Last night I attended the COPE pub night, a lovely get-together at Original Joe's (I know, where?). A few beer, some nachos, a brief discussion of the soon-to-be demise of David Cadman (according to Jim Green, anyway), and everything was ticketyboo. Then, we started talking about the BC NDP campaign from the spring. At this point, alarm bells should have gone off, as it is a highly contentious issue on the left in BC, particularly among urbanites. An hour or so later, and they had to pull us away from each other to get us to pay our bill.
I would like to continue the discussion in a less chaotic forum, so have invited the participants to join me in a discussion that I will post on this blog as it unfolds. I'm not exactly sure of the format yet.
UPDATE:
I have two enterprising individuals who will be taking part in the discussion that I hope to foster over the next short while. It really is a fascinating topic to us campaigners.
And a link to Jim Green's claims added above.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Barry Penner is AWESOME!
Barry Penner does, indeed, seem pretty awesomeJust saw this fun website: Barry Penner is AWESOME!, home to insight such as:
Barry Penner is the master of pointing at things in front of him. Sadly, however, he hasn’t quite mastered the art of pointing anywhere but straight ahead. One day he’ll be able to actually point at the fish… one day…I can't claim to know Mr. Penner's career that well, but he's always seemed like a bit of a Mr. Rogers-type: bland, smiley, competent. Not much of an environmentalist, though, or at least well-muzzled by Gordon Campbell (remember Joyce Murray, everyone?). His Wikipedia page is short on details (but does include a link to BPiA!).
Things I didn't know about Mr. Penner but learned from the Wikipedia page:
1. He worked as a park ranger.
2. He is known as an advocate for alternative energy, like small-hydro (shock there), wind, and other.
3. He served as Deputy House Leader from 2005 to 2009.
Fascinating stuff, all.
Does everyone remember the sites that popped up during the last federal election? There was Draft John Baird (now defunct) and Conservatives for Prentice (still online, last post Dec. 2008). While different in tone than the amusing BPiA! site, the sites generated some serious coverage and a few difficult questions for the two federal Conservatives, as both have been suggested as possible replacements for Stephen Harper.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Somalia "shamed" in corruption table? Not likely
In a story on Transparency International's latest country corruption rankings, AFP attached this headline: "Somalia, Afghanistan shamed in corruption table" I'm no international affairs expert, and I'll leave Afghanistan out of this, but I find it laughable that someone would think Somalia, either as a country or a government, would feel shamed by this.
For starters: There is no Somalia. It is the very definition of a failed state. The closest thing to a working government is the Islamic Courts Union, but it's so difficult to try and get a relatively clear picture of what might be going on. Apparently, as of January the head of the ICU is the President of the Transitional National Government... but the government has no powers. Fractured doesn't begin to describe the area formerly known as Somalia.
Second: The Somali people probably (just guessing here) don't know or care about the corruption ranking. And if they did, they wouldn't have anyone to lobby for change anyway. Is there an influential elite that might know? If so, they are the corrupt ones, so...
Headline writers always try to play up the story, and don't have as good a grasp of the issue as the writer, whose story then gets saddled with an over-the-top headline.
For starters: There is no Somalia. It is the very definition of a failed state. The closest thing to a working government is the Islamic Courts Union, but it's so difficult to try and get a relatively clear picture of what might be going on. Apparently, as of January the head of the ICU is the President of the Transitional National Government... but the government has no powers. Fractured doesn't begin to describe the area formerly known as Somalia.
Second: The Somali people probably (just guessing here) don't know or care about the corruption ranking. And if they did, they wouldn't have anyone to lobby for change anyway. Is there an influential elite that might know? If so, they are the corrupt ones, so...
Headline writers always try to play up the story, and don't have as good a grasp of the issue as the writer, whose story then gets saddled with an over-the-top headline.
Inside politics: CityCaucus stifling dissent?
The folks over at CityCaucus recently posted a review of Michael Geller's That Was The Year That Was event, held this Saturday, examining the first year of the Vision council's term in power. From a rather moderate description of the proceedings, this paragraph drew my attention:
My comment on the post:
Their response:
My response:
Hmmm, can't find it in their comment section anymore. It was something about how snide remarks could be interpreted as personal attacks, it all depends on how one interprets the phrase. I then pointed out in response to a commenter above me that the NPA (from whence CityCaucus sprung) had taken honourable positions on a couple of issues.
This morning I went to see if CC had responded (they're usually fairly quick to defend themselves), and to my surprise I couldn't find my second comment and two others by a bit of a loony named Katzenberg who I had responded to who claimed the NPA had never done anything honourable. Ever. Using. Too many. Periods.
Blogs are not public media, no matter what some like to claim. Their owners can moderate, censor, block, or do anything they want with comments. I was under the impression, however, that CityCaucus was in this to stimulate debate, not stifle it. They don't appreciate any criticism, as far as I've seen, but they also have open, un-moderated comment sections. Or so I thought. Katzenberg's comments added nothing to the conversation, but then there really wasn't a conversation as such, just a few other comments agreeing with the post. Was my comment just collateral damage, because I made reference to Katzenberg's comment?
What's odd is that I defended CityCaucus' ex-boss and golden boy, ex-mayor Sam Sullivan. I'm not a big fan, but his stance on InSite was laudable, and I said as much. I think it also could have been the start of a debate on ethics/honour in politics, a subject that is often derided. When should politicians take principled stances and when should they seek compromise? Etc...
Jonathon Ross took shots at CityCaucus.com, saying that we were "too personal" in our attacks. We've written over 1000 posts since last December. Perhaps I misunderstand the term "personal attacks," but to me it's something like Andrea Reimer did on her Twitter post about Rich Coleman. Yes, we focus on elected officials much of the time, and we put what they do and say under the microscope, but I wouldn't classify it as personal attacks. Writing smears that you must take down from your blog afterward, that I would consider personal. Thankfully, there's been none of that here.
My comment on the post:
It's interesting to read three different summaries of the event (yours, JR's and FB's). Mostly consensus on the discussions.
You'd have to be pretty thin-skinned to treat this as anything more than observing the obvious. Everyone knows that Green has been a dogged partisan his whole life, and I don't think there's any shame in that.Give it a rest, Brenton.
Hmmm, can't find it in their comment section anymore. It was something about how snide remarks could be interpreted as personal attacks, it all depends on how one interprets the phrase. I then pointed out in response to a commenter above me that the NPA (from whence CityCaucus sprung) had taken honourable positions on a couple of issues.
This morning I went to see if CC had responded (they're usually fairly quick to defend themselves), and to my surprise I couldn't find my second comment and two others by a bit of a loony named Katzenberg who I had responded to who claimed the NPA had never done anything honourable. Ever. Using. Too many. Periods.
Blogs are not public media, no matter what some like to claim. Their owners can moderate, censor, block, or do anything they want with comments. I was under the impression, however, that CityCaucus was in this to stimulate debate, not stifle it. They don't appreciate any criticism, as far as I've seen, but they also have open, un-moderated comment sections. Or so I thought. Katzenberg's comments added nothing to the conversation, but then there really wasn't a conversation as such, just a few other comments agreeing with the post. Was my comment just collateral damage, because I made reference to Katzenberg's comment?
What's odd is that I defended CityCaucus' ex-boss and golden boy, ex-mayor Sam Sullivan. I'm not a big fan, but his stance on InSite was laudable, and I said as much. I think it also could have been the start of a debate on ethics/honour in politics, a subject that is often derided. When should politicians take principled stances and when should they seek compromise? Etc...
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Adult fiction for kids? Ender's Game - Orson Scott Card
Or is it kids' fiction for adults? When my friend first recommended Ender's Game (VPL link), I thought it would be a normal sci-fi story: some technology, some aliens, some overarching theme about humanity. When I bought it, the cover was quite different than I expected (see below), and the jacket claims that it is an American Library Association "100 Best Books for Teens". It follows the main character, Andrew (Ender, no explanation why) Wiggins, from the age of 6 to 11, then wraps up the rest of his life in the final few chapters. So it's about a kid.
Which, with the cover I had and the "for Teens" claim, made it difficult not to think of the book as teen fiction. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But the book didn't feel like teen fiction, and I'm not certain Orson Scott Card intended it to be received that way. It's dark, vicious and at times nihilistic. It also delights in the seemingly simplistic relationships between children without condescending, and delicately portrays the love between a brother and sister.
The normal cover
The cover of the edition I read
Ender Wiggin is a remarkable child, chosen as a possible saviour for humanity. Plucked from his family at the age of six, he goes through Battle School then Command School, pushed to the edge of his sanity by trainers in the hope that he will be able to lead an army in a pre-emptive strike against the "buggers", ant-like aliens that invaded several generations ago but were defeated at the last by the genius of one commander.
Published in 1985 but based on a short bit written in 1977, the story and the language don't feel dated at all, which is especially impressive given the subject matter: Ender uses a personal "desk", similar to a laptop, and jacks into life-like first-person adventure game that incorporates aspects of real life and fantasy, originally with challenges but eventually allowing him to wander around at will. A sub-plot (or rather sous-plot, because it is quite significant) follows Ender's brother and sister as they scheme to eventually take over the world through inventing personas on the nets and becoming influential enough to shape public opinion.
In contrast, I'm reading Pattern Recognition by William Gibson, written in 2002, and already it seems dated. His descriptions of using the internet is at times too prosaic and a bit off: "When she returns to the forum page, her post is there" and "Hotmail downloads four messages..." and "She goes alone to an Internet cafe every other day and checks the new hotmail account she's acquired with her new email address, a .uk one that Voytek arranged."
The book is a bit too much of a morality play, but it still resonates. Like District 9, Ender's Game takes a simple idea about how we treat the other and builds a compelling narrative around it. Done poorly, it could have come across as heavy-handed, but the light language and optimism (at first) contrasts nicely with the subject matter.
Ender's Game was compelling, enjoyable, and novel enough to leave me thoroughly satisfied. Thanks for the recommendation, Marco.
Which, with the cover I had and the "for Teens" claim, made it difficult not to think of the book as teen fiction. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But the book didn't feel like teen fiction, and I'm not certain Orson Scott Card intended it to be received that way. It's dark, vicious and at times nihilistic. It also delights in the seemingly simplistic relationships between children without condescending, and delicately portrays the love between a brother and sister.
The normal cover
The cover of the edition I readEnder Wiggin is a remarkable child, chosen as a possible saviour for humanity. Plucked from his family at the age of six, he goes through Battle School then Command School, pushed to the edge of his sanity by trainers in the hope that he will be able to lead an army in a pre-emptive strike against the "buggers", ant-like aliens that invaded several generations ago but were defeated at the last by the genius of one commander.
Published in 1985 but based on a short bit written in 1977, the story and the language don't feel dated at all, which is especially impressive given the subject matter: Ender uses a personal "desk", similar to a laptop, and jacks into life-like first-person adventure game that incorporates aspects of real life and fantasy, originally with challenges but eventually allowing him to wander around at will. A sub-plot (or rather sous-plot, because it is quite significant) follows Ender's brother and sister as they scheme to eventually take over the world through inventing personas on the nets and becoming influential enough to shape public opinion.
In contrast, I'm reading Pattern Recognition by William Gibson, written in 2002, and already it seems dated. His descriptions of using the internet is at times too prosaic and a bit off: "When she returns to the forum page, her post is there" and "Hotmail downloads four messages..." and "She goes alone to an Internet cafe every other day and checks the new hotmail account she's acquired with her new email address, a .uk one that Voytek arranged."
The book is a bit too much of a morality play, but it still resonates. Like District 9, Ender's Game takes a simple idea about how we treat the other and builds a compelling narrative around it. Done poorly, it could have come across as heavy-handed, but the light language and optimism (at first) contrasts nicely with the subject matter.
Ender's Game was compelling, enjoyable, and novel enough to leave me thoroughly satisfied. Thanks for the recommendation, Marco.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Democracy, information and public services in BC
I've been reading a book called Democracy: A History, by John Dunn, a British political theorist. It examines how the term (not the practice of) democracy has come to dominate the political landscape, invoked by almost every government as a basis for legitimacy, even if it's farcical (Saddam Hussein's 99% popular votes, for instance). In his conclusion, Dunn touches on an idea that is gaining a lot of ground lately: citizen access to information.
I follow two blogs that address open data and access to government information: eaves.ca and Andrea DiMaio. It's not my issue (hey, Summer?), but I find it interesting to follow. Anyway, John Dunn writes:
Recent moves by city and state governments to open their files to the public have been met with enthusiasm (perhaps more than is warranted), and while it's not a panacea to cure our democratic ills, I think it's a step in the right direction. Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation at all levels of government is still problematic, costly and not being addressed in the same fashion. Making trash delivery information accessible, while convenient and useful, is far less important than making important government business open to the citizenry. In that sense, I wonder if a case could be made that the open data movement is a distraction when more important reforms are necessary.
I recently researched how the Liberal government in BC has been supporting legal aid. In 1993 the BC NDP applied the PST to legal fees in order to help pay for the legal aid system. The government grant to legal aid increased to $88.5m in 2001, but was then slashed by about 40% by the Liberals when they formed government in 2002. This year they've cut the legal aid budget twice, forcing the closure of regional offices and staffing and service cuts. Meanwhile, the taxes on legal services in BC kept rolling in. Is there a discrepancy between the amount collected and the amount disbursed by the Liberal government?
To figure this out, I needed access to stats on how much British Columbians (and their businesses) spend on legal services. A study from 2004 put the figure at around $1.4bn; taxes on this were about $100m. About $61m of that made it to legal aid in BC, a pretty clear discrepancy. But I needed more recent stats if I wanted to make a strong case. However, I soon discovered that if I wanted information on money spent on legal services, I would have to pay Statscan a fee to get it. And here I thought that the information would be available to the public. Here is David Eaves on public access to information collected by the Canadian government:
Why does she own our information?
This may seem quaint, but it addresses both the approach and the legality of information ownership. The crown literally owns the information. Contrast that with the US, where any information collected by the US government is owned by the people. As David writes: "any document created by the US government [must] be published in the public domain."
I can't get mad at Statscan, though, they're just trying to recoup their costs. I'm sure that they would love to provide access to all the information they have, but they don't have the budget or staff to do so. (I think this is probably true of FOI departments as well, though they have far more political interference in what they can and can't release.)
This is standard across the board (see TransLink, our health-care system, addiction services, affordable housing...). We are underfunding our public services, then complaining when they don't function properly. Hugh Mackenzie at the CCPA recently published an essay asking a simple question: Can we have an adult conversation on taxes?, suggesting that sustained or increasing demand for public services is incompatible with ever-decreasing taxation levels. I would add: Is having the highest child poverty rate in Canada a good trade-off for having the lowest personal taxes? Apparently enough British Columbians believe so (re: provincial general election in May).
I never figured out how much we spend on legal services in BC, but working from estimates and trends in the information I could find, I figure that the BC Liberals are profiting more than $30m every year from the tax on legal services. Meanwhile they slash the legal aid budget, hurting the poorest citizens in BC. I can afford to pay for the information from Statscan, but working families are having trouble housing and feeding themselves.
I follow two blogs that address open data and access to government information: eaves.ca and Andrea DiMaio. It's not my issue (hey, Summer?), but I find it interesting to follow. Anyway, John Dunn writes:
"The more governments control what their fellow citizens know the less they can claim the authority of those citizens for how they rule. The more governments withhold information from their fellow citizens the less accountable they are to those who give them their authority."
Recent moves by city and state governments to open their files to the public have been met with enthusiasm (perhaps more than is warranted), and while it's not a panacea to cure our democratic ills, I think it's a step in the right direction. Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation at all levels of government is still problematic, costly and not being addressed in the same fashion. Making trash delivery information accessible, while convenient and useful, is far less important than making important government business open to the citizenry. In that sense, I wonder if a case could be made that the open data movement is a distraction when more important reforms are necessary.
I recently researched how the Liberal government in BC has been supporting legal aid. In 1993 the BC NDP applied the PST to legal fees in order to help pay for the legal aid system. The government grant to legal aid increased to $88.5m in 2001, but was then slashed by about 40% by the Liberals when they formed government in 2002. This year they've cut the legal aid budget twice, forcing the closure of regional offices and staffing and service cuts. Meanwhile, the taxes on legal services in BC kept rolling in. Is there a discrepancy between the amount collected and the amount disbursed by the Liberal government?
To figure this out, I needed access to stats on how much British Columbians (and their businesses) spend on legal services. A study from 2004 put the figure at around $1.4bn; taxes on this were about $100m. About $61m of that made it to legal aid in BC, a pretty clear discrepancy. But I needed more recent stats if I wanted to make a strong case. However, I soon discovered that if I wanted information on money spent on legal services, I would have to pay Statscan a fee to get it. And here I thought that the information would be available to the public. Here is David Eaves on public access to information collected by the Canadian government:
Sovereignty in Canada does not lie with the people, indeed, it resides in King George the III's descendant, the present day Queen of England. The government's data isn't your, mine, or "our" data. It's hers. Which means it is at her discretion, or more specifically, the discretion of her government servants, to decide when and if it should be shared.
Why does she own our information? I can't get mad at Statscan, though, they're just trying to recoup their costs. I'm sure that they would love to provide access to all the information they have, but they don't have the budget or staff to do so. (I think this is probably true of FOI departments as well, though they have far more political interference in what they can and can't release.)
This is standard across the board (see TransLink, our health-care system, addiction services, affordable housing...). We are underfunding our public services, then complaining when they don't function properly. Hugh Mackenzie at the CCPA recently published an essay asking a simple question: Can we have an adult conversation on taxes?, suggesting that sustained or increasing demand for public services is incompatible with ever-decreasing taxation levels. I would add: Is having the highest child poverty rate in Canada a good trade-off for having the lowest personal taxes? Apparently enough British Columbians believe so (re: provincial general election in May).
I never figured out how much we spend on legal services in BC, but working from estimates and trends in the information I could find, I figure that the BC Liberals are profiting more than $30m every year from the tax on legal services. Meanwhile they slash the legal aid budget, hurting the poorest citizens in BC. I can afford to pay for the information from Statscan, but working families are having trouble housing and feeding themselves.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
New books from Pulp Fiction - light genre, two kids and a theorist
Just a few blocks from my house is one of the best (and my favourite) used-book stores in the city, Pulp Fiction (2422 Main St, between 8th and Broadway; there's a second store in Kits). They carry a great selection of used books, and now a great selection of new (and reduced price) books as well. Too often I end up walking out with two or three more books than I intended on buying. The staff are extremely knowledgeable, friendly and helpful. Their contemporary political commentary section could be better, but other than that it's pretty perfect. If they don't have what you are looking for right then they'll let you know when it comes in. And despite the huge number of books in store, they usually know if a book is in.
Today I went to browse (always a dangerous idea for me), starting with the discount ($1.00 plus GST) bin outside, which only rarely has something I want. Today I found Kidnapped by Robert Louis Stevenson. The edition is "Prepared for use in the Schools of BC by the Dept. of Education" probably in 1961, printed by Evergreen Press Limited on SE Marine, a publisher of books on British Columbia (latest reference is 1973). For $1.05, I'll take it. I haven't read it before, but I loved Treasure Island as a kid.
Next I grabbed Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card off the window display. My friend recommended it to me last year, and I've been looking for a used copy. It won both the Hugo and Nebula awards for best sci-fi/fantasy novel of the year in 1986. I'm not sure what it's about, but my friend assures me that it's both very interesting and a good read.
Today I went to browse (always a dangerous idea for me), starting with the discount ($1.00 plus GST) bin outside, which only rarely has something I want. Today I found Kidnapped by Robert Louis Stevenson. The edition is "Prepared for use in the Schools of BC by the Dept. of Education" probably in 1961, printed by Evergreen Press Limited on SE Marine, a publisher of books on British Columbia (latest reference is 1973). For $1.05, I'll take it. I haven't read it before, but I loved Treasure Island as a kid.
Next I grabbed Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card off the window display. My friend recommended it to me last year, and I've been looking for a used copy. It won both the Hugo and Nebula awards for best sci-fi/fantasy novel of the year in 1986. I'm not sure what it's about, but my friend assures me that it's both very interesting and a good read.
UPDATE: It's excellent. Watch for a review soon.
Ian Rankin's Let It Bleed was next, #7 in the Inspector Rebus series. I'm a pretty big fan of long series, and this one has staying power. It's dark, gritty, clever, and realistic (I won't go so far as to say hard-boiled). Rebus is a fairly typical anti-hero police officer: divorced, slightly pathetic, a bit of a loose cannon, and not anywhere near promotion, but he's a damn good homicide detective. Ian Rankin's use of the city as backdrop for Rebus' casework is a strong feature of the series, as is his ability to keep readers interested in Rebus as a character.
(Ever since reading Michael Chabon's Maps and Legends I've been reading more "genre fiction", and finding it very enjoyable.)
I've been re-reading the books from my childhood over the last year and a half, with mixed results. Books four and five I found in the small children's section (small but jam-packed with classics). I grew up reading a series by Enid Blyton (the fifth most translated author ever, ahead of Lenin but behind Shakespeare) but I forget which series. Thinking it might be The Secret Seven I picked up their first two adventures in one book: The Secret Seven and Secret Seven Adventure. I'm interested to see if it has stood the test of time.
A Wrinkle in Time, by Madeleine L'Engle was book five. I remember my mom and brother reading it when I was a kid but I don't think I ever read it myself, which is odd because we usually all read the same books, especially fantasy.
I'm in the middle of reading Alberto Manguel's A History of Reading (and here) and quite enjoying it, so I looked for and found The Library At Night, his examination of the role that libraries play in our civilization. I aspire to home library ownership (that is, I would love to have an entire room in my home dedicated to books), and I'm looking forward to exploring this book.
Last came William Gibson's Pattern Recognition, a book about which The Washington Post wrote "One of the first authentic and vital novels of the twenty-first century." It is extremely well reviewed (Neil Gaiman is quoted on the cover, and the Economist named it a Best Book of the Year), and I enjoyed his last offering, Spook Country (though it wasn't amazing). He will always enjoy some popularity for his masterful cyberpunk classic, Neuromancer, which, when read a few years ago for the second time, proved to still be relevant, interesting and gripping.
After purchasing these treasures, I remembered that I had meant to look for Walter Benjamin's Illuminations (that's him above, hard at work) after reading a mention of it in A History of Reading. So I asked, and they had just received a copy, which the clerk immediately retrieved from the shelf and handed to me. It's dense cultural theory, but I needed something to balance the sci-fi and kids' books. And it's a collection of essays, so won't be too daunting.
Phewf. Eight new books in one day. Thanks, Pulp Fiction.
Ian Rankin's Let It Bleed was next, #7 in the Inspector Rebus series. I'm a pretty big fan of long series, and this one has staying power. It's dark, gritty, clever, and realistic (I won't go so far as to say hard-boiled). Rebus is a fairly typical anti-hero police officer: divorced, slightly pathetic, a bit of a loose cannon, and not anywhere near promotion, but he's a damn good homicide detective. Ian Rankin's use of the city as backdrop for Rebus' casework is a strong feature of the series, as is his ability to keep readers interested in Rebus as a character.
(Ever since reading Michael Chabon's Maps and Legends I've been reading more "genre fiction", and finding it very enjoyable.)
I've been re-reading the books from my childhood over the last year and a half, with mixed results. Books four and five I found in the small children's section (small but jam-packed with classics). I grew up reading a series by Enid Blyton (the fifth most translated author ever, ahead of Lenin but behind Shakespeare) but I forget which series. Thinking it might be The Secret Seven I picked up their first two adventures in one book: The Secret Seven and Secret Seven Adventure. I'm interested to see if it has stood the test of time.
A Wrinkle in Time, by Madeleine L'Engle was book five. I remember my mom and brother reading it when I was a kid but I don't think I ever read it myself, which is odd because we usually all read the same books, especially fantasy.
I'm in the middle of reading Alberto Manguel's A History of Reading (and here) and quite enjoying it, so I looked for and found The Library At Night, his examination of the role that libraries play in our civilization. I aspire to home library ownership (that is, I would love to have an entire room in my home dedicated to books), and I'm looking forward to exploring this book.
Last came William Gibson's Pattern Recognition, a book about which The Washington Post wrote "One of the first authentic and vital novels of the twenty-first century." It is extremely well reviewed (Neil Gaiman is quoted on the cover, and the Economist named it a Best Book of the Year), and I enjoyed his last offering, Spook Country (though it wasn't amazing). He will always enjoy some popularity for his masterful cyberpunk classic, Neuromancer, which, when read a few years ago for the second time, proved to still be relevant, interesting and gripping.
After purchasing these treasures, I remembered that I had meant to look for Walter Benjamin's Illuminations (that's him above, hard at work) after reading a mention of it in A History of Reading. So I asked, and they had just received a copy, which the clerk immediately retrieved from the shelf and handed to me. It's dense cultural theory, but I needed something to balance the sci-fi and kids' books. And it's a collection of essays, so won't be too daunting.
Phewf. Eight new books in one day. Thanks, Pulp Fiction.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Regulating page size: A History of Reading pt. 2
"In France, in 1527, Francois I decreed standard paper sizes throughout his kingdom; anyone breaking the rule was thrown in prison."
And I thought transit fines were stupid. I almost turned this into a post on silly or outrageous laws in history or even still on the books, but I'm sure that's been done to death.
What is interesting about laws such as the one above is the desire to control that which can't be controlled. I paid $40,000 for the following piece of insight, so please pay attention: the sanctioning of an activity does not necessarily mean that the state then controls said activity. In fact, it may be the exact opposite. Laws against illegal immigration don't stop it, and may only serve to indicate just how big the problem is. Continual passing of new legislation addressing the problem only reinforces (figuratively speaking, that is) the sad state of affairs a country (read: the US) is in regarding illegal immigration.
So, what was Francois thinking? Why did he feel the need to regulate the size of paper? Not the ownership or trade (though he may have tried that too), but the size. To control the trade? The publishing industry, which was taking off at the time? The latter, I assume. Regulate and tax.
Was he successful? Alberto Manguel doesn't say, nor does his note explain anything. The comment is made in the midst of an exposition on the development of books from painstakingly produced works of art to mass-produced flimsy pulp editions. Manguel touches on so many aspects of reading, and at times it's merely interesting. I've been a little disappointed in the last few chapters of A History of Reading. Were the 20 pages on reading in bed really necessary?
Right now (in my life) he's exploring metaphors for reading, and it is far more interesting than knowing that Romans read scrolls while relaxing on pseudo-beds. Nature is a book, Walt Whitman, and all that. I always find Walt Whitman far more interesting in books other than his. I fell in love with his poetry while reading quotes in a long piece in a National Geographic, but then couldn't bother to read Leaves of Grass after buying it. Reading bits in this Manguel book has me remembering why I love his poetry but I probably won't go searching for my copy of Leaves of Grass anytime soon.
And I thought transit fines were stupid. I almost turned this into a post on silly or outrageous laws in history or even still on the books, but I'm sure that's been done to death.
What is interesting about laws such as the one above is the desire to control that which can't be controlled. I paid $40,000 for the following piece of insight, so please pay attention: the sanctioning of an activity does not necessarily mean that the state then controls said activity. In fact, it may be the exact opposite. Laws against illegal immigration don't stop it, and may only serve to indicate just how big the problem is. Continual passing of new legislation addressing the problem only reinforces (figuratively speaking, that is) the sad state of affairs a country (read: the US) is in regarding illegal immigration.
So, what was Francois thinking? Why did he feel the need to regulate the size of paper? Not the ownership or trade (though he may have tried that too), but the size. To control the trade? The publishing industry, which was taking off at the time? The latter, I assume. Regulate and tax.
Was he successful? Alberto Manguel doesn't say, nor does his note explain anything. The comment is made in the midst of an exposition on the development of books from painstakingly produced works of art to mass-produced flimsy pulp editions. Manguel touches on so many aspects of reading, and at times it's merely interesting. I've been a little disappointed in the last few chapters of A History of Reading. Were the 20 pages on reading in bed really necessary?
Right now (in my life) he's exploring metaphors for reading, and it is far more interesting than knowing that Romans read scrolls while relaxing on pseudo-beds. Nature is a book, Walt Whitman, and all that. I always find Walt Whitman far more interesting in books other than his. I fell in love with his poetry while reading quotes in a long piece in a National Geographic, but then couldn't bother to read Leaves of Grass after buying it. Reading bits in this Manguel book has me remembering why I love his poetry but I probably won't go searching for my copy of Leaves of Grass anytime soon.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Liberal MLA Harry Bloy calls protestors "terrorists"
Yep, terrorists. Because they terrorize. Harry, it's an Olympic flame, not the Baghdad Hotel. Here is what he said in the legislature and afterward:
"You know, there was a disappointing factor about the Olympics. It was that 200-odd group of terrorists who came to Victoria from across Canada to interrupt the Games."
and:
"They do not understand, these terrorists, the potential goodwill and economic benefits that come from these Games, because they have a limited intellect and do not understand how the world truly operates."
This from a guy who dresses up like a Boy Scout.
I know, that was a cheap shot. Also, I couldn't find an image of it on the web, which makes me wonder if it's true. Nor could I find an image of the horses that were terrorized or the marbles that were thrown under their hooves. If an image doesn't exist on the internet, did the event happen? Over at Brenton writes we're pretty doubtful.
"You know, there was a disappointing factor about the Olympics. It was that 200-odd group of terrorists who came to Victoria from across Canada to interrupt the Games."
and:
"They do not understand, these terrorists, the potential goodwill and economic benefits that come from these Games, because they have a limited intellect and do not understand how the world truly operates."
This from a guy who dresses up like a Boy Scout.
I know, that was a cheap shot. Also, I couldn't find an image of it on the web, which makes me wonder if it's true. Nor could I find an image of the horses that were terrorized or the marbles that were thrown under their hooves. If an image doesn't exist on the internet, did the event happen? Over at Brenton writes we're pretty doubtful.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
UNFINISHED DRAFT: More cuts to legal aid
The Liberal government, in all its mean-spirited wisdom, has cut more funding to legal aid in BC. The Legal Services Society is going to have to shut down all but one of its regional offices and lay off more than 50 staff. This is in addition to a similar round of cuts in the spring. If you're going to hit the poor while they're down, why not spit in their faces too?
Today Mike de Jong, Attorney General, said that they had actually increased the budget of the LSS this year. I'm not sure what numbers he's looking at, but I'm guessing not the same ones that I am. And he has the gall to claim that a shortfall in other funding sources is to blame. Mike, let me walk you through the LSS funding gallery, just so we can be clear:
In 1993, the BC NDP decided to tax legal services in BC in order to make them pay for themselves, a move still opposed by the legal profession in BC.* In 1996, after several years of tax collection, Liberal MLA Jeremy Dalton asked the Clark government, "Can the Attorney General tell us what the annual revenue produced by the legal services tax is? Is that money going to deal with the legal aid issue, or is it just falling into the great black hole of general revenue, and there's no accountability for it?" What a great question, Mr. Dalton (more on this below).
Attorney General Ujjal Dosanjh answered that $73m was collected, but that even more was given out to LSS. In 2001, before the Liberals formed government, the LSS received about $88m from the province, probably about what they received in taxation revenue from legal services. The Liberals slashed the budget by about 35% when they came to power. Slight increases over the past 8 years have brought the government disbursement to $69m, a figure that was meant to remain this year despite huge increases in demand for their services (example?). This led to service and staffing cuts, but the head of the LSS was confident that the budgeted amount would stand. A few months later, they're cutting even more.
When the Liberals slashed the LSS budget, what do you think they did with those taxes they were collecting on legal services? Yep, right into general revenue. The numbers aren't entirely clear (hopefully more on this soon), but it's clear that by cutting the LSS budget but maintaining the taxation level, the Liberals were benefiting by about $30m per year over the past 8 years, maybe more. When it was introduced by the BC NDP, the tax was meant to fund legal aid in BC. Instead, it goes straight into general revenue, unattached to the legal services it was meant to fund. Mike de Jong was a member of the Liberal caucus in 1996 (double-check) when Jeremy Dalton asked that question above, and it looks like he needs to answer it himself, 13 years later.
Mr. de Jong, as Attorney General, can you tell us what the annual revenue produced by the legal services tax is? Is that money going to deal with the legal aid issue, or is it just falling into the great black hole of general revenue?
* As recently as February of this year the head of the Canadian Bar Association BC Branch, in a submission to the Finance Committee, argued that the tax should be abolished.
Today Mike de Jong, Attorney General, said that they had actually increased the budget of the LSS this year. I'm not sure what numbers he's looking at, but I'm guessing not the same ones that I am. And he has the gall to claim that a shortfall in other funding sources is to blame. Mike, let me walk you through the LSS funding gallery, just so we can be clear:
In 1993, the BC NDP decided to tax legal services in BC in order to make them pay for themselves, a move still opposed by the legal profession in BC.* In 1996, after several years of tax collection, Liberal MLA Jeremy Dalton asked the Clark government, "Can the Attorney General tell us what the annual revenue produced by the legal services tax is? Is that money going to deal with the legal aid issue, or is it just falling into the great black hole of general revenue, and there's no accountability for it?" What a great question, Mr. Dalton (more on this below).
Attorney General Ujjal Dosanjh answered that $73m was collected, but that even more was given out to LSS. In 2001, before the Liberals formed government, the LSS received about $88m from the province, probably about what they received in taxation revenue from legal services. The Liberals slashed the budget by about 35% when they came to power. Slight increases over the past 8 years have brought the government disbursement to $69m, a figure that was meant to remain this year despite huge increases in demand for their services (example?). This led to service and staffing cuts, but the head of the LSS was confident that the budgeted amount would stand. A few months later, they're cutting even more.
When the Liberals slashed the LSS budget, what do you think they did with those taxes they were collecting on legal services? Yep, right into general revenue. The numbers aren't entirely clear (hopefully more on this soon), but it's clear that by cutting the LSS budget but maintaining the taxation level, the Liberals were benefiting by about $30m per year over the past 8 years, maybe more. When it was introduced by the BC NDP, the tax was meant to fund legal aid in BC. Instead, it goes straight into general revenue, unattached to the legal services it was meant to fund. Mike de Jong was a member of the Liberal caucus in 1996 (double-check) when Jeremy Dalton asked that question above, and it looks like he needs to answer it himself, 13 years later.
Mr. de Jong, as Attorney General, can you tell us what the annual revenue produced by the legal services tax is? Is that money going to deal with the legal aid issue, or is it just falling into the great black hole of general revenue?
* As recently as February of this year the head of the Canadian Bar Association BC Branch, in a submission to the Finance Committee, argued that the tax should be abolished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
As for personal attacks, perhaps your definition is a bit more narrow than mine, but comments like: "In fact, the only person who couldn't seem to resist throwing political stink bombs was Jim Green. But for Green it's like a nervous tick – he simply cannot help himself." come across as unnecessary personal jabs, if not outright attacks. And that's just one small example from this post.
I should add, your example (Andrea Reimer re: Coleman) is obviously more direct, I don't mean to suggest that the two are equal.