Friends are Electric

Growing up I do not know when I became aware of the uncomfortable fact.

It may have been on television, not the news but popular programming. There was almost never any that featured us. When people like us were featured, it was in a mocking way.

It may have been Aux Trois Moulins (The Three Mills), a local restaurant. I can not remember a time when there were three mills in operation. There were two for a time, and now one.

It may have been that whenever something burned down nothing was ever built to replace it. The main street has at least three gravel lots where businesses once stood, although two of them predate my memory.

Thinking about it noww, all of these things, and others, are responsible. Their impressions build up over time. I do not think I ever consciously became aware of the fact until I left. But it was there. Day in, day out, we lived with it. Struggled with it. Endured it.

My home town was dying. Is still dying. And, baring any unlikely reversal of fortune, will die.

Some day Chapleau, Ontario, will be a ghost town.

I have seen the end. On one edge of town is a street. It is lined with houses on one side, like any other street in town, and the other the Chapleau River. When I was in grade school I had friends who lived in these houses. I do not recall when they moved away, as more people than I can remember did (and I myself did eventually), but I know that no one has lived on that street since. The houses are boarded up and run down.

Forgotten.

Forgotten will be the terminal state of the town. Just like these houses. Boarded up, with trees and grasses overgrowing everything. And then decay.

When I think about why the cracked highway overgrown with grass had a profound effect on me, the image forever ingrained in my memory, it must be because I know that is what Chapleau will come to. My obsession with the world moving on, my love of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, games and film comes from my upbringing. From the subconscious foreboding that permeated the air, the faint smell of death.

But as much as I deeply love my home town, I can never go back. Its Chiché to say, but its true. I, too, have moved on.

When I was twelve or thirteen years old, I took a trip to Timmins, Ontario with my parents. Maybe it was later, the year does not stick with me, it is unimportant. Trips to Timmins were frequent enough that this one should hold no memories for me, no meaning. And it would not except for something I saw on the way.

We had stopped along highway 101, probably for the call of nature. The sun was bright in the sky, which itself was a deep and vibrant shade of blue. When I think back to growing up in Northern Ontario, the sky rarely stands out. The sky there always seems dull in my memory, as though the colour was washed out. But not this day, or maybe it is only my memory playing tricks on me. Either way, I remember they sky being unusually blue. We were walking along a side road, probably an old logging road, to the south of the highway.

We came around a bend and there it was. I did not take pictures. I had no camera, could not have taken them if i wanted to. Not that it matters, the image is clear to me even now. We had found a stretch of the highway from a previous alignment.

(Background information, highways in Northern Ontario frequently change their course, they generally start out meandering lazily along and are straightened out and shortened with each reworking.)

The old highway was beautiful. My mind recalls it to be as straight as an arrow, but this is likely not true. It had tree branches overhanging it from both sides. The dashed yellow line was clearly visible along the centre of the paved surface, which was itself broken by frost into many scale like fragments. Grass grew up from the cracks. The wind caused the overhanging trees and the grasses to move gently.

I have a fascination with things people leave behind. With old highways. Abandoned bridges. Forgotten foundations. The image above was taken at South Baymouth on Manitoulin Island. It stands on a point near the harbour, beyond it is Lake Huron. These relics, when I see them, almost call out to me. To be admired, to be photographed.

Maybe I want to understand why things were left. Why is there a chimney facing Lake Huron? What happened to the rest of the house? Who lived there, where did they go? Thinking about it, however, I feel as though I am more interested in the structures than their stories. The world seems to move blindingly fast. It is the defiant timelessness of these artifacts appeals to me.

Unlike last night, where live-Tweeting the English language debate just happened, I set out tonight with the plan of doing the same for the French language debate. I do not speak French well enough to follow the debate in French, so I watched the dubbed version broadcast on the CBC website. Commentary follows.

<8:06> Not the rules as I understand them #constitution #db8 #elxn41

<8:08> Duceppe: Coalitions are legitimate. (again, why does he have to be a separatist?) #db8 #elxn41

<8:09> Ignatieff is already on the talking points, already repeated himself four times. #db8 #elxn41

<8:15> The Liberals are the clear alternative. So I've been told eight times. #db8 #elxn41

<8:19> Love these hockey references #elxn41 #db8

<8:25> Tax hikes will cause the apocalypse. #elxn41 #db8

<8:28> Layton is on about ebil banks again #db8 #elxn41

<8:35> Harper: If we raise taxes, gravity will reverse, the oceans will boil and the sun will cease to glow. #elxn41 #db8

<8:37> Duceppe states facts on forestry job losses, comparing to auto industry. Only one saying anything interesting. #db8 #elxn41

<8:47> Fun fact, crime rate in more rural provinces are higher than in cities. http://is.gd/HmYgQb. #elxn41 #db8 #guncontrol

<8:48> Than in more urban provinces*

<8:49> Here comes the dodging on Bill 101 again. #db8 #elxn41

<8:54> Eyebrows #db8

<9:04> Is it just me or does Layton's translator sound like an Irish John Wayne? #db8

<9:10> Last I heard Nutrition North wasn't so great #db8 #elxn41

<9:11> http://is.gd/8cRDKO for example on Nutrition North #nunatsiaq #db8 #elxn41

<9:12> The old food-mail program ended last fall, Nutrition North just started this month. Thats a large time delay. #db8 #elxn41

<9:33> Ignatieff is defiantly no Trudeau. #db8 #elxn41

<9:33> Fun fact: Quebec is against Aboriginal sovereignty. Sovereignty for them but no one else. Just like what he said about Canada. #db8 #elxn41

<9:35> I call BS on the billions to forestry. #db8 #elxn41

<9:44> No, Layton, the Harper government is in power because of #voters. Like it or not. #db8 #elxn41

<9:45> Ignatieff criticizing someone for wanting to be everything to everyone is kinda rich. #db8 #elxn41

<9:49> If you want to invest $12B in jobs, etc., then invest $12B, buying planes and HOPING that some jobs are made is weak policy. #db8 #elxn41

<9:55> Canada in Haiti? Don't make me laugh. We are a colonial power in Haiti. http://is.gd/kR38fm #rabble #haiti #db8 #elxn41

I did not plan to do this prior, it just happened. I missed the first 10 minutes because I was making dinner which is why there are no comments on subjects covered during this time. Missing are comments others made. Without further adieu:

<7:21> Layton has got some really good lines in, Harper handling himself quite well. #db8 #cdnpoli

<7:26> Jack Layton is really good at changing the subject, I didn't even notice him do it. #db8 #elxn41

<7:28> Canadian mission in Haiti? Don't get me started. #db8 #elxn41

<7:40> Did #Harper really just imply he was not as responsible for mud-slinging as the rest of them? #db8 #elxn41

<7:43> Majority government puts country at greater risk than many minority governments. Liberal or Conservative are both bad in majority. #elxn41

<7:46> So sick of hearing about the economy. That is not the only issue here. #elxn41 #db8

<7:47> Wrong. The childish bickering is part of what is important. #elxn41 #db8

<7:51> Harper: blatant lies about the nature of Canadian government. Again. Unsurprising. #coalitions #db8 #elxn41

<7:53> Party that finishes does not necessarily form government. Coalitions are reasonable and quite legal. Stop the #lies. All of you. #db8

<7:57> Like what Layton is saying, but way off topic again. #db8 #elxn41 #electoralreform

<8:05> Layton, you are debating Duceppe, not Harper... #elxn41 #db8

<8:09> Annnd Duceppe blows Layton out of the water at the end of their one on one. #elxn41 #db8

<8:31> Layton, again, off topic. He is really good at this. #db8 #elxn41

<8:45> Gilles Duceppe, why do you have to be a separatist? Only reasonable person in this debate. #elxn41 #db8

<8:55> Taxes hurt growth. [citation needed]. #elxn41 #db8

I consider myself to be a pacifist by nature. I do not consider violence to be an acceptable way to respond to problems. I think that it should be our goal to be able to abolish the apparatus of state violence. However, we do not live in a world where this is an acceptable course of action. So, given that we must have a military for the foreseeable future, we should seek to use it in the most effective way possible.

It goes without saying that the primary use of a military force is self defence. Here I mean true self defence of a reactionary nature. The value of preventative war is a very interesting and important question but not within the scope I intend to present here. However, everything that follows would apply to the notion of preventive war as well as other forms of violence. Beyond pure self defence, the use of our military should be in serving important values, for example those guaranteed in the universal declaration of human rights. While this is not always the outcome, I would argue that it is the intention of peacekeeping missions. We are, however, not currently engaging in peace keeping. We are engaging in an occupation. Again, I am not going to get into the ethics of our participation in the occupation of Afghanistan, I’m just going to take it as a given that we are there for some reason.

So the use of military force aught to have stated purpose. If there is a purpose then there can be a `win’ condition. Put simply, the purpose of the armed forces is to win wars. Everything said until now is elaboration on this point. By logical extension, if the armed forces are not winning wars then they are not surviving their purpose to society. If they are winning wars in an ineffective way then they are also failing their purpose.

The First World War provides an excellent example of winning a war in an extremely ineffective way. It was a very blunt strategy, very brutish and simple. Send waves and waves of men until either we or the opponent could send no more. The first side to run out of troops would be defeated, although the cost to the winning side would be huge as well. Since we were on the side with a larger population, we were victorious. Every general, every strategist of the day aught to have been banished for such behaviour. They forgot that their purpose was to win wars as quickly and painlessly as possible. Instead their ineptitude lead to a four year bloodbath. They failed at their jobs utterly.

The Second World War was hardly better, however it does provide some examples of war being fought properly. The German invasion of France is an example of war being fought properly, it was quick and decisive. The rest of the war, however, was largely fought with the same blunt stupidity as the First World War. For example, despite outnumbering the Germans, out-gunning them and enjoying air superiority, the march from Normandy to Berlin took nearly a whole year, and even then we never made it because the USSR beat us to it.

To mention Vietnam here beyond name is unnecessary. The most advanced and heavily armed force in the world was defeated by a small third world country because the Americans lacked strategy. Their military failed in their most basic purpose, to win wars.

Iraq was the same story, although they have managed to pull off some concession victory after nearly a decade. Even if victory was eventually achieved, it was not effective and was still a failure. Afghanistan is no better.

The Americans did pull off something in Iraq. We won the world wars. These are all cases of extremely blunt strategy pulling through. This is, however, not an endorsement of this bluntness. Bluntness, which is really stupidity, is a luxury that the huge can rely on. The Allies of the world wars were on the larger side so they could survive a pyrrhic victory. The Americans in Iraq, or indeed Vietnam, could provide enough bodies to make the opponent give up under the crushing weight of their numbers. A case can be made that every empire has won its hegemony through these blunt tactics.

We in Canada are not a superpower. We are a middle power. We are fortunate enough to lack the luxury of hugeness. However, this poses a major problem when we get caught up in superpower wars of attrition. We lack the manpower, the equipment and the financial resources to utilize this strategy. To be completely politically incorrect about the situation (and please ignore the initial kneejerk reaction you will have at the next sentence) we should be mimicking the tactics of the Taleban rather than the Americans in Afghanistan. This is not to say we should have our troops commit suicide attacks, which is unethical and ineffective. Nor is it suggesting that we should plant IEDs, the removal of landmines from most of the armies of the world was a positive step not to be repealed. But the Taleban, and indeed most people fighting in resistance movements across the world, are the ones actually capable of winning wars, although sometimes superpowers can bleed them into submission.

With all this in mind, how do we react when the Conservative government decides to spend billions of dollars on stealth fighters? Who are we going to use such fighters against? The justification is to defend our Arctic sovereignty. If the interest is in protecting the Canadian Arctic then perhaps a few fighters are appropriate. I’d favour a solution involving expanding the Ranger program, essentially spending some of the money on snowmobiles, which are much cheaper than fighter aircraft, and hiring otherwise unemployed residents of the territories. This would provide a Canadian presence in the Arctic at the same time as building the idea of Canada and goodwill towards the country with the residents of the region.

So who are we to use these aircraft against? I have no evidence for it in any way, but I am reminded of something John Ralston Saul wrote on a similar topic. His argument was that we are not capable of winning the wars we actually fight because we are too busy planning to fight the Soviet Union in Europe. I think that the government is purchasing these aircraft to fight the Soviet threat.

Soviet threat? How can that be, there has been no USSR for two decades? But that is the point. Although they might not realize it, and I would hardly blame someone who grew up and came of age at the height of the cold war for having the cold war mindset as second nature even now, I think that our leaders, both civilian and military, are still preparing for the ground war of World War Three, perhaps out of some intellectual equivalent of muscle memory.

Fighter aircraft are tremendously blunt. They are excellent for targeting conventional armies with conventional supply lines and conventional defences. They fail utterly when the enemy, their equipment and their resources are just not there. They are not useful for the wars we find ourselves in. A telling example of their uselessness in these types of wars is how frequently wedding parties are mistaken for enemy fighters. I’m sure that from the air its a reasonable mistake to make, but few things are going to sour relations with the people we are attempting to help more quickly than killing people on their wedding day.

So what, then, should we do? Its a lot easier to criticize than it is to work to improve a situation. In that regard I fail at the follow through. I know that the type of armed forces we have had for a century is incapable of fighting and winning the wars we will find ourselves in. I know that this either means we get used to failure, we refuse to participate or we adapt. We will not get used to failure as quickly enough political parties will realize that becoming involved in a losing situation will result in their loss at the poles. I cannot accept refusal to participate in the defence of human rights, although this is itself a topic for another day. This leaves adaptation.

Adoption will result in much less certainty. It will result in a decrease in top-down command, in command from the home front. To fight effectively we must be ready and able to take advantage of slight changes in the situation quickly and effectively. This requires training in recognizing these situations and in what reaction is most appropriate. It requires risk taking, which is by definition risking lives. An air war is a low body count war (for the air superiority side) but it is a lost war, victory does not come without risk and loss of life. By the book training cannot cover these topics, only exercises and war games, as well as front line experience, can create the intuition required to be victorious in this type of conflict.

As I said at the opening, I do not wish to have a military. But to achieve such an idealistic goal, if it is possible to achieve, the world must be made ready. Violence is a poor substitute for diplomacy, but sometimes it seems that it is needed to make diplomacy work. Being realistic about the existence of the Canadian armed forces means that it must be an effective force, not a clumsy one. To serve Canadians, which is their purpose, they must be prepared to win the conflicts which they are placed in. Since every conflict since the Second World War has been a guerilla war to an extend, perhaps it is time that we accepted this reality, stopped calling our adversaries cowardly for refusing to engage us on our terms, and put a real effort into achieving victory.

An idealist is someone who follows a set of beliefs blindly, with no regard to the real world, and hopes to have the world adopt their ideas. There is usually negativity in the word, as someone who is an idealist lacks meaningful contact with the real world where they actually dwell.

I think that this is moderately backwards. Certainly there are some traces of idealism in those who, often correctly, point out how we as humans could be better. These people, however, are not the truest idealists. Nor are they the ones deserving of the condescending undertone of the term.

The true idealists in the world today are those who seriously think that we, as individuals, as a city, province, country or world can continue to live the way we live without consequence. Without change. Without taking active part in this change. The idealists are those who preach the preeminence of the market’s god-hand in deciding fate. They fail to grasp the true interconnectedness of things, the fallacy of universals and the way the world really works.

It is up to those who understand, or at least understand better, to call these people out on their idealism.

Collective punishment is banned by international law in times of conflict. Rightfully so, one is responsible for their own actions but certainly not for those of another. War can never be civilized, but it can be made easier for those unfortunate enough to have it find them.

Collective punishment is not legal in Canada. For the same reasons. We would all be against the punishment of an entire city block for the actions of one resident, or the punishment of entire towns for the actions of a few.

But yet, it exists. Not in the violent sense mentioned above, not here and now at least (whether the war in Afghanistan is an incidence of collective punishment itself is a question worth discussing).

Insurance, automotive insurance, is an incidence of collective punishment on the basis of age and sex. The onus, instead of being on the companies themselves to prove that the person is unsafe, is on the driver to prove that they are competent. This would be understandable, with age as an approximation of experience, so long as those older people just beginning to drive are also subject to the same fees. And if sex did not factor into it.

But it does. And so the situation is one of collective punishment against young people in general, with young males punished to a greater extent.

Statistics, is claimed, proves that these groups are more likely to be in an accident and are thus more costly to insure. This may be so, but it is the company which must show that a particular person, not a general person, is a greater risk and thus warrants a greater rate. Sexism is unacceptable under all circumstances. Age discrimination is equally unacceptable but a lack of experience is, in this case, I believe a defensible cause for an increased rate.

Current norms are unacceptable, whether or not one could truly qualify them as a case of collective punishment.

A revisit to my dislike of Toronto

To feel belonging to a place is necessary in order to like it. Perhaps not a personal, direct belonging, but at least some form of it. Not necessarily the feeling of `home’, but something like it. A place here can be a physical place, such as a city, town or any other point on a map. It can be a metaphorical place, such as the concept of home. It can be part of society as a whole. In order to belong you must be able to imagine yourself, your place, in it. Without being able to do so you will not be enjoy a place.

Clearly by the above statement and past writings, I cannot imagine a place for myself within Toronto. I am not alone. I have a place elsewhere for myself. The problem comes when both groups, and both groups are guilty, fail to recognize that not all of us can imagine ourselves in the same way as everyone else, and thus, as we all really know, there is no universal place. No clear ideal which everyone must achieve, where everyone must be. The pleasures of life are not the same for everyone, and we all must respect that.

What is the purpose of an education? Forget for a moment post-secondary education specifically. Much more generally: Why do we go to school?

Well, early on we go to school because its the law. Why is it the law? Democracy does not function with an illiterate population. Truly, one of the major reasons why the residents of what would become Canada pushed for self-government is because individual farmers lacked the resources to educate their children on their own. They needed the whole of society to support the education of a child.

Did they want an education for their children so that they could work? In part. They wanted a better life for their children and wanted a better society to live in. Work is part of that, but not even the most important part. Educated masses were the goal, for educated people are more difficult to push around. It was a way to preserve gains.

Fast forward. Why do we go to university? To get work? Hardly. Work is important, and many of us have deluded ourselves into thinking that the goal of our education is a job at the end of it. Like those who believe they are voting for a party or prime minister, they are not exactly wrong, just confused. With government, we elect someone to represent us and indirectly select a governing party and prime minister. With school, the work which comes after is not the goal but a desirable side effect. The goal is to make citizens of students. Citizens who can think and question.

Thats how it is. As for how I think it should be, I believe that the government should only concern themselves with citizenship. Specific technical skills should be left to vocational training, which itself should be handled by the industry or professional organizations. For example, provincial professional engineering organizations should run engineering schools, which may be associated with universities or collages, but not necessarily. Vocational training should feature apprenticeships, much like many collage vocational training programs already do. The focus should be on the utilitarian technical skills rather than abstract knowledge, which belongs in the realm of citizenship focused schools.

The confusion of schooling for knowledge and schooling for technical skills is something I view as negative since it downplays the importance of citizenship in us all. It is something we should focus on repairing.

A carelessly quick survey of a random assortment of websites would make it seem that, in order to be happy, we have to try and become something else, to change ourselves in some way. Most obviously in the form of body enhancement advertisements, but these are some of the less dangerous and least concerning sources. Certainly they are irritating and stupid, but most of us recognize them as such.

The dangerous types are those which attempt to offer the author’s wisdom. As though any happiness, material success or whatever other desirable they are selling is not a product of all of their experiences and was instead caused by a few choices, be they insignificant or not. The author is sincere in his offering and probably believes that the reader can become just like them by following these few steps…

That is not what I shall do. My experiences (and here I go, ignoring what I said above) tell me that universals are false. What works for me, what challenges me, what makes me actually happy with myself will not be the same things that work for you. I spent years studying a topic I did not enjoy, it was hardly challenging. Nor was it easy, but the mundainity of it all made it impossible to derive joy from. Thats the case for me, many of my good friends find the topic to be quite the opposite. Nietzsche was wrong about a whole lot of things, but he spoke true on the need to overcome universals and find what works for you, to see how the other lives.

So here is the challenge. It is simple to state and impossible to implement. Life is the struggle to do so, to me at least.

Live as you want, study and do what makes you happy. Don’t let your pursuit of these things prevent another single person from doing the same. Compromise, sometimes when you do not need to. It makes both your lives better.

Do not be smug or judge other people for taking a different path than your own. Their happiness is not a thing to be ridiculed.

That is it. That is all. As a first step I’d recommend reading a book, a real book. On paper. The medium is the message and the message of the screen is constant interaction and more information than you can ever hope to digest, the book is more calm and suitable for such baby steps.

I’ve written previously about my distaste for Toronto. I’ve also claimed that this is not a mentality unique to myself, for truly it is not. I explained one theory which I think provides the why to the action.

Now I shall refine that thought further.

I find Toronto as a physical place to be greatly unpleasant. This is, however, just an opinion. Many of us who grew up outside of the world’s largest cities would share such feelings owing to the total lack of anything natural within the city. Certianly trees are planted all about, but never do they appear natural. Even when a forested area is left, it is ruined by the excessive noise pollution of the roads which inevitably follow along near it.

This is not to say that the physical city lacks any attraction, since the ample opportunity for one to exercise boundless consumerism would be a desirable quality to many. Any with an interest in urban architecture would also find their interests addressed within the city. My argument is that these aspects of the physical city are insufficient to derive any enjoyment from, at least in my case.

There is the cultural city of Toronto as well. One would be hard pressed to negatively write about this, and I shall not. Pure cultural diversity is not the only thing that matters by a long shot, however, it can be a very positive thing. I would say that Toronto as a cultural entity is somewhat positive in nature, if not wholly positive in nature.

The problem is neither the physical city nor the people who live in it. The city itself is rather ugly and oppressive to me. The people are friendly enough so long as you never utter the greatest blasphemy known to them, that Toronto is not the greatest place to live. No, neither of these are the true nature of my distaste for this city.

The real problem is the idea of Toronto. That, by virtue of living in Ontario at least, and perhaps Canada as a whole, one should be familiar with the street geography of Toronto enough to recognize a caricature of a map is the centre of the issue. Toronto expects and demands awareness and seems unable or unwilling to cope with the idea that perhaps it is not the ideal form of life, eve for one person. That, by living in the same province as the city, we should be informed of who the mayor is and what his daily actions are is an example of this. (This last point is weakened by the fact that recent mayors of Toronto are eccentric enough to often warrant such coverage regardless of their city’s relative importance.)

I understand that Toronto is an important location and a very populous one. I just find it impossible to care about where street x crosses street y and what shops can be found in such a local. So please, a little understanding.

I will not comment on whether or not inflation is beneficial or otherwise. I know not the answer. I will not comment on the magnitude of inflation which is healthy. I do not know the answer. I will comment on a few causes since I do know the answer. Not all causes will be addressed since, again, I am not familiar with all causes.

To determine whether or not you are personally an agent of inflation you need only ask yourself one question and one question alone: by doing my job, do I produce wealth.

This is a much more complex question than it first might appear. Money is not itself wealth. Money is only wealth if it is backed up by material or intellectual goods. If you are not producing such goods directly then you are a personification of inflation. You personify inflation because you make money without producing wealth, which is the working definition of inflation we are using here.

This is necessarily a simplification, but for the sake of argument it is appropriate.

This is not to say that if you personify inflation that something is fundamentally wrong. Many of the jobs which fall under this catagory are vital to life, such as doctors and nurses, make the rest of our lives easier, such as sanitation workers, or make the actually productive people function better, such as managers.

I feel as though it is unnecessary to discus doctors, nurses and sanitation workers as I feel as though their value is self-evident. I intend to discus managers in some detail, however.

Some management is important to the functioning of society. Someone needs to make sure that many functions, such as agreements between the company the government, actually take place. Other examples of useful management would be people who do not directly add wealth to society but increase the value of final products in other ways, such as people who write manuals and those who test prototypes and those who repair damaged goods.

In modern times, however, management structures have become too large and organizations are routinely supersaturated with managers. I wonder what a healthy ratio of managers to productive people is. I wonder how many layers of managers is needed to run an organization. I wonder why some of our most apparently successful institutions are comprised solely of managers. I wonder why, when we already have far too many managers already, schools are still eager to produce as many managers as possible.

If their purpose was only to provide a snapshot reference of a language at a given time, one could successfully argue that dictionaries have a purpose which sufficiently justifies their existence. This is not the current state of affairs, and the usefulness of dictionaries should be questioned. Perhaps we should even go as far as to question the very existence of them.

Language is an organic thing. It grows and develops naturally through continued use. Words and phrases obviously fall into disuse with time, but the structure of language itself is also subject to change. The way we spell and pronounce words today is very different than the way they were done in the past. Its the natural evolution of language.

Dictionaries function as repositories of `truth’. They are used as the truth on the subject of language. If common usage differs from what is contained between their covers, then common usage has deviated from the greater truth and must be corrected. This acts to prevent the natural growth and development of language as a whole.

Language is one of the most important aspects of culture. Dictionaries and their truths act to restrain the natural development of language, and thus of our culture as a whole.

The next time someone quotes a dictionary to prove a point, you would do well to question their motives and arguments. Agents of regressive forces should be resisted.

This morning, in my mailbox, was this delightful message from our local Member of Parliament, Peter Braid. Before I continue and, so to speak, remove the muzzle on myself, I should point out that in the grand scheme of things, Peter Braid has done a fine job here in Kitchener-Waterloo. He is, as far as I can tell, not the problem with the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). However, it is difficult to really determine things for sure since Mr. Harper keeps all of his MPs quite quiet most of the time. The problem with the CPC is Mr. Harper’s autocratic leadership style. That, however, is a low hanging fruit for another time.

The main message reads:

In these tough economic times, standing up for families is more important than ever. The Conservative Government is delivering on its commitments to families.

We understand that everyone is stretching to make ends meet. Our Government introduced measures that give families a break, long before the global recession hit, and now Canada’s Economic Action Plan is making sure families get the support they need.

We have delivered a new child tax credit, the Universal Child Care Benefit and a break for families that enroll their kids in amateur sports.

The marriage penalty in the tax system has been removed.

Registered Education Savings Plans have been strengthened, so families can plan better for the future.

All of these measures have helped put Canada and Canadian families in a strong position to weather the storm, and set the stage for a promising future.

The Conservative Government is also helping young families get a head start on buying their first homes, by providing up to $750 in tax relief. We’re also providing first-time home buyers with more flexibility to buy or build a home. They can now withdraw up to $25,000 from RRSP savings to do so, an increase from the previous limit of $20,000.

These measures don’t just help first-time home buyers; they also stimulate our economy by boosting demand for housing, which is a key driver of economic activity in Canada.

The Home Renovation Tax Credit is an important foundation of Canada’s Economic Action Plan. We are lending a hand to families who want to improve their homes as their most significant investment, and at the same time, giving a boost to tradespeople and businesses that produce and sell building materials.

This year, as we fight the global recession, families will be able to claim a credit for eligible renovations worth up to $10,000 and receive up to $1350 in tax relief.

Right across the country, Canadian families are benefiting from this tax relief by improving kitchens and bathrooms, building new decks, laying new carpet or even putting on new roofs.

This activity is putting contractors, carpenters, and all kinds other trades people to work.

It’s generating local business at everything from hardware stores to lumber yards.

In turn, the entire Canadian economy reaps the benefits.

The Home Renovation Tax Credit, and the other new investments we’re making to stimulate the economy, are designed to create and protect jobs during this period.

All these measures reflect our belief that by making life a little easier for families, we can build a stronger Canada.

I found this to be a laughable piece, and will now take you through it, paragraph by paragraph.

In these tough economic times, standing up for families is more important than ever. The Conservative Government is delivering on its commitments to families.

While this is pure false populism and thus disgusting, there is technically nothing wrong with it. It does, however, set the tone for this entire piece.

We understand that everyone is stretching to make ends meet. Our Government introduced measures that give families a break, long before the global recession hit, and now Canada’s Economic Action Plan is making sure families get the support they need.

I’d call both of these points entirely false. The first is certianly, the second might be a matter of opinion.

Firstly, I recall Mr. Harper saying something to the effect that Canadians should be buying stock right now, since it is such a good deal. He said this during an election campaign after the crisis had really struck. An election campaign which he ran largely without a platform, and thus, without a plan. The fact is that the crisis really started to strike noticably a few weeks earlier than this, and to the best of my knowledge nothing was done about it for quite a few months owing to a prorougeing of Parliament.

It has been pointed out to me that technically, from an economist’s standpoint, a recession starts after two quarter years of negative growth. So the recession would not have started until later than when things went bad. I call nonsense on this point, if this is the argument the CPC is using then they have failed at communication. Use regular style english, not professional jargon, when communicating.

We have delivered a new child tax credit, the Universal Child Care Benefit and a break for families that enroll their kids in amateur sports.

Amature sports are definatly a middle-class past time. This is good for the middle-class, who were hit rather hard in the ongoing depression. The only negative comment one can say about this is that it will not benefit those hardest hit. This is a trend in CPC policy, and by extension in this pamphlet. Moving on to tax credits. A tax credit will only benifit those who would be paying taxes, if you are unemployed, you probably do not pay taxes. Again, hardly helping those who need it most.

The marriage penalty in the tax system has been removed.

Now, until I read this pamphlet I did not know what such a thing was. Apparently, to use their slant on the matter, it is descrimination against single-earner households who pay higher tax rates than an even split between the two with the same overall total wage. Certianly such descrimination, which is what it is, should not be encouraged. There may be issues regarding which persons work in a household which this solution glosses over, and I intend to find out more myself, but for now, I’ll give the CPC this one. Well done.

Registered Education Savings Plans have been strengthened, so families can plan better for the future.

Good policy, but those who need assistance most lack money to save and are statistically less likely to educate their children. Neither of these issues are addressed, granted, the later is a permanent problem and one can hardly blame the CPC alone for it.

All of these measures have helped put Canada and Canadian families in a strong position to weather the storm, and set the stage for a promising future.

This statement is true if you benefited from any of the above listed items. If you were a middle-class family with money to invest and spend on leisure and had a single wage earner, you are benefiting greatly from these policies. This does include a very large number of Canadians, and I will not take away from that. However, one must remember that this is not everyone and that there are many Canadians who truly need assistance.

The Conservative Government is also helping young families get a head start on buying their first homes, by providing up to $750 in tax relief. We’re also providing first-time home buyers with more flexibility to buy or build a home. They can now withdraw up to $25,000 from RRSP savings to do so, an increase from the previous limit of $20,000.

Allowing people to use up any savings they may have to get the economy started up on the exact path that just lead to ruin, bravo. Add more tax cuts which don’t help people who cannot afford a home or people who don’t pay taxes and you have more standard conservative policy.

These measures don’t just help first-time home buyers; they also stimulate our economy by boosting demand for housing, which is a key driver of economic activity in Canada.

Again: inflated housing prices help no one.

The Home Renovation Tax Credit is an important foundation of Canada’s Economic Action Plan. We are lending a hand to families who want to improve their homes as their most significant investment, and at the same time, giving a boost to tradespeople and businesses that produce and sell building materials.

I’ve always disagreed that a home is an investment. A home is the place you live and grow. Perhaps it is idealistic of me, but I find it impossible to put a price on such a thing. Much less allow it to cause intense inflation. However, this does promote spending and does employ some tradespeople, so while I find this ideologically unpleasant, it may actually work. Again, only if you already have money to spend and have any taxes left to pay after all these tax credits.

This year, as we fight the global recession, families will be able to claim a credit for eligible renovations worth up to $10,000 and receive up to $1350 in tax relief.

Right across the country, Canadian families are benefiting from this tax relief by improving kitchens and bathrooms, building new decks, laying new carpet or even putting on new roofs.

This activity is putting contractors, carpenters, and all kinds other trades people to work.

It’s generating local business at everything from hardware stores to lumber yards.

I won’t bother repeating myself on all this again. It may work, but it doesn’t assist everyone in the country equally.

In turn, the entire Canadian economy reaps the benefits.

Time will tell, but I expect that it will have some benefits. Just not equally across the board.

The Home Renovation Tax Credit, and the other new investments we’re making to stimulate the economy, are designed to create and protect jobs during this period.

All these measures reflect our belief that by making life a little easier for families, we can build a stronger Canada.

I won’t fault them on these last statements, this is just politician talk and any party would say the same.

In summation, the Conservative Party of Canada is behaving like a conservative party probably should. I will not say that they do not have Canada’s best interest in their mind, since everything they have done does address the problems at hand, albeit in a round-a-bout and convoluted way which I find ideologically disagreeable.

I think my days of reading mail propaganda are over for a while.

To anyone who lives within Canada, resentment of Toronto is a known but potentially strange phenomenon. If you are not aware of it then you are probably from Toronto. You may also live near another major Canadian city, and resent it for much the same reason which I theorise. I personally hail from Northern Ontario, which is important as we probably have the greatest resentment for Toronto in the entire country.

As the title suggests, I believe that colonialism is to blame for these feelings. Toronto is the economic capital of Canada. Any reasonable person would admit this fact. It follows that many international companies have their Canadian head offices in Toronto, as well as many Canadian companies. This means that a large percentage of the decision making power in the Canadian economy is located in Toronto. When a factory, mine or mill is closed by the head office of a company, likely located in the city, it is other parts of the country which suffer. So, by virtue of housing these companies, the city is seen as responsible.

Beyond this, companies tend to place all of the management positions in the city. This makes sense from their perspective as it keeps their corperate headquarters localised. But this has the effect of keeping many of the high paying, non-directly productive jobs in Toronto. From the perspective of the rest of the country, however, it seems as though the city itself is parasitising the country, feeding off the success of others while contributing only to its own well being.

Both of these factors, the disconnect between control structures within the city and the front line elsewhere and the parasitic relationship the city has with the rest of the country feel very much like colonialism without the violent physical oppression. If you add the media control and the fact that the rest of the country routinely hears local news from Toronto as relevant to their own location, you start to get more of the cultural aspects of colonialism as well as the economic which have already been described.

People within Toronto are unlikely to have an idea about the goings on in the province outside their city. This is akin to the way many Canadians feel when watching “Talking to Americans” or other such programs. The cause is the same: the colonial power has no need to know of the goings on in the colonies.

Within Ontario itself, Toronto also plays the roll as political capital. Again, the reasons why the city is so dominant is clear to anyone who pauses to examine the situation, especially with regard to population and distribution of population. But, again, to those who exist elsewhere in the province, there is still a dictatorship from the city. Unless Toronto splits party support quite evenly, the votes of Northern Ontario, for example, are mostly irrelevant. Once again, the structure is logical but leads to issues.

Considering the above arguments, it is easy to see why the rest of Ontario has an antagonistic relationship with the city of Toronto. It is a political, economic and cultural oppressor and colonial power. Within confederation, the same problems can be extrapolated to how the rest of the provinces feel towards Ontario. The same considerations apply. As well, anyone living near a major Canadian city, especially a provincial capital, can feel themselves sweeped away by the domination of the city.

The situation, by pure reason, makes perfect sense. However, this pure reason is not considering the effects this has on people who live in the country, both inside and outside these cities. The people within are largely oblivious to the way the rest of the country views them, which is largely part of the problem. This is ignorance, pure and simple, and ignorance is an attribute to be combated. People living elsewhere have the problem of feeling less important or slighted by this ignorance. The end result is further dysfunction within Canadian confederation.

For now, I present no solutions or recommendations to this issue. Personal education would go a long way to mitigating these issues, but I refuse to hold my breath. Just as Torontonians are blissfully unaware, the rest of Ontario takes joy from its resentment. It is a truly dysfunctional relationship, but it helps to define the cultural landscape in this province and country, and perhaps that is worthwhile.

Background: the new logo. I despise the look of the new logo, a feeling which is quite common in the student body. That’s fine. I dislike the way it looks, it seems tacky and without any meaning.

This morning, all of my internal bitterness shone through like a blazing star. I realized that, actually, it is the ideal representative of this university. It has an amazing degree of pretension about nothingness. It is an attempt at being trendy without backup.

It is an entirely hollow gesture, an attempt to become something without the steps needed to get there. Symbolism is a power force, but without context it has no meaning.

In short: yes it stands out. It is very clearly different than what other institutions are doing. But it stands out for the wrong reasons. It highlights all of the negatives of this place without the positives. It doesn’t speak to academics at all. It ignores the involvement and participation of the students who make this university what it is.

Writing in the student newspaper, Michael Davenport got it right. Its just a costume, an attempt to become something without changing what you really are.

I was wrong. The new logo has plenty of very valid symbolism. I can think of none which is positive.

But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

Let us dissect the statement `I feel so lucky that I got hired’. Present economic climate aside.

Rational thought dictates that the one reason why one should feel lucky to have gained employment is if they felt that they were unqualified for a given job. Luck doesn’t enter into a discussion about qualification, you either are or are not the best person for the job. The most qualified get hired, the rest do not.

This process of hiring the best, of course, changes the average skill set of the remaining pool and, like many natural and industrial fractionation processes, may tend to concentrate incompetence. This of course assumes that all skills are equally sought after, which is not the case. This also assumes that the pool is static, which is also false. Thus, incompetence does not concentrate.

If you hired, then appealing to luck only indicates a lack of confidence in your own skills. A lack of self-confidence is a common problem faced by many people, this mindset is merely a symptom of it.

The truly confused mind, after the euphoria of that lucky find has passed, might move to a more cynical mindset. “If I was hired, and I am not the most qualified person for the job, then maybe everyone else knew better than to work here.”

While this mindset also displays an extreme lack of confidence in one’s own skills, it also displays a complete disregard for the individual’s own intelligence.

It can be concluded that the only reason one would feel lucky to gain employment, present conditions aside, is because they felt themselves incompetent, unintelligent or both.

Who has respect for the artist who loves their own work as though it were perfection? Is it even possible to respect such a being?

There is nothing wrong with someone liking their work. Their work is a part of them, in the sense that they made it and that the making of it is part of their history. Self-loathing is not an admirable trait. But neither is vanity.

The artist should have great love for his work, but should not become so lost in this love that they forget that they are just a small part of something. A love for self blinds people to the world around them and takes them out of it, and thus their work out of it. From outside, how can the great works be produced?

Technical skill is not genius. True works of genius may be fundamentally flawed. Pure skill may produce technically beautiful works, but they shall be devoid of emotion without genius. The skilled operator can produce thousands of identical products, it takes genius to stand out.

One cannot forget memory when considering such things. The past is important. Humans are not defined by thermodynamic state functions. We are all path dependent as our past defines who we are. Expecting one to ignore this is the utmost foolishness.

True genius is thus too dependent on the journey. What can we love which is not of ourselves?

To question the purpose of art is necessary. If art exists for its own sake then it has no use or meaning. If art exists for the critic then, again, it has no use or meaning.

The purpose of art is to express the feelings of society, or a subset of it, in a creative form. Not to show off technical skill. Not to flaunt ability. Technical ability may produce beautiful product, but that product is devoid of meaning.

Choose the flawed image of truth over the perfect image of nothing.

If, without degree or training, you cannot be moved by a work, it has no value. Appriciation of the brushwork or the sound does not constitute movement. Appreciation of technical skill is irrelevant to the meaning of work. The most meaningful and moving of works are often those which lack professional skill.

Of course, genius with technical skill exists. Just be aware of where technical skill ends and genius begins, and do not confuse the former for the later.

The meaning of art of all forms is to reflect upon the world around us, to provide a mirror into the proverbial soul. The purpose is not to be a literal mirror, reflecting all seen with perfect detail.

To the citizen, enjoying arts: be wary of the meaning.

To the artist: forget the critic, true validation begins in the citizen.

I have not seen a strawberry in 13 years. But I recall the day. It was a warm, early summer day. Not hot like we get now, just pleasant. I was walking with my mother and brothers on a dirt road. On the side of the road were strawberry vines. We looked and looked and finally found some.

Real strawberries, my friends, are tiny.

These strawberries were no larger than a centimetre in diameter. But the taste was perfection. Sweet and tart in an ideal ratio to produce the most wonderous experience for your taste buds.

I have not seen a strawberry since. I’ve seen a cousin of theirs who has forgotten how to be a strawberry. I mourn for these hopeless fruit every time I see them.

They have forgotten what it is to be what they are.