M.A.D. and how it is was saving the world.

Alright, hopefully this will be a short entry....About Nuclear War... (maybe some day a short post will find its way here.)

On May 26 1972, that dastardly American President Richard Nixon signed a treaty with General Secretary of the Communist Party (USSR) called the Anti-Ballistic Missiles Treaty. The treaty in essence stated that neither of the two nuclear super powers, who were at the time locked into the Cold War, would build defenses against the other nation's missiles. This at first glance seems like one of the most bizarre concepts in international affairs and warfare. 'I agree to let you attack me, as long as you agree to let me attack you.' This on the surface seems to be a counter productive treaty designed to draw the Cold War on, and put innocent lives at risk. However the treaty was designed around an incredibly perverse rule of logic that has become a mainstay of international affairs.This is the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

After the Atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the final feud of the Second World War, it became apparent that Homo Sapiens had finally become the bearers of the tools for their own annihilation. This realization was best verbalized by the lead scientist of the Manhattan Project (the atomic bomb development project) J. Robert Oppenheimer when he quoted hindu scripture stating "I am become death, destroyer of worlds" to which his colleague replied "Now we are all sons of bitches." The creators of the bomb understood far better than anyone else the incredible reprecussions of opening the Pandora's Box that was atomic warfare. (The I am become death line is one of the most chilling quotes I have ever heard, though it is unclear if he said it at the time of the testing or if he thought it and mentioned it later).

back on point now... with the apocalyptic power of nuclear weaponry came an entirely new kind of warfare, and an entirely new set of logic with which to wage war. MAD became a point of stability and safety in the least likely place. The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction is that both superpowers have enough nuclear weaponry to completely destroy the other state. COMPLETELY as in lay waste to the entire territory and all of its inhabitants, and the hapless nations nearby. Also both nations had the quick launch ability to respond to this attack before the aggressors attack had actually reached its targets. This means that one of the only reasons Nuclear bombs were not launched is beacuse each country knew that if they launched their arsenal of weapons, the other would respond in kind, destroying both states. Hence Mutually Assured Destruction.

The ABMT was signed to ensure that this function would continue to operate. If one nation were to build a missile defense, then that nation would be able to comfortably launch their weapons with the knowledge that they were safe from any reprisal, negating M.A.D.. While it seems bizarre, this notion of MAD helps to prevent war. A sort of anti-arms build up.

In 2002 George W. Bush withdrew from the ABMT and began preparations for the construction of a missile defence program. At the time, Canada was invited/asked to participate in the program so that the defence stations could be built in Canada's northern territories. Then Prime Minister Paul Martin reluctantly declined under public pressure, and saved Canada from becoming a participant in the reintroduction of Nuclear buildup. Not long after the demise of the ABMT and Mutually Assured Destruction, North Korea withdrew from its obligations of non proliferation, and has since become a nuclear power. While two other nations have begun their own not-so-covert research into nuclear weaponry.

So that wasn't a short post, or a post with an end or argument. I have just found the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction to be an astounding example of how complex and difficult international politics can be.

Why tax cuts cost you money.... Also INTERNET TAX

On the political landscape of Canada today, one of the most telling ways that a party can be placed on the left/right spectrum is by their approach to taxes. The parties on the left wing, such as the Green and the NDP have no problem suggesting that taxes are necessary to fund programs or shift spending habits. The Green for example propose a policy of Carbon Taxing (charging for using fossil fuels) which far exceeds the amount that the Liberals are proposing. The NDP also have no qualms with using taxes to get the funding they need.  Right Wingers on the other hand think that the citizens should have the choice to decide for themselves what they want and need. Prime Minister  Stephen Harper and the Conservative party over their time in power have cut 2% off of the GST, surely everyone knows that. Harper believes that the government should have less control over the finances of the average Canadian. 

Harpers approach sounds like it gives Canadians a lot more freedom, after all isnt that supposed to be what government is about? Freedom? I am hoping to keep this blog relatively balanced, and declare my biases as needed, so here I declare that I support the left, and whole heartedly disagree with Stephen Harper's approach.

The problem with tax cuts is that the money from taxes is used for something. We don't pay taxes just so that the politicians in Ottawa can get a paycheque, we pay taxes because the government does a lot for its citizens that require funding. The obvious sacred example is Universal Health care, each province is required by the Canadian government to provide free health care to every Canadian, if you are sick, someones going to help you, regardless of your wealth or ability to pay it back. Most of our health care is paid by our Provincial taxes, but the federal government has a hand in it too through Provincial funding programs.

The example of health care may not be the most relevant example but it carries the most shock value so I use it. But here is an example of service cuts. Cultural funding has become the hot button topic. when Harper cut taxes ($200 billion total) he started to chop away at the arts programs, things such as funding Canadian based television shows no longer get the same sized government grants. The funding cuts look to amount to about $50 million from the arts. You may be saying 'I totally don't care about Canadian television, it always sucked anyways, except of course Corner Gas'  Thats fair, the fact that arts are losing funding won't bother you too much. But stop for a second and think, if the Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission had budgeted X amount of dollars for 2009, and now knows it won't get it, what are they going to do? The practical option would be to rebudget, but no matter how they do that someone is going to be pissed. Instead, they have to find other ways to come up with that money, Heres one option:

The Toronto Star ran a story today with the shocking headline Internet Tax. The idea is that the CRTC is considering making Internet providers include an additional fee for your service, sort of like the $6.95 service fee you pay for your cell phone.  Well this is just a preliminary idea, but they do have the ability to do it. So what do you think about your tax cut now? The 2% less you pay when buying goods is just redistributed to other fees elsewhere. If you have to pay a fee to use the internet (let's say $5 a month) just to cover $50 Million, where is the other $199,950,000,000.00 going to come from? you will either end up paying for it elsewhere financially, or through a reduction in services. Imagine waiting 6 months for your passport to arrive because the passport office had to cut jobs. or waiting for 6 hours in line to get your Social Insurance Numbere issued.  I am being alarmist I know, but what I am saying is taxes do something for you, when you pay less taxes, those things will be reduced. 

Nobody likes the Government in their pocket, but I submit to you that our pockets would be more empty if they took their hands out.

Election Info

Alright at the request of a friend, here is all the online information you need to make an educated vote on the 14th.

elections.ca - has all the information that is important to you individually, including where to vote, and who's running in your riding. Just enter your postal code on the main screen, then follow the FAQ's on the next page.

Major Party websites and platforms (Alphabetical).

Conservatives - Stephen Harper:

Main Site

The conservatives have not issued an official platform, but here is their policy page

Green Party - Elizabeth May

Main Site

Platform  - (PDF)

Liberals - Stephane Dion

Main Site

Platform - (PDF)

New Democratic Party - Jack Layton

Main Site

Platform - (PDF)

I have decided that I have a right to.......Anything I want.

Alright everybody, this is really important. please spread to everyone you know. I have just recieved word that if 1 Million people comment on my blog by October 14th than the Governor General will declare the Green Party as the new majority government in Canada. Please spread quickly.

Do you remember when you used to get this sort of email from one of your buddy's in your hotmail account. 'Forward this to everyone on your list, or they are going to close hotmail'. I used to fantasize that it was actually a virus, but it wasn't, it was just dumbass gullible friends letting the culture of fear (fear of losing hotmail no less) get the better of them. The latest version of this is the 'If you join this than.... ' Facebook Group. I am not trying to lump in the 'If 1,000 people join I will shave my head' style groups, they are fun lighthearted, and often do accomplish whatever stupid goal that is set out by the creator. To those groups I say 'Create on oh Frat Boy Jock, create on'. I am talking about the Groups like "If 1,000,000 people join by the end of the year than they will turn Facebook back to the old version." I am becoming so tired of these groups for two major reasons. 1) The Sense of entitlement that is inferred in the title 2) The wasted use of democratic energy.

So as most people who use facebook know, they changed the layout again. Guess what? people are bitching. What is it about change on facebook that people so detest? The new facebook is just as useful as the old one, it just looks different (cleaner, more organized). So why are people moaning? because, as my ever faithful (I hope) future wife likes to say "CHANGEBAD" The kneejerk reaction to change causes people to react swiftly and in this case angrily. But heres the part where my sympathy is really lost. In the case of Facebook many people feel that they have a RIGHT to the old style facebook. Many of the groups that exist use phrasing which often states outright 'our right' or implies it. In the world of Facebook, users have no rights. In fact in the world of online memberships, users HAVE NO RIGHTS. Those wonderboys who created and administer it whatever their names may be have all the rights. Facebook is not owned by its members, it is a club which allows people to join. If the creator wanted to change it to a satan worshipping site, he could, it would be perfectly within his right to do so. So when the creators introduce a new system, they have every right to change it. the only reason they have to listen to their members is because they want to maintain membership. Let's face it, people arent going to stop using facebook tomorrow. They will eventually, sometime down the road Facebook will fade into oblivion, but people will have seen many other format changes before that day comes.

The second problem with these groups is the hypocrisy inherent in their creation. The fact that hundreds upon thousands of people will get up in arms about haveing to learn a new format in which to check out their bff's pictures of that wild party last year, is offensive. Where is the showing of democratic solidarity against a government which is slashing health care funding, or extending wars unncessarily. In my first blog I mentioned the disturbing decline in voter turnout, especially amongst youth. we (I use we because I fall into the demographic referenced as youth currently) are able to muster outrage and energy to bitch about facebook changes, yet we wont bother excercising our ACTUAL RIGHT to vote and participate in the governance of our daily lives. This sounds like the same arguement that all the old codgers yell about 'Kids today' but if we put aside our gut reaction to reject my cliched rant, it becomes clear that a reorientation of priorities is urgently need. So I say again, forget about facebook, it doesnt matter, lets look outside the bedroom window to the world we live in, and state clearly I WANT TO PARTICIPATE. Vote on October 14th please.

Organized Atheism

Lindsay and I just saw the movie 'Religulous' by Bill Maher yesterday. For those that don't know him, Maher is a very politically charged comedian, or a very humorous political commentator, its hard to say. He hosts a talk show in which he interviews guests of all political varieties. I was not really familiar with him until this movie, and I must say, I am glad I didnt know him because I sure don't want to know him now.

The movie is a documentary on religion, but its not really clear that there is a thesis or driving point at all. Bill Maher is an atheist and he makes that clear quickly. The movie consists of him going around and asking people of different religions to explain some of the most inexplicable passages of the bible. His mission it appears is to make people who will never admit that they are wrong, look like idiots on camera. Asking questions about scripture, and then mocking the answers he recieves. At one point a man is talking about the little miracles he had experienced throughout his life, like putting a glass out the window and asking for water, only to have it start raining. Maher openly mocks him, and tells him that the coincidences in his life are pathetic excuses for miracles. Maher concludes his two hour 'Look at the dumb fundamentalists, lets all point and laugh, MOCKumentary' with a call to arms. Maher calls for all the Atheists of the world to stand up and let themselves be known, establishing themselves as an entity.

This brings us to the meat of this entry. The new movement of Organized Atheism, an ideological shift which has seen the worlds doubters come together to create a new market for the product of reassurance and validation. Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion became an international hit a few years ago and has become, in my mind, a milestone in the creation of this market. I have not fully read this book, in fact, I have barely started it, I hope one day I will finish it so that I can speak on it with more intelligence than I can now. The reason I have not read the book, is that I could tell early on that I would be offended by the tone of the book, a mocking, self righteous tone that felt unnecessary. What is the source of this new kind of Atheism? I am not sure but I know I don't like it.

Bill Maher, and Richard Dawkins are set to become the new deities for a religion of skeptics, but why do we need them, why do we even need to be a we. The only unifying thing about atheists is that we don't share a belief in a higher being. Is that what we share, nothing, is that something to build a cultural movement around? I havent been to a meeting of Non-Alcoholics un-anonymous, should I start my own? do we need to get together every saturday night and talk about how obviously right we are that there is no higher power. I often believe that people are most fundamental about their beliefs when they need to be reassured that they are right. The most avid churchgoers might go so often because they need the constant reassurance that there is a God above them. So would the Dawkins United Non-Church of Toronto have a strong following of people who were scared that they were about to start believing?? The new cult of Atheism scares me.

The call to arms in the last 5 minutes of Religulous was incredibly disturbing. Maher was talking about coming together under atheism while images of war were playing behind him. He was trying to reference the dangers of Religous zeal, but how different would organized atheism be? Maher is the kind of person that I think of when i think about a religious nut. Someone who no longer possesses logic or reason, but is blind in his cause.

Atheism is not about anything, it is not about believing anything in particular, nor following any staunch guideline. To me being an atheist is just having one less thing to worry about. I don't need to read books to prove how right I am, and now I know that I don't need to watch movies to prove how wrong all those believers are.

I think the kind of atheism I like best is found in the strip above. it is self deprecating, and yet a little bit of a paradox but fun and light hearted. Sort of.

The Vote

One of the most popular essay topics for undergrad Political Science students is 'Voter Turnout'.  In my final year at U of T I took a course called Party Politics, or some variation of that. The course was taught by professor Michael Stein, a wonderful professor, who was very ummm professorial in his approach. He seemed to care more about the material than the academic process, which is the kind of professor we need more of. The first essay assignment was a ten pager due at Christmas. The list of topics was fairly long. but when Prof. Stein returned them he announced that half of the class had written on the declining voter turnout in Canada. I had chosen to write about the electoral reform proposal in the Ontario provincial election, but the voter turnout wasn't far behind.

Looking back on it now, i'm a little confused about why my class cared so much but Canadians at large don't seem as interested. Either way I think that the declining voter turnout is tragic, and worthy of great more concern than we are giving it.

In 2007 only 52.1% of eligible voters turned out to cast their vote. Thats ridiculous, thats insane. If we were running a poll or survey, than yes a 52% sample is huge, but for an election thats not acceptable. in 1975 (the farthest back Elections ontario publishes on their main page) voter turnout was just shy of 70%. I suppose that I can't come up with any new theory about why our democratic participation is nose diving into apathy but I can certainly address some of the causes.

Most people point to younger generations and say 'They are the problem, they aren't voting'   this is true, they/we aren't, in fact I believe that something like on 25% of eligible voters under 30 actually vote (a figure I pulled out of my head, that I heard once somewhere, don't take as gospel).    I often hear the same response from many of my peers when asked about participation; 'I don't vote cause they are all the same and they all suck'   I call BULLSHIT, that has become the cliched automated response of our generation, apparently its the easy way to say 'I'm too lazy' without actually admitting that you don't know what your talking about. Only once have I ever spoken to someone who could intelligently back up this statement (Winnie) and it sounds like she is going to vote anyways.

I guess the biggest problem I have with this aweful, pathetic apathy is that people still complain about politicians, and how Stephen Harper/Paul Martin/Jean Chretien......./whoevers name is easy to remember when needing to sound intellectual...is destroying the country.   I am sure glad that people can notice these things, but if they didn't vote than they are part of the problem.   Voting is the one part of being a Citizen that I feel is a fundamental obligation. In fact, I believe that a system of fines for not voting should be in place. This would not mean that you would have to pick a candidate, if you truly felt that all the candidates were detestable, than spoil the ballot. A spoiled ballot is counted as such, and if counted in great quantities could be a signal for change. In fact if large portions of the ballots were spoiled, it would deligitimize the elected government, and possibly cause an emergency electoral reform.

Let's look at how essential voting is. Using the Ontario election of 2007 as an example.

52.1% of the electorate actually showed up to vote. Thats 4.5 million out of an eligible 8.6 million voters.   of that 4.5 million  approximately 1.9 million voted for the winning party (the liberals) thats 42% of the valid ballots cast.  So what we have is a government in power who was chosen by less than 25% of the eligible public.    Again, in a random survey that would stand up as a valid sample size. But we know that this is not a random 25% that has cast this ballot don't we.  earlier I mentioned that only 25% of youths are voting, and it has been drilled into our heads (at least in poli sci) that the educated upper class tends to vote much more regularly, and with much higher turnout than any other demographic. Now I'm not in the mood to try to figure out who the educated upper class is, but a reasonable guess would say that I mean wealthy, white people.

So what we are left with is a party in power that was only picked by rich white people. Isn't that what people have bitched about all along??? well guess what, its not some conspiracy, its a lack of voting, if your not voting, than you are contributing to this problem.

This feels eerily like the election for Head Girl and Head Boy in High School, ever notice that it was usually the really "popular" cliqueish ones who won?? Im guessing because the only people who actually gave two shits were their friends.

This blog hasn't turned out to be as coherent or intelligently phrased as I had hoped, so perhaps I will edit it later. But the end message is this.   Voting is an essential OBLIGATION of citizenship, a government cannot govern according to your desires if they don't know what you want, they arent going to chase you down to ask you they'll just assume you agree with them.

If you don't vote then you can't complain about how bad the government is doing, because you helped them do that bad job.

On October 14th do one thing for your country.  take the five minutes needed to mark an 'X' on the ballot. If you don't know about the party's then find out. Every party has their platforms available on their respective websites, and believe it or not, the platforms are not crazy legalese, or even that long they are, written for the average voter. so its not terribly difficult.

Give it a shot, lets see if we can't get more than 52% of the vote out.