now on, as he seems to be an astute fellow. I think the Green Party's missed a golden opportunity, and, as you say, has just shown how little they differ from their established rivals in Ottawa.

Kevin Potvin is not the blood-thirsty monster they...

2007-04-16T19:42:00.000-04:00

Kevin Potvin is not the blood-thirsty monster they make him out to be. My wife and I joined his campaign the moment we heard about it because we thought it would be the only chance to get a real voice for peace. All I know now is that the candidate we all thought would be the first green MP is now the man Canadians love to hate. When we nominated Potvin he went unchallenged. We all know his opinions, he's been publishing them for years! We wanted him as the candidate because we thought he'd win and we wanted him in Ottawa because of his opinions. If you look at his body of work you will notice that he is not a blood-thirsty guy. I thought the voters would be able to see that right away. He runs a bookstore! I thought people could trust that! I trust that! On the other hand you get the war mongering editorials in the papers hell bent on slandering Potvin. I think this whole thing proves that the Liberals, the Greens, and the COnservatives are all the same.

You aren't alone in feeling that way: for example,...

2007-04-01T16:27:00.000-04:00

You aren't alone in feeling that way: for example, the joy at receiving letter mail (that isn't bills, obviously), and packages in particular, seems to be widespread.

I used to get my wife to buy music for me on iTunes because it was often cheaper; however, it turned out that it wasn't worth the savings because she had to burn it to a blank CD that often couldn't be read by standalone players (to say nothing of the discs wasted on bad burns). Since probably half the time I listen to music is in the car, that's a big disadvantage.

Finally, like you, I like to feel and look at something in my hands. I'll never download a Tool album, for example; that's half the fun: tryin' to figure out what the heck those guys were on when they came up with the album art. "10000 days" even has a built-in magnifier to give you a better look at it.

Me, I just copy stuff liberally; however, you real...

2007-04-01T14:23:00.000-04:00

Me, I just copy stuff liberally; however, you really can't beat that feeling of unwrapping an original CD. I find that with the cheap CD prices lately I'm buying more music than I have in many years. And even though it's convenient, I find downloading tunes through iTunes an incredibly un-gratifying experience..."what do you mean I don't get to unwrap anything?"

That said, it's good to know that ripping a buddies CD here and there is ok.

It's interesting that you raise the issue of secon...

2007-03-16T19:42:00.000-04:00

It's interesting that you raise the issue of secondhand smoking: LeGault includes it, and global warming, in his list of examples of public perceptions led astray by intuition (i.e., the Blink! theory the book argues against). The rest of his list made sense to me, but those two had me scratching my head, wondering how they hadn't been scientifically validated (which was his argument: more work needs to be done).

Well, I'm not surprised by how the public's percep...

2007-03-14T20:33:00.000-04:00

Well, I'm not surprised by how the public's perception of "important" differs from experts'. Smoking is a good example, in my opinion. Back in the day, there was a strong push to warn the public on the hazards of smoking which was aimed at smokers: not bystanders inhaling second-hand smoke. How is it that no one thought that standing next to a smoker inhaling his/her smoke wasn't a bad thing? Well, it wasn't the point at the time. The focus was (and still is)to get smokers to stop smoking. Athough there were probably a lot of non-smokers who thought that being in the vicinity of smoke was no big deal, I bet if people working for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or Health Canada had been surveyed, they would've probably pointed out that second-hand smoke is just as bad smoking a cigarette. Of course, second-hand smoke is clearly a concern now and is addressed as much as smoking.

I know, man.Here's what she had to say about it 20...

2007-01-14T10:29:00.000-05:00

I know, man.

Here's what she had to say about it 20 years later:

'When I met Bertschinger recently, in her office at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, she described the guilt she’d felt after looking into the eyes of starving children and passing them by. “I felt like a Nazi condemning innocent people to the death camps,” she said. “I’ve lived with that ever since.”'

"there was no point wasting food on a child who wo...

2007-01-14T08:44:00.000-05:00

"there was no point wasting food on a child who would soon be dead"

I can't fathom standing in line hoping that my child will be "selected" as one having enough potential to live to be worthy of some food...

Dude you've destroyed my morning, I'm going to church to see if I can't wash that imagine from my brain...

I'd hoped to read up on the (hot now, actually) to...

2007-01-12T17:14:00.000-05:00

I'd hoped to read up on the (hot now, actually) topic of Parliamentary seat distribution so that I might distinguish my idea from it. That hasn't happened yet, obviously, but when I'm ready to write on it, I'll start a new post.

Ahhhh, now I understand where you're coming from, ...

2006-10-22T12:39:00.000-04:00

Ahhhh, now I understand where you're coming from, but you sir are talking about a different problem. At issue is not the number of parties that are represented in the house of commons, but rather the distribution of seats across Canada which is currently based on population giving ON and QU a much louder voice in the HoC.

More parties will not solve that problem, the only way to tackle that one is to recognize that ON has been given an unfair advantage, and to effect change there we'd have to change the rules about we assign ridings. But then while we're talking about a fundamental change in the way HoC seats are decided we should talk about proportional representation. That is, as I'm sure you are aware, as system where it's no longer "first past the post" but rather the total number of seats in the house are divided between parties based on % of the overall vote. Which as you know would've meant the GP would've had a seat or two this time around. Still doesn't solve the problems with the East and West getting their say in things but at that point ridings have been done away with so it'd make sense to also divide the seats more equitably by province.

On the other hand, maybe those folks out East need to recognize that living as a have not province sucks and it may be time to board up the house and move somewhere that has a real economy. But there's a culture of "we're victims of the feds" that is unbelievably present out that way. That'd be my expert analysis based on a handful of week long visits so maybe I'm way off, but I learnt really quick don't mention the word "government" to a fisherman...

Dude! Your patriotism is admirable (I can see Tru...

2006-10-21T13:08:00.000-04:00

Dude! Your patriotism is admirable (I can see Trudeau punchin' the sky – Federalism, yes!), but me thinks ya gotta wake up 'n' smell the coffee: the BQ exists for a reason, and as they've shown these last few years, it ain't solely to push for separation. But even if that was its one idea, they're workin' within the system, by the rules, and whether they should or shouldn't be heard in Parliament is really beside the point, don't ya think?

Look, part of that was the devil's advocate in me, tryin' to get yer goat, but part of it was, well, the facts, crappy as they are. I guess it's that I'm tired of this defeatist attitude; that is, this is the way it has to be: Ontario and Québec will always control federal elections, the West will never have a say in Parliament, the East will always be made up of 'have-not' provinces, etc. If reading about politics in Alberta and Saskatchewan at the turn of the 20th century has taught me anything, it's that people have been saying the same thing for over one hundred years! That's ludicrous! There has to be a better way.

And that's where I was going with my 'coalition' idea: Canada is an enormous country, and, frankly, my love for Trudeau's ideas aside, I'm surprised it's held together this long, and I certainly see very little, beyond principles such as those laid down in our Charter, that applies equally across it. I think the sooner we acknowledge that, and work at giving everyone their time on the podium, so to speak, the happier we'll be as a country. Heck, it would certainly put Québec in perspective: yeah, you've got problems. So what? So does every province.

I've mused in the past (can't link to it cause I d...

2006-10-21T09:03:00.000-04:00

I've mused in the past (can't link to it cause I destroyed it) that we are in fact best served by minority governments. In principle at least. Sure when my preferred party is in power I'd like to see them have a majority so we can accomplish all of the items in our party policy; however, when the libs were in I found that prospect terrifying. It's works great in principle, ideally this would mean that each viewpoint is given a reasonable shake in the house and only those ideas which truly represent the wishes of Canadians would ever make it through. However, in the current situation we can see mulitple examples of the opposition arguing with a bill that can only be seen as posturing for the next election. Examples: the softwook lumber deal, agreed to by provinces, most manufacturers, but not the liberals who could never seem to close that deal. The war in Afghan, mere months ago debated and given a 2 year extension, now we see Layton's posturing.

So in principle I agree, but the reality is that we have some pretty big issues that need to be tackled in a "once and for-all" manner (as you've stated for the IA matter) and I just don't see those being dealt with in a minority situation because the opposition parties will want to be seen as catering to the minority...it's a popular move, notably on the left.

On your idea that we need more parties like the Bloq...absolutely not. Provincial/regional politics can be handled at the provincial level, the House of Commons is meant to be a forum where issues that affect all of Canada are tackled. We already have regional representation in that we have MPs elected from across the country. Parties like the Bloq don't serve our country's best interests and shouldn't be given a place in the HoC. It doesn't seem appropriate that there's a party in the house with considerable swing, given the number of seats that they have, that the rest of the country must simply tolerate. Especially a party that's hell-bent on dividing this country.

Well, as you know, I throw a lot of this stuff out...

2006-10-20T20:53:00.000-04:00

Well, as you know, I throw a lot of this stuff out there to generate discussion; in the spirit of that, I'll elaborate on my idea.

First, I think Parliament could fall apart, if too many parties had a voice. Some time ago I even read about an example of a paralyzed Parliament (in Lebanon, maybe?). However, I don't think we've reached that point yet - it's debatable, along the lines of the efficacy of minority governments in general - and we might even be able to add a few more.

That aside, however, my second point is that I don't think we're best-served by having these longstanding parties, or the mergers needed to fight them. I think many of the policies you hope to see implemented get watered down before a party ever gets the chance to table them in Parliament.

As an example, I don't think the Bloc Québécois should be unique in Parliament. Goodness knows that the West and the Maritimes feel just as underrepresented in Ottawa as Québec does. Did the Reform Party have any good ideas that the Conservative Party has long since discarded? Probably. (Manning's a smart fella.) But, instead of aiming to have a few Reformers, working with Progressive Conservatives and others, maybe, acting on those good ideas in Parliament, we have the dream of a majority government.

Permit me to be rhetorical for a moment (because I *know* you'll want to jump in here otherwise), ;-) but what do the Liberals stand for right now? Why is the NDP, a domestically-focused party if there ever was one, so concerned with our mission in Afghanistan? This ambiguity comes, in large part, from the quest for votes: spread yourself far and wide, avoid talk of what can't realistically be accomplished in a term, make yourself stand out against the other guy, etc.

All that has very little to do with running the country, and yet, if we aren't in the middle of an election, it feels like the next one is just around the corner, the way this sort of stuff continues. Now I know you want to jump in here again with a minority government comment, :-) and there's certainly merit in the argument that that's precisely why they aren't effective; however, I would argue that there's a chance (a good chance, I think) that the possibility of a majority government, and the associated stability, becomes fixated in the minds of all the leading parties, impairing their ability to work in the present; that is, that a minority government could work, if all the parties would stop thinking of it as a temporary state, in which they must vie for future control.

It may seem a bit chaotic, but what if each party put forward half a dozen reasoned and realistic proposals, and, once elected, worked in coalitions to see them come to fruition. As opposed to this “Yup, we do that!” “Cover all the bases” approach to getting elected, you would have parties truly focusing on what was: 1) salient; and 2) achievable, presumably with help of public consultation and informed intellectuals and professionals. Now, if you continued to put forward salient and realistic proposals that became successful policy, you'd probably end up with a majority government eventually, but you'd never be the behemoth that a coalition of parties - each with a few good proposals that they're looking to round-robin in, if you will – couldn't take down. None of this change for the sake of change (“What've you done for us this past decade!”) that just destroys a party, and, frankly, often has little to do with their policies.

Then, leaping off your butt thought, :-) maybe someone would come up with a realistic approach to settling these Aboriginal claims once and for all – because I'm sure there are enough Canadians that would like to put that guilt behind them to get that party elected – establishing an independent board or whatever they decided, and, bang, five or ten years from now, we'd be done with it. Then if, five years down the road, anyone protested any particular deal that had been reached between that board and their representatives, and decided to block a rail line, for example, off to jail they go; the end.

There are problems with this 'coalition' idea, I know, but I truly believe that the quest for and complacency of majority governments isn't the best we can do. Look at the U.S. right now: how many nutbars do both the Republicans and the Democrats end up including under their umbrellas in the quest for power? Hearing some senators speak, it's hard to believe that two-party system has lasted this long.

As for the reasoning behind allotting some tax revenue for party promotion, I can only speculate. Like you, I don't think this is the best we can do; however, I am firmly against the idea of party election campaigns being privately funded, at least as the system currently stands. The longstanding parties have an enormous advantage as it is. There needs to be a means for the little guy to get his name out there. Again, I don't think we're best-served by this marketing-heavy system (“Hey, I recognize that guy's name; I'll vote for him.”), but since we're stuck with it for now, public funding and overall caps are the best way to level the playing field.

"simply because I wanted to see more parties in Pa...

2006-10-19T22:00:00.000-04:00

"simply because I wanted to see more parties in Parliament"

There any particular reason for this?

Consensus on major policy changes will generally only ever be achieved when there's a majority gov't in power. Spreading out the seats among many parties reduces the likelihood of that happening, essentially stalling Canada in its current state. Not something to be desired in my books.

An example I'll yank outta my right butt cheek. Supposing the conservatives never get a majority, we will never see an end to the 8 Billion+ dollars a year flushed down the drain known as "Indian affairs"...

Oh well, looks like the largest chunk of this pie is going to the "Christian Heritage Pary". I can support that.

Maybe you can educate me, any idea why it is that the gov't decided it was a good idea for taxpayers to foot the marketing bill for each election? If I wanted 1.75 of my money to go to paying for signs with Harper's face on them I'd write em a cheque. Was this some useless attempt at increasing voter participation?

11 April 2006 - that was the date when Mr. Layton ...

2006-09-23T22:41:00.000-04:00

11 April 2006 - that was the date when Mr. Layton had the opportunity to ask those very questions, but alas both the Liberals and the Conservatives had left the House of Commons to continue their discussions at the Martini Ranch (Hy's). So the sound of one hand clapping, if a tree falls in the forest... If the leader of the NDP... you get the idea. It really doesn't matter what Jack thinks nor asks, the fact remains that the NDP will never form the Government, except if Bob Rae is the next leader of the Liberal party. Lest we forget, former NDP Premier of Ontario, but I digress.

UN resolution 1510 determined that the situation in Afghanistan constituted a threat to international peace and security. A catch-all statement/rational if I ever heard one. As I read the Coles Notes version of history of Afghanistan and those that have attempted to conquer it, Moguls, Greeks, Turks, French, British, Russian, etc.

I did come across a statement ...As a result of these traumatic events, the country is is in a rebuilding phase, as it attempts to reconcile the devastation that constant warfare has created, with a new government that seeks to unify and rebuild the country. The country faces numerous problems, ranging from its devastated economy, the return of millions of refugees, continued warlordism, drug trafficking, and a new government that is struggling with the political forces trying to define the sort of country it will become in the 21st century. I wasn't sure if the author was talking about Afghanistan or our situation here in Canada.

Regardless, supporting our troops is paramount, regardless of the mechanism that sent them to Afghanistan or any other past or future distant lands. I guess it is a matter of "noblesse oblige" and despite my concern with our own Canadian economy and the lack of "metrics" of what we have accomplished in Afghanistan, Canada is a member of the UN and needs to support its resolutions or withdraw from the UN, but the effectiveness of the UN and whether is should be dissolved is another entry for another day.

John raises a couple of good points, how do we decide where to send our troops? Especially when Karzai and Pakistan as a whole continue to negotiate with the various factions (playing both sides) because long after the UN/NATO has left the country they will have to continue to live with the various factions. Still no excuse to sleep with the enemy.

I don't care how many or how fast the bunnys are, ...

2006-09-23T21:37:00.000-04:00

I don't care how many or how fast the bunnys are, there is no need for automatic weapons for "recreational" gun enthusiasts. Automatics are meant for the killing fields not gun clubs and plinking cans and bottles off the fence. Instead of spending millions/billions on a gun registry (CGI of Montreal, prime contractor), why don't we have a cyber team surfing the Internet for websites like that of Gill's. Goggling images of guns, goths, etc. is cheaper than any database, plus we could have public servants do it for "free" instead of surfing Monster.ca.

Besides, guns don't kill people, knives kill people, at least that has been the trend in the burg of Ottawa as of late. Maybe we need a knife registry?

On another point, Matthew is incorrect thinking that you need different guns for different types of game, vice prey, that is why there are different types of shot. One shotgun, with the appropriate choke and shot is all you need. For larger game, a higher calibre rifle is required, but this is mostly because the distance between the hunter and hunted. However, one high powered rifle (i.e. 306) is sufficient for most types of game. That said, not much of a sport when you are 400 - 1,000 metres away from the target, using a scope, etc. Plus the beer bags on most hunters have prevented them from seeing their dicks for years, so what chance would they have running from a pissed off bear and/or moose.

Hey dudes, want a real rush? Try bow hunting, where you need to get close enough to take a shot and if you don't happen to drop the bear, moose, etc. while you are trying to "reload" they are charging you with the intention of making you the "prey" and the best bet is to commit hari-kari with the arrow you are trying to restring.

More of my thoughts, tangentially related to this ...

2006-09-19T20:19:00.000-04:00

More of my thoughts, tangentially related to this post, from an out-of-band conversation on the shooting:

I agree that there is a price to pay for living as we do, free to do as we please to such a great extent. However, as I think about this more, a couple of thoughts occur: most importantly, are we really seeing an increase in anti-social behaviour - in both the types of activity and the numbers perpetrating it - or an increase in the media covering it and our access to that sort of information in general? And, if it's the former, what are the major factors contributing to this increase?

I suspect we are seeing an increase in anti-social behaviour, and that some of the (significant, if not major) reasons for this are: 1) the diminishing role of the extended family (in North America specifically), and the downright isolation of many "normal" families (i.e., dad, mom and two kids; and that's it for family interaction in their daily lives) - I shamelessly stole this one from Vonnegut, by the way (he's had a lot to say on this subject in his later years); and 2) that young people have too many choices today, which is especially problematic in the more loosely-organized households.

But, again, that's just speculation on my part.

The second thought that's been rattling around in my head is that, assuming the previous increase, and assuming we successfully identify and start to address the contributing factors (*big* assumptions, I know, but bear with me), we still have to deal with the dysfunctional people we've produced to date (and will continue to produce, since no solution is perfect). And while I take your point concerning the difficulty in identifying them such that they can rightfully be detained, I see a couple of possibilities.

First, I think there is some merit in behavioural profiling, when it's done properly - poor behavioural profiling often descends to utterly useless racial profiling. I enjoy the example of Ahmed Ressam, who'd planned to attack the L.A. airport on the eve of the year 2000. An alert border guard noticed that Ressam seemed unusually uncomfortable - sweating profusely, etc. - as he attempted to enter Oregon from B.C. with his bomb components in the trunk of his car. Ressam ran and was apprehended months before he'd planned to attack.

Second, following on that, we need to design our security systems such that we maximize this sort of 'checkpoint' - in a looser sense of the word - with a properly trained individual or two. I don't know whether this is true, but, to bring this back to the events in Montreal, I read some information on how Gill's semi-automatic weapon is normally registered in Canada. There's supposedly a background check, training, etc. It seems to me that there should be some opportunity to sit down with this registrant and get a sense of where they're at, psychologically. A fifteen-minute interview as part of the background check, or even just a properly trained mental-health professional on hand, but in the background, of one of these training sessions. I haven't worked out the details, obviously, but it seems to me that if we're taking the time to ensure these potential gun owners meet certain criteria, mental health should fit in their somewhere (and not as a one-time check either).

Thanks for breaking out the hunting point: I hadn'...

2006-09-14T21:50:00.000-04:00

Thanks for breaking out the hunting point: I hadn't thought of that legitimate need for a shotgun. The "Beretta CX4 Storm semi-automatic rifle" is another story, as you say.

On blame, you're saying this is the price of living free then? Some people will act in an anti-social manner (in the extreme, in this case), and will subsequently be punished for it? That's where I'm leaning, anyway, as I dwell on it a bit more. That, and that parents need to be more involved in their children's lives (I say from my high childless pedestal, granted).

You know they'll be as many angles as you can count on this, though, even setting aside the gun-registry conflagration that's about to erupt. His reference to video games gives the Grand Theft Auto haters fresh ammo, the Internet censors'll be all over his blog...